G.K. SHARMA, J.—-This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 22rid Oct. 77, passed by the Special Judge for ACD-Cases, Jaipur by which, the appellant has been convicted u/s. 161, IPC and sentenced to I years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months simple imprisonment; and u/s. 5(1) (d) 2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, "the Act"), to 1 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 2. The appellant was working as Office Superintendent in the Office of CM & HO, Maharani Bhim Singh Hospital, Kota. On 18th Dec, 73, one Labhchand, at about 8. 15 AM lodged a written - report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Kota (for short,the ASP), alleging therein that he was transferred from the Office of CM & HO, Kota, to that of District Medical and Health Officer, Kota, and he had joined duties there on 13th Nov., 73. His service - book and other relevant documents which were sent by the CM & HO, Kota, were not complete, and the same were returned to the Office of CM & HO, for removing the defects, and for full remarks. That file was not received back till 18th Dec. 73. In this connection, when he inquired from the Office Superintendent of the CM & HO Office, Kota (the appellant), the latter told him that if Rs. 50/- were paid to him as bribe, he would get his service - record completed. Because, he did not want to pay the bribe, the appellant withheld the record In this connection, Labhchand met the appellant 2-3 times more, and requested him to send his service record, but the latter again demanded Rs. 50/- as bribe. Informer Labh Chand did not want to pay the bribe and wanted to get the appellant entrapped. He also produced currency-notes of Rs. 50/- to the ASP. 3. On this report, the ASP called two motbirs, and made all pie-requisite arrangements for laying a trap. The currency-notes were smeared with phenol-phthalein powder; and initials were put by the ASP on the said currency notes. Then a memo for handing over the notes, was prepared, and all reached the hospital. 50/- to the ASP. 3. On this report, the ASP called two motbirs, and made all pie-requisite arrangements for laying a trap. The currency-notes were smeared with phenol-phthalein powder; and initials were put by the ASP on the said currency notes. Then a memo for handing over the notes, was prepared, and all reached the hospital. The trap was laid. Upon receiving signal, the ASP, after disclosing his identity, caught hold of the accused, and recovered the amount from him. The accused, at that time, offered his explanation that he had given a loan of Rs. 80/- to the decoy, and that out of that, the latter had returned Rs. 30/- earlier and the balance of Rs. 50/- was paid back by him on that date. 4. After completing usual investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution from the Director, Medical and Health Services (DM&HS) Rajasthan Jaipur, a challan was submitted in the court of Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur. 5. The learned Judge framed charges u/s 161, IPC and u/s. 5(l)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the accused - appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 6 witnesses. The accused also examined 3 witnesses in his defence. 7. After concluding the trial, the learned Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him as mentioned above. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the entire case has been fabricated and the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, which is a made out one: According to him, Akhilanand PW 5 and his brother Nityanand both were working in the Office of CM & HO, for the last 20 years. Whenever anyone of them was transferred from that office, they used to manage their transfer cancelled through the intervention of the higher authorities, including Ministers. 9. Pitambar Dayal Mathur PW 1 who was Director, Medical and Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur, in the year 1975, has stated in his cross-examination that Akhilanand was a clerk in his office, and that CM & HO has submitted a report that Akhilanand and his brother were misusing their positions, and especially in the matter of transfer. 10. 9. Pitambar Dayal Mathur PW 1 who was Director, Medical and Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur, in the year 1975, has stated in his cross-examination that Akhilanand was a clerk in his office, and that CM & HO has submitted a report that Akhilanand and his brother were misusing their positions, and especially in the matter of transfer. 10. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that Nityanand, brother of Akhilanand was transferred, but, his transfer was cance-lled upon the intervention of the Minister concerned, which created enmity between the accused who was Office Superintendent, and Akhilanand PW 5 who was UDC in the same Office. There is nothing on the record to give adverse inference about misusing the post by Akhilanand also that he generally used to approach the higher authorities for cancelling his transfer-orders. Even P.D. Mathur, the then Director of Medical and Health Services has stated so. Thus, it is clear that Akhilanand and his brother Nityanand were in the Office of CM&HO, Kota, for a very long period, and whenever either of them was transferred from that place, they could manage cancellation of their transfers, which certainly created enmity with the accused - appellant, who was Office Superintendent in the Office of CM & HO, Kota. 11. