Judgment Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J: 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Shri P. Dutta, learned Judge, Special Court. Howrah, convicting the appellant under S. 16 I.P.C. as under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and sentencing him to R.I. for two years and also a fine of Rs. 500/• in default, to suffer R.I. for five months more under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. No separate sentence however was passed under S. 161 I.P.C. 2. According to the prosecution on or about 239, 975 Mr. M.A. Mathai was posted as a Sanitary Inspector with office adjoining Howrah Maidan and about 170 sweepers working in the Howrah Station area and the Railway colonies at Telkalghat etc. were under his charge It was his duly to record the attendance of those sweepers who used to get their wages on the basis of such attendance recorded by him. The sweepers used to be deprived of their wages for the period of absence. Taking advantage of his authority over the sweepers Mr. Mathai, the accused was in the habit of taking dusturi or illegal gratification from the sweepers every month under threat of marking them absent Chairman (P.W. 2) and Gangaram (P.W. 3) were such sweepers from whom the accused used to realise Rs. 20/- every month as dasturi. Being unable to bear with this operation they contacted Susanta Kumar Ghosh (P. W. 7), a Railway employee, who contacted the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation in Calcutta and a trap was planned to catch the accused red handed. Both of them got their wages on 229.75 and as usual the accused demanded dasturi on that very day from them. They assured him that such payment would be made on the following morning. They went to the office of the C.B.I. with P. W. 7, where Gangaram submitted a written complaint on the basis of which a case was started in the C.B I. office against the accused. Mr J.N. Chatterji (P.W. 9), Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. and Mr. K.C. Mukherji (P.W. 10), Inspector of Police, C.B.I., made the arrangement for the trap on the following morning and two independent witnesses were procured: They were Tapendranath Chaterjee (P.W. 5) and Basudev Chakravarti (P.W, 6) All of them gathered near the office of the accused. Mr J.N. Chatterji (P.W. 9), Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. and Mr. K.C. Mukherji (P.W. 10), Inspector of Police, C.B.I., made the arrangement for the trap on the following morning and two independent witnesses were procured: They were Tapendranath Chaterjee (P.W. 5) and Basudev Chakravarti (P.W, 6) All of them gathered near the office of the accused. Two ten rupee notes were taken from each of the two sweepers (P.Ws.2 and 3) and their number were taken and the notes were tainted with chemical powder which would turn the hand watching to pink colour if the hand coming in contact with the tainted notes was washed in water mixed with soda ash. After making the demonstration P.W. 9 handed over the currency notes to P.Ws. 2 and 3 who went to the office of the accused followed by the officers and the trap witnesses. While the two sweepers entered into the office room of the accused the other stood outside to bear the conversation between the two sweepers and the accused. At first they pleaded their inability but being persisted by the accused P.Ws. 2 and 3 made over the marked currency notes to the accused and came out. At once the C.B.I. officers with the witnesses entered into the office of the accused and disclosing their identity challenged the accused and thereafter the accused produced many currency Notes from the pockets of his trouser from amongst which the four currency notes were sorted out. The hand of the accused was washed in water mixed with soda ash and the colour became pink the accused was taken into custody. The investigation was made by Mr. K.C. Kanungo (P.W. 11), Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. sanction for the prosecution of the accused was obtained under S. 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 from Dr. M. Kumar, Medical Superintendent Eastern Railway. Dhanbad who was competent to remove the accused from service, After completing the investigation the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the accused and the case was tried by the Special Court after it being allotted by the Government of West Bengal. 3. The defence was a plea of innocence. It was the specific plea that on 1.9.1975 the accused at the request of Chairman (P.W. 2) made an advance of loan of Rs. 40/- to Gangaram (P.W. 3) who executed a hand note written by Dinanath Ram to. 3. The defence was a plea of innocence. It was the specific plea that on 1.9.1975 the accused at the request of Chairman (P.W. 2) made an advance of loan of Rs. 40/- to Gangaram (P.W. 3) who executed a hand note written by Dinanath Ram to. (D.W. 1). The loan was to be repaid within 15 days. On 22-9-1975 P.W. 3 get his wages and in the morning on 23.9.1975 both P.Ws. 2 and 3 went to the office of the accused and on demand made by the accused P.W. 3 handed over four ten rupee notes to the accused. 4. On evidence of the decoys witnesses P. Ws. 2 and 3 and that being supported by the trap witnesses by P.W. 5 Tapendranalh and P. W 6 Basudeb Chakraborti, the learned Judge held that the prosecution case was proved beyond all reasonable doubt. On analysis of the facts and circumstances of the evidence he further held that the defence story was not at all believable and that the hand note (Ext.A) was subsequently fabricated by the accused with the help of his friend Dinanath Ram (D.W. 1). 