and took the money and therefore when the defacto complainant himself is not supporting the case of the prosecution, there is doubt and also there is material contradiction from the evidence between PW4 and PW14. This fact has not been considered by the trial Court. In this regard this Court carefully perused the complaint given by the defacto complainant (PW1) before PW14 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Anti Corruption Act and he has not denied the complaint that he has not stated that he has given the complaint. Therefore it is only from the first instant when he gave the complaint the appellant demanded money, even before PW4 during the pre trap demonstration PW1 accepted regarding the complaint given before Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The evidence of PW4 who accompanied PW1 to the office of the appellant and the appellant demanded money from defacto complainant (PW1) then only PW1 gave Rs.600/- to the appellant, the appellant after receiving Rs.600/- he paid Rs.155/- for registration fee and the remaining amount of Rs.445/- was kept by him in his table drawer. Thereafter PW1 and PW4 came out of the office and showed the pre-arranged signal to the Trap Laying Team. When the Trap Laying Officer went along with PW1 to the seat of the appellant where PW1 identified the appellant and Phenolphthalein test was conducted on the appellant, the amount was recovered from the appellant. Therefore from the evidence of PW4, it is proved that the demand, acceptance and recovery was made in his presence and there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW4. When the defacto complainant gave the complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption and he has not denied the complaint given before PW14 and later on, he cannot say that he has not demanded the money. Even the defacto complainant while giving the statement before the Investigating officer he has not stated anything about it only during the trial in order to safeguard the appellant he has turned hostile. The portion of the evidence need not be looked into. Therefore it appears that from the complaint given by PW1 and also participated in the Trap Laying proceedings and also made the statement and subsequently during the examination in the Court he turned hostile and PW4 has clearly narrated the entire facts and PW14 corroborated the same, the case of prosecution is proved. Even PW1 (defacto complainant) has supported the first part of the demand and made the complaint only on the second part of demand, he turned hostile. Whereas the evidence of PW4 proved the second part of demand made on 27.12.2006. Therefore, the entire material evidence goes to show that the prosecution proved the demand, acceptance and recovery from the appellant. Therefore under these circumstances, no credence can be given to the evidence of PW1 regarding Rs.445/- kept on the table of the appellant is not acceptable, when the independent witness PW4 clearly states after demanding PW1 gave money when PW1 disputed making complaint before PW14 and also pre Trap Laying
