JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal appeal against the judgment of Special Judge (A.C.D. Cases) Jaipur, dated the 17th January, 1979. Accused appellant, Bhawani Singh, has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.C., read with Sections 5(l)(d) & 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 161, I.P.C. and one year, & a fine of Rs. 200/- for the latter offence. 2. The prosecution case may now be taken note of, which in nut shell, is as under:- Premsukh submitted a report Ex. P. 2 on 12th March, 1976 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Alwar. In this report, he stated that he had submitted an application to the Sub. Divisional Officer, Kishangarhbas regarding Khasra nos. 1418, 1419 1420, 1421 and 1425 situated in village Rasgan for making entries in the Girdawari after ascertaining at the site. The application was forwarded to the Tehsildar Mundawar who forwarded it to the Girdawar Kanungo and, who in his turn sent the same to the Patwari for report after the verification of the spot. The Patwari was none-else, but the accused appellant, Bhawani Singh, and he contacted him and requested him to make report wherein he demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- as fee and told him that, "pay Rs. 100/- and get the report". On this, Prem Sukh submitted that action should betaken. The Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned after making an inquiry from Prem Sukh arranged a trap and went to the patwargwar alongwith trap party. Two witnesses, namely Chhoteylal & Ranjeet Singh were obtained as motbirs and thereafter, Prem Sukh produced ten G.C. notes of Rs. 10/- each, before the witnesses and, the Deputy Superintendent of Police put his initials on them. These notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were returned back to Prem Sukh and it was directed that he should submit those currency notes which were written in the memo Ex.P. 4. 3. The entire trap party proceeded to village Rasgan. The decoy went to the Patwarghar and the trap party awaited there. When Prem Sukh gave the pre-arranged signal, the Deputy Superintendent of police alongwith the witnesses and party entered the Patwarghar. The appellant-accused, Bhawani Singh, was sitting, on a cot and was writing report on the application of Prem Sukh. 3. The entire trap party proceeded to village Rasgan. The decoy went to the Patwarghar and the trap party awaited there. When Prem Sukh gave the pre-arranged signal, the Deputy Superintendent of police alongwith the witnesses and party entered the Patwarghar. The appellant-accused, Bhawani Singh, was sitting, on a cot and was writing report on the application of Prem Sukh. The Deputy Superintendent of Police showed his identity card and introduced himself and enquired from the accused whether he had accepted a sum of Rs. 100/- as bribe from Prem Sukh. Rs. 100/- then were recovered from Bhawani Singh from his upper pocket of his shirt and the hands were washed in the water mixed with sodium carbonate and the colour of the water became pink which was preserved in a bottle and the bottle was sealed. The accused produced ten currency notes of Rs. 10/- each from the pocket of his shirt. The numbers of those notes were got tallied. 4. The recoveries, the memoes of it, etc., were prepared and, thereafter the prosecution was launched. The prosecution examined Prem Sukh (PW 1), Chhotelal (PW 2), Ranjeet Singh (PW 3), Daulat Ram (PW 4), Hari Shanker Johari (PW 5), & Fateh Chand Soni, the investigation officer, (PW 6). 5. The accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and he stated that he was working as-Patwari of circle-Rasgan and application was given to him Dasti to report. While he was writing the report, the police personnel's took it from him. His defence was that money was deposited towards seeds and fertiliser for which he had also issued a receipt. He stated that he told that the amount was recovered from him as arrears of fertiliser & seeds and he issued a receipt for the same. 6. The appellant filed written statement also, in which he took some pleas. 7. The appellant examined Budha (DW 1), and Ramdev (DW 2), Udhami (DW 3) & Netram (DW 4) in his defence, who stated that Prem Sukh gave Rs. 100/- towards arrears of seed and fertilisers and a receipt for the same was also issued by him. Netram proved Ex. D. 4 & D. 5 8. The trial Court has held that the prosecution story has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that the amount of Rs. 100/- towards arrears of seed and fertilisers and a receipt for the same was also issued by him. Netram proved Ex. D. 4 & D. 5 8. The trial Court has held that the prosecution story has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that the amount of Rs. 100/- was recovered from the accused and the accused had also accepted it and admitted that this amount was taken by him from Prem Sukh (PW 1). The trial Court was also of the view that the prosecution witnesses were trustworthy and they have proved the story of trap and recovery and the evidence of decoy, Prem Sukh, is also corroborated by these witnesses. 