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that Labhchand was working as UDC in the Office of CM&HO. He was transferred to the Office of District Medical & Health Officer, Kota. His record and service-book were sent to DM&HO Office, Kota. It is on the record that while Labhchand was working in the office of CM&HO Kota, he had very good relations with appellant R. L. Bhatnagar, In the year 1973, there was strike in the department, and during that period, Labhchand had taken Rs. 80/- as loan from the appellant. Labhchand himself has admitted that he had very good relations with the accused-appellant. After his transfer, his personal file and the service-book had reached the office of DM&HO, Kota. The service-book was, however, incomplete. The contention of the accused was that he had paid Rs. 80/- as loan to Labhchand, who had later on returned Rs. 30/- only; and then, in the month of Nov. 73, he was transferred, but he did not pay back the remaining Rs. 50/-, and that was the amount of Rs. The service-book was, however, incomplete. The contention of the accused was that he had paid Rs. 80/- as loan to Labhchand, who had later on returned Rs. 30/- only; and then, in the month of Nov. 73, he was transferred, but he did not pay back the remaining Rs. 50/-, and that was the amount of Rs. 50/- which was paid by Labhchand to him, on 18th Dec, 73. So the accused has given explanation for his receiving Rs. 50/- from Labhchand, at the very moment when he was searched by the ASP, ACD, and when he was arrested and the amount was recovered from his possession. 12. The point to be seen is whether the accused had demanded from Labhchand, some bribe, for completing his service-book or not. He has not denied that the service-record of Labhchand was sent to DM & HO Office, Kota, at the time of his transfer. Labhchand says that his service-book was incomplete and so, it was sent to the office of CM&HO, for completing the necessary entries and that, for that, the accused had demanded Rs. 50/- from him. There is nothing on the record to prove the fact that the accused had demanded Rs. 50/-from Labhchand for completing his service-book. If the accused had to demand this money, he would have demanded it before sending the personal-file and the service-record of Labhchand to the office of. DM & HO, Kota. At the time of transfer of Labhchand, when his record etc. were sent to the office of DM & HO Kota, no bribe was demanded by the accused. Thereafter, the record was sent back to the office of CM & HO, Kota; and according to the decoy, the accused then demanded Rs. 50/- from him for completing his service-record. This statement is not believable. Had the accused-appellant had any intention of demand-ing bribe from Labhchand, he would not have sent his service-record etc. to the office of DM & HO, Kota, at the time of transfer of Labhchand, and he could have demanded the bribe, at that point of time. Then, if the personal-file and service-record of Labhchand were received back by the CM & HO Office, Kota, that must have been received by the receipt-clerk. to the office of DM & HO, Kota, at the time of transfer of Labhchand, and he could have demanded the bribe, at that point of time. Then, if the personal-file and service-record of Labhchand were received back by the CM & HO Office, Kota, that must have been received by the receipt-clerk. Admittedly, Akhilanand was working as Establishment Clerk in he office of CM & HO, and all the personal-files and service-records of the clerks used to be maintained by the Establishment Clerk. So, the file which was received back from the office of DM & HO, Kota, was received by the receipt-clerk, and later on, it must have been handed over to Akhilanand, who was Establishment Clerk. The file did not reach the table of the Office Superintendent, straightway, according to the procedure and working of the office. It was first received by the receipt-clerk; and then, it was delivered to the Establishment Clerk. It cannot be believed that after receiving of the file, it was sent to the officer concerned directly. It always reaches the officer concerned through the clerk concerned. So, the file of Labhchand, after its receipt from the DM & HO Office, Kota, could not have reached straightway to the Office Superintendent (appellant), and it must have gone from the receipt-clerk, to Akhilanand PW 5, who was Establishment Clerk in that office, and he was the person who was to submit the said file of the Office Superintendent (appellant) for the needful, and then the latter would have forwarded it to the officer concerned. There is nothing on the record to show that Akhilanand PW 5, the Establishment Clerk had submitted the file before the Office Superintendent (appellant): 13. After perusing the recovery-memo (Ex. P. 6), it is found that the service book of Labhchand and his personal-file were