JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge of Puri convicting the Appellant u/s 161 I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case was that the Appellant was working as Assistant Yard-Master at the goods-shed of Cuttack Railway station in October, 1951. There were some complaints from the merchants of Cuttack to the effect that he was demanding illegal gratification for placing the goods wagons of the merchants at convenient sidings. One Upendra Khuntia. (P.W. 1) who is a contractor attached to the goods-shed had made a complaint to the superior railway authorities on the 7th June, 1951 against the conduct of the Appellant. Apparently some enquiries were made by the railway authorities but no drastic action was taken. On the 11th October, 1951 one M.H. Rahman (P.W. 10) who was then working as Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Puri, came to Cuttack and contacted Upendra Khuntia and the two agreed that a trap should he laid on the next-day for the purpose of catching the Appellant while he was in the act of receiving illegal gratification from Upendra Khuntia. Upendra Khuntia had told this officer that eleven coal wagons of his had been placed at proper places in the goods-shed by the Appellant who was demanding Rs. 20/- from him as gratification for that purpose. Then the police officer after obtaining the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cuttack, to investigate the case took the help of another 1st class Magistrate named Narayan Mohapatra (P.W. 11) for the purpose of laying a trap. Upendra Khuntia met the Magistrate at about 7 A.M. on 15-10-51 at the District Board Dak Bungalow near the railway station and the Magistrate handed over to him two ten-rupee currency notes after noting down their numbers with instructions to after the same as bribe to the Appellant in the presence of witnesses. It was arranged that Magistrate and the Police party should remain at some distance from the goods-shed near the railway level crossing and that on noticing a pre-arranged signal they should at once proceed towards the goods-shed and search the Appellant. The pre-arranged signal was the smoking of a cigarette by Upendra Khuntia. Accordingly the Magistrate and the police party remained close to the railway level-crossing and Upendra Khuntia proceeded towards the goods-shed along with the railway line. The pre-arranged signal was the smoking of a cigarette by Upendra Khuntia. Accordingly the Magistrate and the police party remained close to the railway level-crossing and Upendra Khuntia proceeded towards the goods-shed along with the railway line. It was about 8 A.M. at that time and the Appellant was then engaged in shunting wagons the dock-yard. On seeing Upendra the Appellant was said to have demanded the bribe as arranged on the previous day between the two and thereupon Upendrs Khuntia handed over the two currency notes which the Appellant put into his pocket. One Lokanath Mulia (P.W. 2) was said to have accompanied Upendra Khuntia at the time of giving of the bribe and bo have left the place soon afterwards. Having thus given the bribe to the Appellant Upendra handed over a cigarette to the Appellant and smoked one himself. The Magistrate and the police party noticed the signal and at once rushed to line spot and questioned thee Appellant about the Currency notes he had received from Upendra Khuntia, After some prevarication the Appellant produced the currency notes (M.Os. III and IV) and handed them over to the Magistrate. At the time of handing over the currency notes the Appellant was said to have told the Magistrate that he had taken the same by way of loan from Upendra Khuntia. The usual search list for the recovery of the currency notes was prepared and after obtaining sanction of the superior railway authorities the Appellant was placed on trial and convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. To prove the charge, the prosecution has relied mainly on the evidence of Upendra Khuntia (P.W. 1), his companion Lokanath Mulia (P.W. 2), the Magistrate (P.W. 11) and the Inspector of Police (P.W. 10). The recovery of the currency notes (M.Os. III and IV) from the person of the Appellant by the Magistrate is established beyond reasonable doubt and was rightly not challenged before me. These notes were handed over by the Magistrate to Upendra Khuntia with instructions to deliver the same to the Appellant. Soon afterwards the notes were found in the pocket of the Appellant. The explanation which be immediately gave to the Magistrate was that be had taken them as a loan from Upendra. These notes were handed over by the Magistrate to Upendra Khuntia with instructions to deliver the same to the Appellant. Soon afterwards the notes were found in the pocket of the Appellant. The explanation which be immediately gave to the Magistrate was that be had taken them as a loan from Upendra. To prove the charge u/s 161 I.P.C. it will not suffice for the prosecution merely to show that the public servant concerned received any valuable thing. But it must be further proved that it was received as a motive or reward for doing some official act in favour of the person from whom it was received. Under the ordinary criminal law, it will clearly be the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond doubt all the ingredients which go to make up an offence u/s 161 I.P.C. Mr. Acharya on behalf of the Government however relied on the presumption u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and urged that as soon as it was established that the currency notes were found in the possession of the Appellant the burden would shift on him to prove that the sum was not received as a motive or reward for exercising his official act in favour of the person who gave it and that if he failed to discharge this burden a court shall presume