9. The trial Court disbelieved the defence story that Rs. 100/- were paid by the decoy to the accused as dues of the fertilisers and seeds. This appeal was argued before this Court a number of times as the arguments could not be concluded and both the learned counsel prayed for times to supplement the arguments again and again. Ultimately, the arguments have been concluded today. 10. Mr. Bhandari, the learned counsel for the accused has, firstly, submitted that admittedly, Prem Sukh went alongwith one Hariram inside the Patwarghar, while the trap party waited outside the house. It was argued that this witness, Hariram was not produced and non production of this witness is fatal to the prosecution case. It was pointed out that this Hariram was the ascriber of F.I.R. and he had accompanied Prem Sukh right from the very beginning upto the time when the alleged amount of illegal gratification is said to have been paid and recovered. The Investigating officer also admits his presence and in the site plan, his presence has been also shown just near the accused, when the alleged amount was made, According to Shri Bhandari, no other prosecution witness had seen the decoy paying the amount to the appellant-accused or heard the conversation which took place of transpired between them and the only witness who could see, was Hariram. With-holding of this witness, Hariram, who was the most material, to unfold the entire story, creats serious doubts; argued Shri Bhandari. This Hariram, witness, was President of the District Scheduled Caste welfare Sang, Rasgon, and was independent respectable person. With-holding of this witness, Hariram, who was the most material, to unfold the entire story, creats serious doubts; argued Shri Bhandari. This Hariram, witness, was President of the District Scheduled Caste welfare Sang, Rasgon, and was independent respectable person. According to Shri Bhandari, conversation between the accused and the decoy was very important because of the defence of the accused, that the amount was paid as repayment of the price of fertiliser and seeds and if Hariram would have produced, the real story would be unfolded. 11. Fateh Chand Soni (PW 6),the investigating Officer was specifically asked this question and answer to that question is that he did not record statement of the man sitting by the side of the accused who was Hari Ram. In his view, the recording of the statement of Hariram was not necessary. On the factual story, Shri Bhandari pointed out that in a series of cases, it has been held that non production of material independent witnesses casts serious reflection on the fairness of the trial and unless it is proved that he was hostile, non-production becomes fatal. Shri Bhandari referred to the decision of this Court in Gulajara Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1971 Raj. P. 68(6B) . wherein this Court observed as under: "It is the bounden duty of the Prosecution to examine material, independent witnesses particularly when no allegations are made that if produced, he will not speak the truth. However, if such witness is kept back, not only adverse inference u/s. 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act can be drawn but it casts serious reflection on the fairness of the trial. Such commission prejudices an accused when not satisfactorily explained" (para 8) 12. In the above case of Gulajara Singh, reliance has been placed on the decision in Stephen Seneviratne v. King, AIR 1936 Privy Council P. 283 . Reliance was again placed on the decision of Supreme Court in S.P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 (1) S.C.C.P. 535 wherein their Lordships laid down the following principles in para 58. "In conclusion, we cannot help observing that non-examination by the prosecution of Ramrao, Joshi.Vera and Patal who were material witnesses for the unfolding of its case has left some yawning gaps in the evidence which we have found very difficult, to bridge. "In conclusion, we cannot help observing that non-examination by the prosecution of Ramrao, Joshi.Vera and Patal who were material witnesses for the unfolding of its case has left some yawning gaps in the evidence which we have found very difficult, to bridge. If these persons had been produced, many of the points which have remained obscure and hidden would have been cleared up." 13. Yet another case was cited at the bar in which the following principles were laid down. State v. Sardara Singh and others, 1970 Cr. L.J.P. 558 . "All eye witnesses should be examined by prosecution, deliberately withholding material witnesses is serious infirmity." 