JUDGMENT G. Satapathy, J. The legal representative of deceased-appellant through this appeal U/S. 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. impugns the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 18.10.2011 by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.31 of 2002 convicting the appellant-Golakh Chandra Routray since deceased for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for a further period of three months. 2. Be it noted, the original appellant died during the pendency of this appeal and was substituted by his wife vide an order passed on 19.04.2022 in an application made U/S.394 of Cr.P.C. Since the appellant had expired, the substantive sentence imposed against him remains unworkable, no matter the LR of the deceased-appellant is permitted to challenge the conviction of the appellant and sentence of fine against him in view of the decision Ramesan(Dead) through L.R. Girija A v. State of Kerala, (2020) 3 SCC 45 . 3. The prosecution case in brief was, one Pruthwiraj Mishra(PW3) had purchased a piece of land in Bhatra area of Sambalpur town to construct a house thereon, but the deceased-appellant being the dealing assistant of Sambalpur Development Authority (SDA) was avoiding to take steps for approval of the plan as submitted by PW3 on one or some pretext and finally, the deceased-appellant disclosed his intention by demanding bribe of Rs.1,000/- for processing the approval of plan of PW3. Being dissatisfied, PW3 approached the Superintendent of Vigilance by way of an FIR vide Ext.3 to take action against the deceased-appellant. Accordingly, a trap was laid by DSP Vigilance (PW4), who caught the deceased-appellant while receiving the bribe of Rs.1,000/- from PW3. Further, another DSP Vigilance (PW5) conducted the investigation and submitted chargesheet against the deceased-appellant for commission of offence U/Ss.7/13(2)/13(d) of the Act resulting in trial in the present case after the deceased-appellant abjured the charge. 4. In support of its charge, the prosecution examined all together five witnesses and relied upon the documents under Exts.l to 13 as against oral evidence of one witness (DW1) together with documentary evidence Exts.A to F by the defence. Besides, the prosecution also identified the brass seal as MOI in the evidence. 4. In support of its charge, the prosecution examined all together five witnesses and relied upon the documents under Exts.l to 13 as against oral evidence of one witness (DW1) together with documentary evidence Exts.A to F by the defence. Besides, the prosecution also identified the brass seal as MOI in the evidence. The plea of the deceased-appellant was one of complete denial and false implication. 5. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), I Ifflv I Sambalpur convicted the deceased-appellant by the impugned judgment and sentenced him to the punishment indicated supra. 6. In the course of hearing, Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant while taking this Court through the copy of the FIR has submitted that there was discrepancy in time in lodging of FIR at the relevant column and in the body of the FIR and there being no corroboration to the evidence of the decoy, it would not be safe to uphold the conviction and sentence against the deceased-appellant. Accordingly, Mr. Bhuyan has prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Rizvi, learned ASC-Vigilance, however, by taking this Court through the evidence has submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence since the deceased appellant was found demanding and accepting the bribe, his conviction cannot be legally questioned. 8. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, this Court in order to examine the pregnability of the impugned conviction and sentence of the deceased-appellant proceeds to scrutinize and appreciate the evidence available on record. P.W.3 being the decoy has testified in the Court that he had purchased a residential plot at Bhatra, Sambalpur and for availing bank loan, a building plan was required to be approved by SDA, but the accused was avoiding to process his file for approval of the plan and he finally demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-. P.W.3 being the decoy has testified in the Court that he had purchased a residential plot at Bhatra, Sambalpur and for availing bank loan, a building plan was required to be approved by SDA, but the accused was avoiding to process his file for approval of the plan and he finally demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-. The evidence of P.W.3 further transpires that on the demand of bribe by the accused, he had approached the SP (Vigilance), Sambalpur by lodging an FIR under Ext.3 and accordingly a trap was led by the DSP Vigilance by handing over two G.C. notes of Rs.500/- treating them with phenolphthalein powder with a specific direction to handover the accused on demand and he (P.W.3) went to the accused being accompanied by P.W.2 to overhear the TToIT conversation between the deceased-appellant and the decoy. It is the further evidence of P.W.3 that when he along with P.W.2 went to the office of deceased-appellant with P.W.2 standing near the door of the room, the deceased-appellant seeing him asked whether he has brought Rs.1,000/- and he accordingly, answered affirmatively and tendered the GC notes amounting to Rs.1,000/- treated with phenolphthalein powder and suddenly at that time one Pradhan, Chairman of the office entered into the room and the deceased appellant gave the bribe money to him and thereafter, the trap party arrived there and challenged the deceased-appellant to have demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.1,000/-from P.W.3 and thereafter, the hand wash of the deceased-appellant was taken in sodium carbonate solution which turned into pink. The hand wash of Chairman was also taken which also turned into pink. Accordingly, a detection report was prepared by the Trap laying Officer-P.W.4 which was proved by the prosecution under Ext.2. Although the defence has made endeavour I TmO I to cross-examine P.W.3 to demolish his evidence, but it only ended up with acknowledging demand and acceptance of bribe by the deceased-appellant in paragraph-6 of cross-examination by stating 'on the date of trap, the accused demanded for bribe and accordingly, I gave him money and the tainted money was ultimately recovered from one Duryodhan Pradhan and after receiving the tainted money from me, the accused immediately handed over the same to Duryodhan Pradhan'. 9. A comparative look to the testimonies of PWs. 9. A comparative look to the testimonies of PWs. 2 & 3, the evidence of P.W.3 is found corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 with respect to deceased-appellant handing over the bribe to Pradhan, the Chairman and hand wash of both the accused and Pradhan turning into pink which is further invigorated by the evidence of TLO-cum-P.W.4 who besides testifying every minute details of preparatory meeting and detection of bribe from the accused, had collected the hand wash of the deceasedappellant which turned into pink colour and sealed the same in a bottle and subsequently, the said hand wash of the appellant was found contained phenolphthalein. 10. Quite understandably, yet another important circumstance of explanation of acceptance of bribe by the appellant which is apparent from the answer given by the deceased-appellant in his last question U/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. was that the decocy-cum-P.W.3 forcefully thrusted the tainted money in his hand, but in such statement, the deceased-appellant had answered to question No. 23 his hand wash turning into pink" was false and therefore, the explanation offered by the deceased-appellant to the circumstance of acceptance of bribe by him appears to be not only shaky, but unbelievable and thereby, the deceased-appellant having failed to rebut the presumption as mandated U/S. 20 of the Act which the accused was supposed to explain by way of rebuttal evidence in view of the prosecution establishing acceptance of the bribe by the deceasedappellant. It is, therefore, quite evident that the prosecution has established the charge against the deceased-appellant for demanding and accepting bribe from P.W.3 beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. On a careful analysis of the impugned judgment by way of Marshalling and appreciating the evidence on record, this Court does not find any error apparent in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Judge(Vigilance), Sambalpur so as to warrant interference in this appeal. 12. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed on contest being devoid of merit, but in the circumstance there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 18.10.2011 by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.31 of 2002 are hereby confirmed, but the substantive sentence of imprisonment against the deceased-appellant remains unworkable.