that he was guilty u/s 161; Doubtless, Sub-section (3) of Section 4 says that a court may refuse to draw: presumption against an accused as provided in Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of that Act if the gratification is in its opinion so trivial that no inference of corruption can fairly be drawn. For the purpose of this case it is unnecessary to consider whether by virtue f Sub-section (3) it will not be proper to draw any presumption against the Appellant under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of that Act. Even if it be assumed that the presumption under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 would apply, I am satisfied, on the facts of the present case, that the Appellant has discharged the burden cast on him. 4. Even if it be assumed that the presumption under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 would apply, I am satisfied, on the facts of the present case, that the Appellant has discharged the burden cast on him. 4. As the recovery of the currency notes from the person of the Appellant has been established beyond doubt, the main question for consideration is whether the notes were accepted by the Appellant from Upendra Khuntia by way of bribe for having placed his wagons a convenient sidings on the previous day or else whether they were accepted merely by way of loan ag stated by the Appellant as soon as he was accosted by the Magistrate. Doubtless, Upendra Khuntia has sated that when he approached the Appellant the latter demanded the bribe agreed upon on the previous day. But his evidence can hardly be accepted without adequate corroboration. He went there as a trap witness engaged by the Police to entangle the Appellant. Doubtless, he may nab be an accomplice to the commission of the offence u/s 161 I.P.C. by the Appellant in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh, where it was pointed out that a trap witness being not a willing party to the giving of the bribe and being actuated with the motive of entrapping the public servant is not in law an accomplice. Hence, his evidence may nab require corroboration by virtue of the provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. But it was also pointed out in that decision that as a trap witness was admittedly a partisan witness his evidence might require corroboration according to the facts of each case. Here, on the finding of the learned lower court P.W. 1 is not very reliable and his evidence cannot be accepted without adequate corroboration. He had a previous grudge against the Appellant as proved by the admissions made by him. There are also other unsatisfactory features in his evidence which have been referred to by the learned lower court. But the court thought that the evidence of P.W. 2 was reliable and that it afforded the best corroboration of the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the circumstances under which the currency notes were handed over to the Appellant. This witness is a Gumasta of another merchant of Cuttack. But the court thought that the evidence of P.W. 2 was reliable and that it afforded the best corroboration of the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the circumstances under which the currency notes were handed over to the Appellant. This witness is a Gumasta of another merchant of Cuttack. He admitted that on previous occasions the Appellant had misplaced the wagons of his master with a view to harass him. Hence, it cannot be said that be was a wholly disinterested witness. There may be some motive for him to join with Upendra Khuntia in attempting to put the Appellant into trouble because they both thought that the Appellant had harassed them on previous occasions. Apart from this circumstance, his sudden disappearance from the spot as soon as the signal was given is mysterious and unexplained. If he was really present at the time of the giving of the bribe he would have remained there till the arrival of the Magistrate and the Police party soon afterwards. On the other hand, the evidence of the Magistrate is to the effect that when he hurried to the spot on noticing the pre-arranged signal there was nobody there except P.W. 1, P.W. 2 was sent for and be came there half an hour later. This sudden disappearance has not been satisfactorily explained. According to the Police Inspector (P.W. 10), clear instructions were give to Upendra Khuntia to have a witness by his side while offering the bribe to the Appellant. Upendra Khuntia has stated that is was in pursuance of these instructions that he took Lokanath Mulia (P.W. 2) with him to the goods-shed and kept him by his side while offering the bribe. Thus if the services of Lokanath Mulia had been specially requisitioned for the purpose of being II witness to the giving of the bribe it is indeed strange that be should nab be present there when the Magistrate ruled to the spot as soon as the offence was complete. Moreover; the place from where the Magistrate and the Police party were lying in wait was not far away from the place where the bribe was said to have been given and it has been admitted by P.W. 1 that the two places were visible to each other. Moreover; the place from where the Magistrate and the Police party were lying in wait was not far away from the place where the bribe was said to have been given and it has been admitted by P.W. 1 that the two places were visible to each other. Hence, if Lokanath Mulia was really present at the spot by the side of Upendra Khuntia the Magistrate would have noticed him. At any rate, in the absence of any independent evidence to show that Lokanath was at the spot at the time of giving the bribe I would not plane much reliance on his testimony. He seems to be practically another partisan witness who was specially selected for the purpose of assisting Upendra in lying a trap. His evidence cannot, therefore, be said to be of such a superior calibre as to afford independent corroboration of the evidence of P.W. 1. In fact, the Police Inspector (P.W. 10) in an unguarded moment in cross-examination practically admitted that thought he tried for a disinterested witness to attend the bribe giving he was not successful. The implication of this answer is obvious. The Police were unable to secure the services of a disinterested witness who would accompany Upendra Khuntia for the purpose of witnessing the offer of the bribe. Therefore, they left it to him to choose any witness he liked for that purpose and he chose Lokanath who was practically in the same position as himself. Hence, I would not accept the evidence of Lokanath as corroborative of the evidence of P.W. 1 on the essential question as to whether the money was given to the Appellant as a bribe. 