14. Lastly, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gulam Mahmood A Malek v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 S.C. 1558 . wherein their Lordships had again to observe as under. "No doubt, there is no evidence that he is inimically disposed against in the accused but he admitted that though his office usually starts at 10.30. A.M. he came in his office on that date at 8.45 A.M. and joined the party who conducted the raid. Though the Panch witness corroborates the complainant, regarding the recovery, the delay in effecting the recovery of the money, the failure to examine independent witnesses who were admittedly in the court shall and in the next room to which the accused was taken, and the recovery made, makes the entire prosecution case unacceptable." 15. Mr. Mathur controverted the above submissions of Sari Bhandari and stated that it is not necessary that all the witnesses should be produced and the court is required to consider qualities of the witnesses and not the quantity. According to Shri Mathur, for a single event it is not necessary to multiple witnesses and Hariram's non-production cannot be fatal because two witness of the trap have been produced. 16. I would deal with this aspect of the matter a little later. 17. Shri Bhandari, than submitted that it was bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the followings. (i) that there was a proof; (ii) that the bribe was to be demanded; (iii) there was a motive for taking the bribe. 18. 16. I would deal with this aspect of the matter a little later. 17. Shri Bhandari, than submitted that it was bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the followings. (i) that there was a proof; (ii) that the bribe was to be demanded; (iii) there was a motive for taking the bribe. 18. Shri Mathur, on the contrary, submitted that in view of the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act it is not necessary to prove that there was admission or that there was a motive. According to him, once it is proved that the amount was taken by the accused then, it is sufficient for the purpose of raising presumption. 19. Shri Mathur, pointed out that Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hajari Lal v. State Delhi Admn., AIR 1980 S.C.P. 873 held as under. "Where the evidence of the Police Officer who laid the trap is found entirely trustworthy there is no need to seek any corroboration. There is no rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of another case the Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there be any precedential guidance." 20. He also invited my attention to the following observation of their Lordships in this case. "It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in a given case may lead to the only inference that the money was obtained as bribe by the accused. The presumption is of course rebuttable." 21. Shri Bhandari then submitted that first important features of this case is that the defence of the accused is proved by the documentary evidence and it has not been disproved by the prosecution. To substantiate the above arguments, Shri Bhandari pointed out that accused in his statement has stated that the amount of Rs. Shri Bhandari then submitted that first important features of this case is that the defence of the accused is proved by the documentary evidence and it has not been disproved by the prosecution. To substantiate the above arguments, Shri Bhandari pointed out that accused in his statement has stated that the amount of Rs. 100/- was taken not as bribe but as the repayment of the price of fertilisers and seeks which was given on loan to the accused. This defence of the accused is supported by the documentary evidence consisting of Ex. D 4 wherein Entry No. 27 at p. 36 of the Register of Liabilities on Accepted Invoices, Panchayat Samiti Mandawar (Alwar) which makes an express mention that Rs. 116.77 were due in the decoy. He invited my attention to entry No. 27 which relates to the decoy Prem Sukh. My attention was also invited to the receipt Ex, D.4. in which receipt has been shown in the name of Prem Sukh, the decoy. 22. Shri Bhandari pointed out that to prove this document, an Upper Division Clerk of the Panchayat Samiti, Shri Netram (DW 4) has been produced and nothing has come out from the cross examination to Netram to disbelieve this story. 23. Shri Bhandari pointed out that it is not necessary for the defence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but all that is necessary is to prove plausible and probable case. If the accused is able to put it plausible defence, the benefit of doubt goes to accused, argued Mr. Bhandari. 