JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure, directed against the acquittal of respondent-accused Dinesh Prasad richharia, in Special Case No. 1 of 1982, under the impugned judgment dated 21-11-1984 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Vidisha. The respondent-accused has been acquitted by the trial Court from the offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947. ( 2. ) A large number of facts in this case are not disputed. It is admitted that during the relevant period in the year 1981, the respondent was posted as the Additional tahsildar, Sironj, in district Vidisha. On 13-2-1981, the respondent held Camp Court at village Unarsital for disposal of encroachment cases on Govt. land under section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, including the cases against complainant Halkuram (P. W. 3) and his brother Toraniya, among others, the records of which haye admittedly been seized by members of the Vigilance team from the respondents house at Sironj on the date of the alleged trapping, i. e. 19-2-1981. Admittedly, Halkuram (P. W. 3) and his brothers had encroached upon Khasra No. 204 of village Unarsital, belonging to the government, and were in its possession since a number of years. They had also sown wheat and gram crops in 15 Bighas of agricultural land of that Khasra number during the relevant period. The respondent seized the standing crops and delivered it under the supurdnama of Patel Prabhu Lal (P. W. 4 ). According to prosecution, the respondent had then demanded the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000l- for releasing the seized standing crops, which was ultimately settled at Rs. 500l- but according to defence the amount of rs. 800/- had been imposed as fine on Halkuram (P. W. 3) and his brother Toraniya @ Rs. 250/- each. ( 3. ) IT is also not disputed that on the relevant date of the alleged incident, i. e. 19-2-1981, in the evening after 5. 00 p. m. , Halkuram (P. W. 3) had gone to the official residence of the respondent at Sironj, accompanied by members of the Vigilance staff, who remained in hiding. Halkuram (P. W. 3) went inside the respondents house, paid the amount of Rs. 00 p. m. , Halkuram (P. W. 3) had gone to the official residence of the respondent at Sironj, accompanied by members of the Vigilance staff, who remained in hiding. Halkuram (P. W. 3) went inside the respondents house, paid the amount of Rs. 500/- to the respondent, who immedietely issued the release order of the seized crops (Ex. P. 7), a copy of which was delivered to him. Thereafter, both of them came out of the house, whereupon the respondent was immediately arrested and overpowered by members of the Vigilance staff, and he had then the amont of Rs. 500/-in his possession paid by Halkuram (P. W. 3 ). The respondent was taken to the nearby p. W. D. Rest House, where the members of the Vigilance staff were staying. Alongwith the Revenue case files, the Receipt Book (Katta) Ex. P. 6, were seized from the house of the respondent. The amount of Rs. 500/- was seized under the seizure memo Ex. P. 15. The numbers of the seized currency-notes seized had earlier been noted by the vigilance staff, and the phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate powders had also been applied to them, as a result of which when the respondents hands were washed, the water turned red. ( 4. ) THE prosecution case was, that the amount of Rs. 500/- in currency notes had been paid by Halkuram (P. W. 3) to the respondent as the illegal gratification (bribe ). But the defence of the respondent was that the amount had been paid to him by halkuram as the fine money on his behalf and that of his brother Toraniya. Therefore, the only point for determination in the present appeal against acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial Court is as to whether the amount of Rs. 500/-admittedly paid by Halkuram (P. W. 3) to the respondent, was the bribe amount or the amount of fine imposed upon Halkuram and Toraniya ? ( 5. ) THE law on the point is well settled. It is laid down in Section 4 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as below : - "4. 500/-admittedly paid by Halkuram (P. W. 3) to the respondent, was the bribe amount or the amount of fine imposed upon Halkuram and Toraniya ? ( 5. ) THE law on the point is well settled. It is laid down in Section 4 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as below : - "4. Presumption where Public Servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.- (1) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 161 or section 165 of the Indian Penal Code (or of an offence referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of this Act punishable under sub-section (2) thereof), it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said section 161, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. 2. Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 165-A of the indian Penal Code (or under Clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of this act), it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn. " The provisions of section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and those of Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, are well known. ( 6. ) BY a series of decisions of the Courts, including the Supreme Court, it is now well settled that the moment it is proved by the prosecution, or alternatively accepted by the accused, having an official capacity, that the allegedly bribe money was recovered from his possession or was accepted by him, the presumption of the offences arises against him, unless the contrary is proved by him (accused ). But there is a subtle difference in the standards of proof required in the alternate two cases. While on the one hand, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt, the burden on the accused is not that onerous. Although in the