recovered from the top of the ahmirah of the Office Superintendent, which were lying under a number of files, and on the top of one wooden almirah. Akhilanand PW 5 and Buddhi Prakash Gautam DW 3 were the recovery witnesses. It is strange that the file of Labhchand was found lying under a number of other files, and on the top of the almirah, which was in the room of the Office Superintendent (appellant). Akhilanand PW 5 and Buddhi Prakash Gautam DW 3 were the recovery witnesses. It is strange that the file of Labhchand was found lying under a number of other files, and on the top of the almirah, which was in the room of the Office Superintendent (appellant). There is no proof on the record that the said file was sent to Office Superintendent either by the receipt clerk or by the Establishment Clerk. Then, how this file reached the Office Superintendent, is a very important aspect. The file was recovered from the office-room of the Office Superintendent, and the important aspect is that the said file was found lying under a number of other files, and on the top of the almirah How and why this file was in a hidden condition and at such a place ? For the sake of argument, even if it is believed that the file was received from the office of DM & HO, Kota, and was handed over to the accused-appellant, then in that case, the appellant would either keep it in his almirah or on his table, but, where was the necessity of keeping that file on the top of the almirah and that too under so many files ? In my view, the prosecution should have proved that the file was received from the office of the DM & HO, Kota to that of CM & HO, Kota, and it was handed either by the Establishment Clerk or by the receipt-clerk to the Office Superintendent (appellant). In the absence of such proof, it cannot be presumed that the accused had received the file from the office of CM & HO. and that in order to take bribe, he had hidden the said file on the top of the almirah in his office room. 14. Then the question arises as to who kept the file there on the top of the almirah. Akhilanand PW 5 was the Establishment Clerk in the same office. He had free entry to the office-room of the accused. As observed he had also enmity with the accused-appellant. So, the possibility could be that somebody else might have kept the file on the top of the almirah. Who could be that man, the question remains then. Akhilanand PW 5 was the Establishment Clerk in the same office. He had free entry to the office-room of the accused. As observed he had also enmity with the accused-appellant. So, the possibility could be that somebody else might have kept the file on the top of the almirah. Who could be that man, the question remains then. The receipt-clerk who had received the file from the office of DM & HO, Kota, and the Establishment Clerk Akhilanand, were the two concerning persons in the matter. So, the probability cannot be ruled out that one of them might have kept the file there, without bringing it to the notice of the Office Superintendent. 15. Buddhi Prakash PW 3 has stated that he was despatch clerk, and that when the file came to him he noticed that it was not having signatures and seat of the office, and so, he sent it to the office of Akhilanand, the Establishment Clerk. Thus this fact indicates that the file must have been kept in the room of the Office Superintendent, by Akhilanand, and none else, as there was no proof that after receiving back of the file, the accused had demanded bribe from Labhchand, to complete his file. 16. Another question is what was the necessity of getting the file early? Labhchand was transferred to the office of DM & HO, Kota. It is not disputed that he was getting his salary regularly. Where was the urgency of sending the file back to the office of CM & HO. Labhchand, in this connection, has stated that he wanted to avail privilege-leave, and for that purpose, he wanted his service book to be completed. But, in his statement, he has stated that he did not proceed on privilege-leave, in the month of December, 73. In the year 1974 also he did not avail this leave. So, this all is a concocted story that Labhchand wanted to avail privilege-leave, and for that purpose, his service book was to be completed. It could be possible that the service-book of Labhchand was incom-plete, and that must have come back to the office of CM&HO, but, absolutely, there is no evidence or poof that the accused had demanded any bribe for com-pleting the service book from Labhchand. It could be possible that the service-book of Labhchand was incom-plete, and that must have come back to the office of CM&HO, but, absolutely, there is no evidence or poof that the accused had demanded any bribe for com-pleting the service book from Labhchand. The circumstances in which, the file was recovered from the office-room of the appellant, create doubt, and in view of the established enmity between Akhilanand PW 5, the establishment clerk and accused-appellant, the Office Superintendent, it is indicated that the whole matter has been manipulated. Akhilanand PW 5 was the establishment-clerk. He used to deal with the files and then submit them before the Office Superintendent. Akhilanand has not stated that after the file of Labhchand was received back, he had put it before the Office-Superintendent. Instead of the file being submitted before the Office-Superintendent it was found in his room, lying under so many files, on the top of a wooden almirah. So, it is clear that the file was planted there by someone, with some ulterior motive, and recovery thereof was made in presence of Akhilanand PW 5, the establishment clerk. 