24. According to Shri Mathur, receipt (Ex. D. 4) contains different father names of Prem Sukh and later on, Mukharam has been introduced and therefore, it cannot be believed. He also pointed out that even in the register of Panchayat Samiti, Mundawar (Alwar) entry no 27 is for some different persons as the father name can be read as Sukhram instead of Mukhram. 25. Shri Mathur, also wanted to take this Court to list annexed to Ex. D. 4 to show that the person concerned is different from the decoy, Prem Sukh. 26. Shri Mathur also argued that these documents are not complete as there is a payment register and the accused should have summoned that payment register in order to show that the plea of complainant Prem Sukh that he had made payment, was false. 27. D. 4 to show that the person concerned is different from the decoy, Prem Sukh. 26. Shri Mathur also argued that these documents are not complete as there is a payment register and the accused should have summoned that payment register in order to show that the plea of complainant Prem Sukh that he had made payment, was false. 27. Shri Bhandari then replied that Prem Sukh has stated in his cross examination that he had paid payment and he has got a receipt. If that was so, withholding of the receipt by the complainant causes a serious doubt about the prosecution case; argued Shri Bhandari. According to Shri Bhandari, non production of the receipt of the payment alleged by the complainant is fatal to the prosecution case. He submitted that it is doubt of the prosecution to remove all cloud of suspicion and doubt and, if prosecution fails to do so, the accused is bound to get the benefit of doubt. 28. Shri Bhandari also invited my attention to a document submitted in this court which is a challan dated 4th September, 1979, according to which story of the decoy complainant Prem Sukh that the money was paid back earlier in respect of seeds and fertilisers, is falsified. 29. I have carefully considered the submissions 'of both the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record. 30. To start with, I was not impressed with the submission of Shri Bhandari that non Production of Hariram, story of giving and taking of money by the accused become doubtful and as no other witness has been able to say, what version transpired between the accused' the decoy, therefore, it should be held that it was not a case where Prem Sukh gave Rs. 100/- and the accused accepted it as a bribe. The statement of Deputy Superintendent of Police Statement of two motbirs, the acceptance of the amount Rs. 100/- coupled with the recovery of this amount from the accused is enough to show that transaction of Rs. 100/- was made and the decoy gave Rs. 100/- and accused accepted Rs. 100/- at the time when the trap was done. Non production is not material so far as taking of Rs. 100/- is concerned. 31. Of course, I would dealwith all these when I deal with the defence theory. 32. 100/- was made and the decoy gave Rs. 100/- and accused accepted Rs. 100/- at the time when the trap was done. Non production is not material so far as taking of Rs. 100/- is concerned. 31. Of course, I would dealwith all these when I deal with the defence theory. 32. Before that, it must be clarified that I am not impressed with the submission of Shri Bhandari that in spite of the fact that accused admitted Rs. 100/- it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that Rs. 100/- was demanded by the accused from the decoy, Prem Sukh. Similarly, I am also not impressed by the Submission of Shri Bhandari that the motive should have been shown although in the instant case, document which has been submitted, goes to show that the prosecution came out with the case of motive regarding entry. 33. However, most important feature of the case, which now requires consideration, is the defence story that Rs. 100/- were paid by the decoy Prem Sukh to the accused on account of loan which was due in him regarding fertilisers and seeds. In this aspect undoubtedly, the register of the Panchayat Samiti which has been proved by non-else then Netram (DW 4) goes to show that amount of Rs. 100/ was due in Panchayat Samiti. The register has been maintained in the ordinary course and this entry appears at serial No. 27 under the heading village Rasgan. In this Ex. D. 4 it has been mentioned an amount of Rs. 96,500/ in col. 4 (Amount of Invoice) and in col. 5 (Head of account to which the debit pertains), it is Rs. 116.77. A perusal of this document also shows that where ever repayment has been made, a note has been given and this is clear from entry at serial No. 11, where due in on Ghisaram S/o Ram-gopal is shown as Rs. 233.54 in col. 5 and in col. 6 there is a note that Rs. 352.60 has been deposited vide challan dated 1-7-75 and an entry has been made