the left side drawer of the table. Thereafter, the Appellant closed the office room, locked it and went to take tea. After returning, the Appellant took out some papers from the table drawer and went to the Block Office. After his return, the vigilance inspector and trap party members entered into the office of the Appellant. Both hand washes of the Appellant were taken in some chemical solutions which turned slight pink/rose colour. To the query of the vigilance inspector, the Appellant admitted his guilt of receiving the bribe money and upon his instance, the DSP brought out the tainted notes from the drawer of the table and seized the same. According to P.W.3, when the trap party reached the office of the Appellant, he was in his seat. When the vigilance police giving their identity challenged the Appellant to have demanded and accepted the bribe money from the Complainant, the Appellant admitted to have received the same. Both hand washes of the Appellant were taken in chemical solution and the solution turned to light pink-rose colour. The Complainant told that on the instruction of the Accused, he kept the bribe money in the table drawer and the said money was recovered from the drawer itself by the Vigilance Inspector. In his crossexamination, P.W.3 has stated that the Appellant has not stated about demanding any bribe from the decoy and furthermore, the Complainant has not stated to have handed over the said money to the hand of the Accused. P.W.4, the accompanying witness, in his sworn testimony has corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 that the DSP seized the tainted notes from the drawer of the table and not from the hands of the Appellant. According to P.W.5, the D.S.P., in his cross-examination (Para. 7) has stated that when the vigilance trap party members went inside the trap spot, the Complainant stood there with the tainted notes in his hand and he seized the same from the possession of the Complainant.