corruption cases, it is not sufficient for the accused to simply create a doubt in the mind of the Court in regard to the commission of the offence, he must be able to establish a reasonable probability of his defence being true [see Mori Singh vs. Delhi Administration (1979 S. C. C. (Cri.) 528), N. S. Gandiwal vs. State (1961 Cr. L J. 670), Mahesh Prasad vs. State (1970s. C. C. (Cri.) 69), Ravindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa (1976 S. C. C. (Cri.)66), the State of Rajasthan vs. Mohd. Mobid (1973 Cr. L. J. 703), Dhanwant Rai Balwant Rai desari vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1964 SC 575 ) and so on. ] Where the position of law is clear in the mind, it is not, at all, difficult to reach a clear decision in the present case, relating to the appeal against acquittal, filed by the State. In this connection, reference may also be invited to the following cases relating to the decisions in cases of an appeal against acquittal - Babu and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1983 SC 308 ) and tota Singh and another vs. State of Punjab (1987 S. C. C. (Cri.) 381 ). ( 7. In this connection, reference may also be invited to the following cases relating to the decisions in cases of an appeal against acquittal - Babu and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1983 SC 308 ) and tota Singh and another vs. State of Punjab (1987 S. C. C. (Cri.) 381 ). ( 7. ) I have carefull heard the arguments advanced in the present case by the learned Govt. Advocate Shri Govind Singh for the appellant-State, and Shri Babu Lal bhargava, appearing for the respondent accused. I have also very carefully gone through the record. The prosecution has examined, in all, six witnesses to establish its case, who are Raj Kishor Nigam (P. W. 1), Asst. Director, Fisheries Deptt. , Bhopal, Ram padarath (P. W. 2), H. C. Police (Vigilance), Complainant Halkuram (P. W. 3), Prabhu lal Patel (P. W. 4), B. D. Jugade (P. W. 5), S. O. , Law Deptt. , Bhopal and A. K. Pande (P. W. 6), Circle Inspector Police (Vigilance), Bhopal. Among these, Raj Kishor Nigam (P. W. 1), ram Padarath (P. W. 2), Halkuram (P. W. 3) and A. K. Pande (P. W. 6) are the witnesses to the incident. However, Halkuram (P. W. 3) (The complainant in the case)has not supported the prosecution in the essential incriminating part of the case. Now, he is the only witness who states having passed the graft money to the respondent-accused inside the house of the latter. While on the one hand, there is no direct witness to the payment of graft money, the receipt of the amount of Rs. 500/- from the complainant is not denied by the respondent-accused. The remaining three witnesses support the prosecution case in respect of the recovery of money from the possession of the respondent-accused. The point is whether the money was paid as the bribe money or as payment of fine imposed upon Haiuram (P. W. 3) and his brother Toraniya. In this connection, while on the one hand, the prosecution has filed, as its documents, the original Revenue Cases as also the Receipt Book (Katta) Ex. P. 6, seized from inside the office-table in the residence of respondent-accused, the defence has filed certified copies of the cases relating to the fine recovery proceedings from the complainant and his brother (Ex. D. 2-C, D. 3-C and D. 4-C), which indicate that the fine amounts rs. P. 6, seized from inside the office-table in the residence of respondent-accused, the defence has filed certified copies of the cases relating to the fine recovery proceedings from the complainant and his brother (Ex. D. 2-C, D. 3-C and D. 4-C), which indicate that the fine amounts rs. 250/- each were imposed upon complainant Halkuram and Toraniya. ( 8. ) TAKING into consideration the admissions made by complainant Halkuram (P. W. 3) that the amount of Rs. 500/- had been paid by him as the fine money, imposed upon him and his brother Toraniya, coupled with the contents of the documents (Ex. D. 2-C, D. 3-C and D. 4-C), it can safely be stated that the accused has established his defence by preponderance of probability, as required by law. Before passing, it is also necessary to state that the learned trial Judge, in his impugned judgment dated 21-11-1984, running into 20 closely typed pages in Hindi, has given ample and weighty reasons for the conclusions arrived at by him in the trial. He has also noted that, as admitted by Halkuram (P. W. 3), one caste-Neta (Public-Leader) of the Harijan community named. Maujilal, had accompanied Halkuram and had persuaded him to go to Bhopal with him, giving out that no fine money could be recovered from the Harijans in the land encroachment cases as was being done, that, he also persuaded him to sign the complaint given to the Vigilance Officer as got drafted by Maujilal at Bhopal. As such, again the possibility of the complainant paying the money as fine amount, which would be got remitted by Maujilal, cannot, at all, be ruled out. This is in the face of the documents Ex. D. 2-C, D. 3-C and D. 4-C, which are the certified copies of the proceedings relating to the imposition of the fine by the Revenue Authorities. Thus, to conclude, no fault could be found with the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial Court in the present appeal, somehow filed by the State against the acquittal. ( 9. ) THE result is, that this appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial Court from the alleged offences punishable under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is, hereby, confirmed. ( 9. ) THE result is, that this appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial Court from the alleged offences punishable under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is, hereby, confirmed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent-accused for his appearance in course of the present appeal shall stand discharged. Appeal dismissed.