5. Mr. Dilip Kr. Dutta, the learned Advocate for the appellant while assailing the order of conviction and sentence points out that the learned Judge fell into an error in holding the hand note (Ext.A) as a spurious document. It is further argued by him that while discharging the onus under S, 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused cannot be expected to adduce evidence in proof of his case as under S. 101 of the Evidence Act. 6. Mr. Durgapade Dutta, the learned Advocate for the Stare contends that the defence did not came out with the story of advance of loan of Rs. 40/- either during investigation or during cross-examination before charge. It is only on 6.9.1977 a suggestion was given to P.W. 2 for the first time that Rs. 40/• had been advanced as loan to Gangaram (P.W. 3). He also draws our attention to the evidence of both P.Ws. 2 and 3 who had made assertion of payment of Rs 20/- by each of them to the accused all dasturi. It is also argued by Mr. 40/• had been advanced as loan to Gangaram (P.W. 3). He also draws our attention to the evidence of both P.Ws. 2 and 3 who had made assertion of payment of Rs 20/- by each of them to the accused all dasturi. It is also argued by Mr. Durgapada Dutta, the learned Advocate for the State that the accused had converted the blank portion of a leave application into a hand note with the help of D.W. 1. It is also argued that if it bud been a case of repayment of loan. P.W.1 would have demanded the hand note (Ext. A) from the accused after the payment of loan. 7. True both P.Ws. 2 and 3 asserted to have made payment of dasturi but P.W. 2 in cross-examination was constrained to admit that at his instance Gangaram had borrowed Rs. 40/- from the accused. It was observed by the learned Judge that there were reason to believe that this witness was influenced by the accused in between 10.12.1976 and 6.9.1977 and so he had helped the accused in that manner. P.W. 2 was a witness examined by the prosecution and he was not declared as a hostile witness. In the circumstances it would not be just and proper to infer that P.W. 2 had been influenced by the accused. 8. Mr. Dutta learned Advocate for the State contends that in spite of the admission made by P.W.2, the fact remains that both P.W. 2 and 3 made payment of Rs 20/- each individually and separately. But P.W 3 complainant admit in cross-examination that the witness himself and P.W. 2 came out of the room of the accused together. Thus the contention of the accused that payment of Rs. 40/-, was made by P.W.3 alone cannot be brushed aside. 9. As to the hand note (Ext. A) when confronted with it Gangaram (P.W.3) at first denied that he could put his signature in English but thereafter he admitted his signature in English in Ext. A. But he gave out no explanation whatsoever how his signature in Ext. A could be obtained. It was never alleged by him that the unused portion of his leave application had subsequently been Converted into a hand note No court would act on surmise or conjecture. A. But he gave out no explanation whatsoever how his signature in Ext. A could be obtained. It was never alleged by him that the unused portion of his leave application had subsequently been Converted into a hand note No court would act on surmise or conjecture. Thus on the admission advancement of loan 40/• by P.W. 2 and on the admission of the signature of P.W.3 in the hand note Ext, A and in the absence of any other explanation how such signature could appear in Ext.A. the Court would not be justified to conclude that it was a fabricated document brought into existence by the accused with the help of D.W. I Dinanath Ram. There is no doubt that the accused in under an obligation under S 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to discharge the onus which lies on him. In discharging such onus it would be sufficient for the accused, if he is successful in bringing out on the record a fact which casts a doubt all to the probability of the prosecution case or in other words if it renders the existence of the fact presumed improbable. Thus it would be sufficient for the accused in rebutting the presumption if he can show a mere preponderance of probability in his favour. As in the case of proof of any other document by a litigant it is not necessary for him to establish such document beyond all reasonable doubt. As pointed out earlier that the same standard of proof cannot be expected from an accused and the law also does not enjoin him to adduce such evidence, as required under S. 101 of the Evidence Act. Exactly such a view was taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Trilok. Chand Jain v. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 1977 SC 666 on which much reliance is placed by Mr. Dilip Kumar Dutta, the learned Advocate for the appellant. 10. Thus, for the reasons stated above and having regard to the position in law we find ourselves unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge below that the document Ext.A was a fabricated one. It is sufficient for the accused if be can establish that his defence version was probable to a great extent. 10. Thus, for the reasons stated above and having regard to the position in law we find ourselves unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge below that the document Ext.A was a fabricated one. It is sufficient for the accused if be can establish that his defence version was probable to a great extent. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 666 at page 669 of the report observe like this :-"The degree and the character of the burden of proof which S. 4 (1) Cases on an accused person to rebut the presumption raised there under cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof which under S. 101 Evidence Act rests on the prosecution................The accused may rebut the presumption by showing a mere preponderance of probability in his favour it is not necessary for him to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt” 11. In this view of the matter we are not to find whether the hand note Ext. A was 8 genuine document but whether the accused appellant was successful in bringing out material on record justifying the probability of his defence. 12. Having regard to the defence of the appellant we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the charges against the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt. Thus we all the a peal and see aside the conviction of the appellant and acquit him of all the changes levelled against him. He may be discharged from the bail bond. N. C. Mukherji: I agree Appeal allowed.