17. The evidence regarding how the trap was laid, has been brought to my notice, which shows that Akhilanand PW 5 was very much interested in the trap. Labhchand PW 2 has stated that on 11th Dec. 73, he submitted the report (Ex. P. 2) before the ASP, ACD, at his residence, at 8 AM. Mohanlal Bhardwaj was with him, at that time. The ASP asked Mohan Singh, SI, to bring one witness, and the SI brought Akhilanand Bohra. Then, he narrated the scheme to him. 18. Mohanlal Bhardwaj PW 4 has stated that Labhchand had come to his house on 11th Dec, 73, and told him that Raghunandan Lal had demanded Rs. "50/- from him as bribe, but, he wanted to entrap him. Then, he himself and Labhchand went to ASP, ACD, at his residence. Akhilanand was also wish them, and there the written report (Ex. P. 2) was lodged at about 9.15 AM; and then, he called witnesses, Mohanlal Bhardwaj and Akhilanand. Witness Akhilanand was called through Mohan Singh, SI. He was not knowing that Akhilanand was working in the same office in which the accused was working. So. there is difference in the statements of all these three witnesses, with regard to calling the witnesses. Witness Akhilanand was called through Mohan Singh, SI. He was not knowing that Akhilanand was working in the same office in which the accused was working. So. there is difference in the statements of all these three witnesses, with regard to calling the witnesses. This difference is a very material one, which shows that G. P. Nag PW 6, the ASP was knowing the fact that PW 5 Akhilanand was establishment-clerk in the same office where the accused was working, but. he tried to hide this fact. If the witnesses, Mohanlal Bhardwaj and Akhilanand were called by the ASP, Govind Prasad, they were called through Mohansingh, SI. Mohansingh, SI has not been examined by the prosecution. He was a very important witness. It, therefore, shows that from the very beginning, the case was falsely cooked up, with the hely of Akhiianand. 19. In the report (Ex. P. 2) a number of currency notes have been mentioned and in the memo (Ex. P. 3) it has been mentioned as to what stop, Labhchand had to take after handing over the currency-notes to the accused-appellant. In the memo (Ex. P. 3). it is mentioned that after handing over the amount, he was directed to give signal by lighting a cigarette, and the witnesses were also directed to watch the handing over, of the amount, and on receiving signal to inform the ASP. In this respect, Labhchand PW 2 has stated that he was directed to hand over the notes to the accused. But, he has not stated about the signal which he was directed to give. He has stated that he had asked the accused to send the file, who then demanded Rs. 50/-. He then gave the money to him, immediately cams out of the room; and then, he gave the signal by lighting a cigarette. It means, after handing over the money, Labhchand had come out of the room and then gave signal. And upon receiving his signal the trap-party entered the office - room of the appellant, and at that time the accused appellant was coming out of the room. The accused was then caught hold of by Mohan Singh, SI, who was having the currency notes in his right hand. 20. Mohanlal Bhardwaj PW 4 has stated that Labhchand had gone to the room of the Office-Superintendent, where, there was a Chik on the door. The accused was then caught hold of by Mohan Singh, SI, who was having the currency notes in his right hand. 20. Mohanlal Bhardwaj PW 4 has stated that Labhchand had gone to the room of the Office-Superintendent, where, there was a Chik on the door. They were standing at the Verandah. Labhchand then came out of the room of the accused and after some time, he gave signal by moving his neck. The accused after some time came out of his room, and the ASP who was sitting in the Verandah along with others, caught the accused. The ASP caught him by his hand and disclosed his identity. 21. Akhilanand PW 5 has stated that the SI had come to him and asked him as to whether he was willing to become a witness in a trap, where to he agreed. He was then taken to the house of ASP, ACD. He has further stated outside that the witnesses were standing out side the office-room of the accused; Labh Chand entered into the room; came out of the room after some time, and then, he gave signal to the police-party. He has not stated, what signal Labhchand had given. According to his statement, when after some time, the accused came out of his room for going to the room of PM & HO. Mohan Singh SI caught him by his hand; identity was disclosed and the amount was recovered. 