in col. 9 that there was no due. This entry of repayment goes to show that whenever repayment was made, an entry was made and ultimately in the last col. 9, it was mentioned that there is not dues. 6 there is a note that Rs. 352.60 has been deposited vide challan dated 1-7-75 and an entry has been made in col. 9 that there was no due. This entry of repayment goes to show that whenever repayment was made, an entry was made and ultimately in the last col. 9, it was mentioned that there is not dues. There are similar other entries also which are clear from entry 53 wherein name of Jetha Singh has been mentioned, and when repayment was made, in col. 9 it has been mentioned that Patwari receipt dated 9-5-71, is there but out of that, Rs. 150/- has not been paid. So also, there is an entry in col. 9 at serial No. 50 of this register wherein it has been mentioned that receipt No. 1/91 dated 6-5-75. There are many entries in col. 9 which gees to show in many cases, payments have been made and, it is not for this Court to scrutinise the register as a whole. 34. The important feature of this case is that when Netram (DW 4) was examined, the prosecution failed to cross-examine on this important point. Shri Mathur pointed out that at s. no. 27, name of father of Prem Sukh can be read as Sukhram and there is some interpolation in one of the letters. If this would have been there, it was duty of the prosecution to put it to Netram in cross-examination. Admittedly no question has been put regarding entry 27 and therefore, it disentitles to make out a case for the first time. It would be difficult for this Court to enter into this controversy to find out whether this entry relates to any other person in the face of the statement of Netram who has clearly and categorically stated in his examination in chief that the amount of Rs. It would be difficult for this Court to enter into this controversy to find out whether this entry relates to any other person in the face of the statement of Netram who has clearly and categorically stated in his examination in chief that the amount of Rs. 116.77 was due in Prem Sukh S/o Sukhram of Rasgar, The exact portion of statement is as under : " fnukad 14&10&69 dks Jh izselq[k iq= Jh eq[kjkt fuoklh jlx.k dks 96 fdyks 500 xzke puk cht ds fy;s fn;k x;k FkkA ftldh jkf'k :0 115-67 iSls FkhA " Then, he stated as under : " eSa vius lkFk ,d jftLV~j yk;k gwWa ftlesa fn;s x;s _.k ds bUnzktkr gSA blesa izselq[k dk _.k dzekad 27 ij fn[kk;k x;k gS tks , ls ch gS o izn'kZ Mh0 4 gSA blesa jde dh okfil tek gksus dk dksbZ bUnzkt ugha gSA " 35. This witness has further stated that on April 20, 1978, a certificate has been issued that Rs. 217.80p. were due in Prem Sukh and he proved Ex. D 5 for it, wherein he has also put his initial. According to him, this certificate was prepared by him on the basis of the record. 36. Shri Mathur pointed out that this witness did not brought the receipt register and if this receipt register would have brought then, that would have been shown that Prem Sukh deposited amount which was due in him. I am not inclined to accept the submission of Shri Mathur for the same reason that it was open for the prosecution to request the court for summoning for the record for cross-examination and defer the cross-examination. This was not done by the prosecution. Moreover, it has come on record that certificate Ex. D 5 was issued flowing an amount of Rs 217.80 due in Prem Sukh. 37. The cumulative effect of Ex. D 4 & D 5 is that Prem Sukh was debtor to the Panchayat Samiti for the price of fertilisers and seeds. It has come in the statement of this witness that the recovery is made by the Patwari. This witness, Netram was an U.D C. in the relevant Panchayat Samiti at the relevant time and, therefore, his statement is of great value. 38. It has come in the statement of this witness that the recovery is made by the Patwari. This witness, Netram was an U.D C. in the relevant Panchayat Samiti at the relevant time and, therefore, his statement is of great value. 38. Shri Mathur pointed out that this witness has stated in cross-examination that he cannot say if Prem Sukh has paid the amount and, if he had a receipt it is important to note that this witness stated that he can say something positive only after seeing receipt; even then, no receipt was shown to him. 39. It is here the submission of Shri Bhandari is that non production of the receipt by the decoy Prem Sukh assumes importance. Normally, the receipt had not been produced by Prem Sukh, but when specific defence was made by the cross-examination and defence witnesses were produced by the accused, it was the duty of the prosecution to dispel of duties by production of the receipts and other record of payment. After all, the receipt was in the custody of Prem Sukh and Prem Sukh, alone and nothing prevented him from producing the same, when this document assumed importance. Even then, the arguments were heard and the case was remained pending for a few months for dictation of order, but such a receipt was not produced to show its genuineness and, contrary to it, Shri Bhandari produced a challan of the Government treasury department showing that the actual payment has been made by Prem Sukh now on 4th September, 1979. 