5. Coming to the presumption under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is true that the Appellant will have to explain satisfactorily the circumstances under which he obtained possession of the currency notes. But as is well known, when law casts on an accused 'he burden of proving a certain fact he may prove it from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses themselves either in cross-examination or even in examination-in-chief, It is not necessary that he should examine defence witnesses for that purpose. As pointed out in M.C. Mitra Vs. But as is well known, when law casts on an accused 'he burden of proving a certain fact he may prove it from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses themselves either in cross-examination or even in examination-in-chief, It is not necessary that he should examine defence witnesses for that purpose. As pointed out in M.C. Mitra Vs. The State, the presumption u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a rebuttable presumption and that presumption may be rebutted "by the accused not only by any oral testimony of witness called on behalf of the accused but also by a statement of accused u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure and by any document produced on behalf of the defence of the accused or by the surrounding circumstances". Here, the Appellant in his examination u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that the currency notes which were recovered from him by the Magistrate had been handed over to him by his son. But the statement u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure, as is well known, is made at the close of the trial after the accused had obtained legal advice. Even if that statement be held to be untrue it does not necessarily follow that an earlier statement by him at a time when he could not have had any opportunity of obtaining assistance from other sources should be disbelieved merely because it is at variance with the subsequent statement u/s 342. On the other hand, I would place great weight on the earliest statement of the Appellant on this subject. That statement as proved by the Magistrate (P.W. 11) is to the effect that the money was received by him as a loan and not as a bribe. The Magistrate did not care to question Lokanath (P.W. 2) as to whether the money was handed over to Appellant as a loan or as a bribe. But at that time there was hardly any opportunity for the Appellant to consult any other person or to recover from the shock arising out of the sudden appearance of the Magistrate and the police at the spot and the reaction arising out of the accusation of bribery made against him by them. It in such an unnerved condition he gave out the story that the money was given to him as a loan and not as a bribe it might probably be true. It in such an unnerved condition he gave out the story that the money was given to him as a loan and not as a bribe it might probably be true. The surrounding circumstances also should be considered in this connection. The money that was received from Upendra Khuntia was not a very large sum but only a sum of Rs. 20/-. Upendra was well-known to the Appellant for some months and be had frequently sought the help of the Appellant for keeping the goods wagons proper sidings. There seems to be therefore nothing improbable and unnatural in his asking Upendra for a loan of Rs. 20/- and the latter obliging him by giving the currency notes. Again, it should be remembered that the sum was paid not in a secret place but in an open place near the goods-shed of Cuttack railway station at about 8 A.M. The staff of the Watch and Ward of tile Railway were near about the place where Upendra handed over the money to the Appellant. Taking all these circumstances into consideration I am inclined to believe the explanation of the Appellant that he received the money only by way of loan; whether be intended seriously to repay the money is not a matter with which I am concerned in this case. Nor is it necessary to consider whether the borrowing of money from Upendra would amount to a breach of the departmental regulations dealing with the conduct of Railway servants. The charge u/s 161 I.P.C. cannot and unless the purpose for which the money was received is shown to be of the description given, in that section. The burden cast on the, accused by Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act appears to have been satisfactorily discharged. It is true that his subsequent foolish attempt in his statement u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure to deny having taken the money as a loan is against him. But as already pointed out, I would prefer his earliest unaided statement to a subsequent statement made after obtaining legal advice. 6. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the charge u/s 161 I.P.C. must fail. The appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the Appellant is acquitted. Final Result : Allowed