22. G.P. Nag PW 6 has stated that Labhchand, after handing over the money, came out of the room, and gave a signal by lighting a match-stick where upon, he himself along with Mohan Singh and the witnesses, went inside the room of the accused, and, there, he disclosed his identity, and challen-ged him that he had received Rs. 50/- (illegible) and then the money was recovered. So, what I find is that there is vast difference in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to giving signal, calling the witnesses; watch the trap and recovery of the notes, and the place from where they were recovered. This difference creates doubt. 23. This is very important aspect that when the amount was recovered, the accused stated that he had not taken any bribe, but, Labhchand had returned Rs. 50/- against the loan which was due from him. In this respect, the statements of the witnesses were perused. This difference creates doubt. 23. This is very important aspect that when the amount was recovered, the accused stated that he had not taken any bribe, but, Labhchand had returned Rs. 50/- against the loan which was due from him. In this respect, the statements of the witnesses were perused. Labhchand PW 2 has denied in his statement that on or about 15th Aug., 73, he had taken Rs. 80/- as loan from the accused. He has also denied that he had returned Rs. 30/- earlier, to the accused. He has also denied that the accused did not tell the ASP, ACD that he had taken loan of Rs. 80/- from the accused and that he had returned Rs. 30/- only earlier, and that the remaining amount of Rs. 50/- was returned on that date. In his police-statement (Ex.D. 1), he has admitted that he had taken Rs. 80/- from the accused as loan, and that earlier he had returned Rs. 30/- and the rest amount of Rs 50/-, he returned him on that date. In court, he denied to have given the police statement. This shows that Labhchand PW 2 was not speaking truthfully. 24. Mohanlal Bhardwaj PW 4 has stated that Raghunandan Lal had fold the ASP that he had not taken bribe, but Labhchand had returned the money which he had taken from him; and he took out the money from his pocket and handed it over to the ASP. This witness has further stated that when the accused was taken to the office of ASP, he gave explanation that Labhchand had returned the money which was given by him earlier as loan. 25. Akhilanand PW 5 has stated that when the ASP disclosed his identity and challenged the accused that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 50/-, the accused handed over Rs. 50/- to him, and told that Labhchand had taken money from him on loan, which he had returned to . him. In his cross-examination, he has further said that the accused had told the ASP that he (Labhchand) had taken Rs. 80/- on loan, out of which, Rs. 30/- had been returned to him earlier, and the remaining Rs. 50/- were returned to him on that day. 26. him. In his cross-examination, he has further said that the accused had told the ASP that he (Labhchand) had taken Rs. 80/- on loan, out of which, Rs. 30/- had been returned to him earlier, and the remaining Rs. 50/- were returned to him on that day. 26. Similarly, G. P. Nag PW 6, in his cross-examination, has said that the accused, at the time of the trap, had told him that Labhchand had taken Rs. 80/- from him as loan, and that Rs. 30/- had been given back to him earlier, and the remaining Rs. 50/- were paid back on that day. So, the accused had given explanation for receiving the amount of Rs. 50/-, that very moment. 27. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the presumption u/s. 4 is that money recovered was an amount of illegal gratification. So, in view of the provision of S. 4 of the P.C. Act, a presumption could be drawn against the accused appellant, but that presumption could be rebutted if the accused submitted explanation which was sufficient to rebut that presumption. The accused need not prove his defence by that standard of proof which is needed by the prosecution to prove its case. If the accused gives a probable explanation, then, the presumption u/s. 4, stands rebutted. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Maan Singh Vs. Delhi Administra-tion (1). In that case, it was observed that it was sufficient if the accused offered sufficient explanation, and that standard of proof was not needed. In that case also. Rs. 5/- was recovered from the appellant and it was said to have been received from the complainant as bribe. The recovery of the money was established. The defence was that that amount was received from the complainant on account of balance of Rs. 10/-, which had been paid to the complainant for the fruit-juice supplied to the appellant, which cost Re. 1/- only. The appellant had received back Rs. 4/- and Rs. 5/- remained to be paid by the complainant, who promised to pay it some other time. Both the courts below, in that case, did not believe the defence. 