40. In view of the above circumstances, I have got no hesitation in holding that although the accused might not have been successful in proving this defence beyond all reasonable doubt but, by oral and documentary evidence and by cross-examination of the complainant and his own statement, he has been able to show that his defence is plausible and probable.There is an element of genuineness in his defence and it cannot be said to be after-thought or to be concocted one. 41. Here, I may also mention that non production of Hariram assumes importance. This is so because accused has stated that when the trap party came, an amount of Rs. 100/- was given and, the Deputy Superintendent of Police came and said that this amount was taken by him on account of repayment of price of the seeds and fertilisers. 41. Here, I may also mention that non production of Hariram assumes importance. This is so because accused has stated that when the trap party came, an amount of Rs. 100/- was given and, the Deputy Superintendent of Police came and said that this amount was taken by him on account of repayment of price of the seeds and fertilisers. Admittedly, Hariram was the independent witness who was present at that time. He was scribe in the complaint lodged by the decoy, Prem Sukh. He accompanied Prem Sukh all of a sudden. He was President of important organisation of Scheduled Castes Welfare Sangh, and such an important person & witness who head the conversation transpired between the accused and the decoy, Prem Sukh, could have unfolded the real story in respect of the repayment defence. It would have been important to hear from him as to what talk transpired between the complainant. Prem Sukh and the accused at the time of passing away of Rs. 100/-. Depriving the court from ascertaining the truth of the above defence from Hariram by non production is seriously fatal to the prosecution in this limited context only. 42. It would be useful to point out that the trial court has disbelieved the defence story, primarily on the ground that the receipt book, Ex. D. 4 fails to inspire any confidence. A perusal of the receipt book, Ex. D. 4 would show that the name of Prem Sukh S/o Mukhram has been mentioned after his father's name as Ramchandra. It is also true that there are only two receipt in this receipt book and in that context, the trial court, was not wrong in not placing reliance upon this receipt book. However, it was not receipt book, alone which was material and the trial court failed to consider the importance of the register of Panchayat Samiti, Article 15. This entry in the register, A to B at p. 27 has also been marked as Ex. D. 4. The trial court has not taken notice of this entry `A to B' of Ex. D 4, Register. 43. It appears that the trial court found the discrepancy in the statement of this witness because Netram (DW 4) in his examination in chief has stated that Rs 116.77 are due in Prem Sukh resident of Rasgan to whom 96 Kg. 500 gram 'Chana' seeds was given. D 4, Register. 43. It appears that the trial court found the discrepancy in the statement of this witness because Netram (DW 4) in his examination in chief has stated that Rs 116.77 are due in Prem Sukh resident of Rasgan to whom 96 Kg. 500 gram 'Chana' seeds was given. In the examination-in-chief, itself, this witness has proved entry 27. It is surprising way the trial court did not think proper to relate it to Prem Sukh, the decoy. Prem Sukh and none-else. In cross- examination, question has been asked about one Prem Sukh S/o Sukharam and not Prem Sukh S/o Mukhram. Prem Sukh is son of Mukhram and not Sukhram and therefore, in my view, there is no discrepancy between the cross-examination and the examination-inchief relation to the entry about the decoy Prem Sukh S/o Mukhram. Not only this entire cross-examination would go to show that the prosecutor tried to point out that he cannot say whether Prem Sukh the decoy paid back amount because he has not brought the register of payments. I am convinced that there was no discrepancy so far as the identity of Prem Sukh the decoy is concerned, because the decoy Prem Sukh was the person in respect of whom the entire examination in chief was conduct and to make it sure his father's name Mukhram has also be mentioned. It appears that the trial court remained under same confusion about cross examination which was for Prem Sukh s/o Sukhram. 