S.K. Chawla, J. -- 1. Accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava has in this appeal challenged his conviction under section 161 I.P.C. and section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentence of 12 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further R.L for one month under the first count and R.I. for 48 months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further R.I. for one month under the second count, imposed on him by the judgment dated 26.4.1989 of Special Judge, Vidisha.

2. One Pahalwansingh (P.W.3) had been sanctioned a loan for digging of well and purchase of a pump by District Co-operative Land Development Bank, Shamshabad. He was to receive that loan in instalments. Having already received four installments, he was to receive the last installment of Rs. 1,500/-. On 19.6.1985, he went to the office of the Bank at Sharnshabad and met accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava, who was manager of the Bank at that time.

3. The prosecution story was that for payment of the last installment of Rs.1,500/ accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/- from Pahalwansingh. Pahalwansingh then approached Lokayukta Office, Bhopal and made a written complaint, Ex. P-13, to Shri K.P. Sharma (P.W. 7), Dy. S.P. of that office, on 18.6.1985, complaining that the accused was demanding Rs. 200/as illegal gratification from him for paying last installment of Rs. 1,500/- and that he wanted the accused to be trapped. Pahalwansingh offered two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each to Shri K.P. Sharma to trap the accused. Those currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and kept in the hippocket of Pahalwansingh's full-pant worn by him. On 19.6.1985, the trap party reached Shamshabad from Bhopal. On way, a gazetted officer named Shri L.N. Soni, Tehsildar Berasia (P.W. 2) was associated with the trap party. On reaching Shamshabad, Pahalwansingh went to the office of the accused at about 11.45 a.m. and gave him currency notes of Rs. 200/- by way of illegal gratification, which the accused accepted and kept in the pocket of his full-pant. Upon signal being given by Pahalwansingh, the trap party rushed to the accused and currency notes of Rs. 200/- were recovered from the possession of the accused. The hands of the accused were got washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink, indicating that the accused had handled those notes. The pocket of the full-pant of the accused, when dipped in sodium carbonate solution, turned pink. On these facts, accused was convicted and sentenced in the manner already indicated.

4. The defence of the accused was that although Pahalwansingh (P.W. 3) had come to meet him in his office on 19.6.1985, the case was falsely foisted on him. He had never demanded nor accepted any money.

5. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that there was absolute lack of substantive evidence in support of the prosecution story the Suresh Kumar Shrivastava had ever made a demand for bribe of Rs. 200/- or that he had subsequently voluntarily accepted that amount at the time of trap from Pahalwansingh (P.W. 3). It may at once be mentioned here that the alleged bribe-giver Pahalwansingh (P.W. 3) and his companion Kalyansingh (P.W. 4), who remained throughout with him and who, in the absence of any better term maybe called "a shadow witness" --which was the phrase used by the Supreme Court in referring to such a witness in G. V. Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi Admn.) in A.I.R. 1987 SC 2402 -- had both turned hostile. Their version in Court was that tone" Deep Sahab" who was a valuer in the concerned Bank demanded bribe of Rs. 200/- and that at the time of the trap, Pahalwansingh went in the company of Kalyansingh to pay the phenolphthalein treated currency notes of Rs. 200/- to the said "Deep Sahab". The latter was, however, found to be absent from the Bankat the crucial time and Shri KP. Sharma, D.S.P. (P.W. 7) insisted that since much time and labour had been wasted