10/-, which had been paid to the complainant for the fruit-juice supplied to the appellant, which cost Re. 1/- only. The appellant had received back Rs. 4/- and Rs. 5/- remained to be paid by the complainant, who promised to pay it some other time. Both the courts below, in that case, did not believe the defence. After dealing with the evidence, it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that there were intrinsic circumstances in the case, which fully probabilised the defence of the appellant, and showed that the explanation given by him, was reasonable. It was also observed that it is well settled that in such cases, the accused is not required to prove his defence by the strict standard of proof of reasonable doubt, but, it is sufficient if he offers an explanation or defence which is probable, and once this is done, the presumption u/s. 4 stands rebutted. 28. In the instant case, the defence of the accused was that Labhchand had taken Rs. 80/- from him as loan, out of which, he had returned Rs. 30/-earlier, and on 18th Dec. 73, he returned the rest amount of Rs. 50/-. This explanation was given by the accused when he was entrapped which has also been admitted by the ASP, ACD and the other prosecution witnesses. This explanation was a probable one. The accused need not prove his defence by strict standard of proof. He, thus, had rebutted the presumption of S. 4 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, on this ground, the appeal has to be accepted. 29. In Tejsingh V. State of Rajasthan (2), it has been observed as under: ".............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 he is required to show is to establish preponderance of probability in his favour." 30. In the case of Vijaydan Vs. The State of Raj. But, all that he is required to show is to establish preponderance of probability in his favour." 30. In the case of Vijaydan Vs. The State of Raj. (3), it was observed as under : "As a result of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court, the position boils down to this that S. 4(1) of the Act introduces an exception to the general rule as to burden of proof in criminal case and shifts the case on the accused who has to prove that it was not as a motive or reward that the gratification was received by him. If it is shown that the accused had received the tainted gratification, the prosecution is relieved of the burden to prove the incriminating character of the gratification that it was as a motive or reward, such as, is mentioned in S. 161. IPC. The presumption would be that it was paid as a motive or reward. It is then for the accused to rebut this statutory presumption. He can discharge this burden in various ways. i. e. by leading evidence in defence or by pointing out material in the prosecution evidence itself as a result of cross-examination or otherwise and so on and so forth. He is not required to prove his defence to the hilt. The standard of evidence required to rebut the presumption arising under S. 4(1); is not to be equated with the standard of evidence required to prove the charge The presumption would stand rebutted if the accused shows a preponderance of probabilities in his favour." 31. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sanction accorded by the DM & HO for the prosecution, was not a valid sanc-tion. In this respect, the statement of Pitambar Dayal Mathur was brought to my notice. This witness has stated that the ASP himself had come to him with record, and that if the ASP had brought to his notice that the complainant had returned the amount to the accused, which he had taken on loan from him, then certainly he would not have given the sanction. The sanction proforma was not dictated by him, Before issuance of sanction the CM & HO Kota, after making inquiry, had sent the file to him. The sanction proforma was not dictated by him, Before issuance of sanction the CM & HO Kota, after making inquiry, had sent the file to him. This shows that the DM & HO who had accorded, the sanction, had not applied his mind before giving the sanction, nor were all the facts brought to his notice, and according to his own statement had all the facts been brought to his notice, he would not have accorded the sanction. This also indicate, that the sanction was obtained from him by misrepresenting the facts or by not bringing the entire facts to his knowledge. Therefore, such a sanction was a defective one, and the prosecution on this defective sanction, is bad. 32. Mohan Singh, SI and Arnar Singh were police officials. They both were present from the time when the trap was arranged for, up till when the accused was caught. So, both these witnesses were very material witnesses, but strange enough that they were not produced by the prosecution, as witnesses, for the reasons best known to the prosecution itself. But, their non-production gives an adverse inference, which creates further doubt in the whole prosecution case, the benefit whereof has to be given to the accused-appellant. 33. In view of my above observations, I find that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The explanation given by the accused at the time of his being entrapped, was a probable one. There fore, the conviction and the sentence passed by the trial court, cannot be sustained. 34. In the result, the appeal is accepted. The accused - appellant having not been found guilty either of offences u/s 161 I.P.O. or u/s. 5 (1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is hereby acquitted of the said charges. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds, which are discharged.