44. With the help of the learned Public Prosecutor. I have checked up the father's name of decoy Prem Sukh in the statement recorded by the trial Court and the police and, I find that it is Mukhram and not Sukhram. That being so, the entire approach of the trial court for discarding entry mentioned in Ex. D. 4 of Register of Panchayat Samiti, Art 15, has be come erroneous because of a wrong assumption that father's name of the decoy Prem Sukh is Sukhram. 45. I am not inclined to place any reliance on receipt book, Ex. D.4 and the list annexed to it because agreement of the trial court in that respect may have some force. 46. On the basis of the entry Ex. D.4 and Ex. 45. I am not inclined to place any reliance on receipt book, Ex. D.4 and the list annexed to it because agreement of the trial court in that respect may have some force. 46. On the basis of the entry Ex. D.4 and Ex. D. 4 in the Register of Panchayat Samiti, Article 15, I am convinced that the statement of Netram (DW 4) clearly makes out a plausible defence for the accused and the same is supported by the submission of the accused, himself, and the cross-examination of decoy Prem Sukh. The non-production of the receipt alleged to be in the custody of Premsukh, hers, assumes importance and provide support to the prosector story and so also the non-production of Hariram. 47. It is true that once an amount is proved to have been paid to the accused or admitted, in the peculiar circumstances of a case, a presumption can be drawn that it was taken as bribe, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 48. However, even then, the prosecution is not relieved of its duty to discharge burden. 49. In Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 R.L.W. . 37 . I have occasion to consider in details, this aspect of the case and it was observed as under:- "The burden of proving the prosecution case, generally lies on the prosecution even in case of trap of bribery, this burden is not shifted by the enactment of section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 4 got limited application only for raising of presumption regarding the motive of the taking of money provided it is proved that the money was obtained or accepted by the accused, even in raising the presumption under section 4, the act of acceptance or obtaining must be wilful, voluntary and with conscious mind, even where such a presumption is drawn, the accused can rebut it by showing that there is a plausible explanation and on the basis of preponderance of probability of other theory, the accused is not required to rebut this presumption by leading evidence beyond reasonable doubt. But all that is required to show is to establish preponderance of probability in his favour." 50. In substance, section 4 has got limited application only for raising a presumption regarding motive of taking the money but even their act of acceptance must be wilful, voluntary and with conscious mind. 51. But all that is required to show is to establish preponderance of probability in his favour." 50. In substance, section 4 has got limited application only for raising a presumption regarding motive of taking the money but even their act of acceptance must be wilful, voluntary and with conscious mind. 51. I have held in Tej Singh's case (supra) that even such a presumption is drawn, the accused can rebut it by showing that there is plausible explanation and on the basis of preponderance or probability of other theory, the accused is not required to rebut this presumption by leading evidence beyond reasonable doubt. All that is requires is that he should show preponderance of probability in his favour. While taking this view I have discussed the entire case law, commencing from Wallmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions's case (1935 A.C. p. 462) . wherein it was laid down that the onus of proof always lies on the prosecution and, after discussing the entire case law, I have held that such a presumption can always be rebutted by plausible explanation. 52. This has been held to be so in M. P. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 S.C. p. 773 and Trilok Chand v. State of Delhi, AIR 1977 S.C. p. 666 . 53. I am, therefore, convinced that the accused has been successful in setting up a plausible defence as discussed above and the presumption under section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act also stands rebutted. 54. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. 55. Consequently the appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted. The conviction and sentence of the accused, both, under Section 161, I.P.C. and under Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail and need not surrender.Appeal Accepted. *******