S. I. JAFRI, J. ( 1 ) RAM Babu Sharma has filed this appeal against his conviction u/s. 161 I. P. C. and u/s. 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of 6 months R. I. and one years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the aforementioned sections respectively. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that Ram Babu Sharma was posted as Secretary of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti at Bijnor in the year 1979. It is alleged that Ram Babu Sharma had served a notice on Suresh Chandra Agarwal, complainant (P. W. 3) on bealf of Mandi Samiti for not filing the statements. He also informed S. C. Agarwal when he met him on 8. 12. 1979 that a challan has been submitted against him in the court in which he will have to face punishment. He further told the complainant that in case he desires to be saved from these troubles he will have to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per annum as bribe to him. The Complainant requested the appellant to reduce the said amount and then he agreed to pay Rs. 50/- for withdrawal of case and Rs. 100/- as six monthly amount of bribe. The appellant had further promised to a licence for retail in case the latter pays the amount of the said bribe on 8. 12. 1979. The complainant paid the a sum of Rs. 50/- as bribe to Ram Babu and he also moved on application to Ram Babu praying for withdrawal of the case and requested for grant of 15/20 days time to pay Rs. 100/- as bribe to which Ram Babu Sharma agreed. ( 3 ) THE complainant did not like to pay any bribe to Ram Babu so he met Sri Som Dutt Tyagi, Vigilance Inspector of (P. W. 1) and he also went to the District Magistrate, Bijnor and submitted a complaint to him on 26-12-1979 mentioning all the aforesaid facts therein. The District Magistrate directed Sri Ram Bahadur Executive Magistrate to record the statement of the complainant. Thereafter the statement of the complainant was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the Vigilance Inspector placed the said statement before the District Magistrate who passed an order to Vigilance Inspector to lay a trape. The District Magistrate directed Sri Ram Bahadur Executive Magistrate to record the statement of the complainant. Thereafter the statement of the complainant was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the Vigilance Inspector placed the said statement before the District Magistrate who passed an order to Vigilance Inspector to lay a trape. Sri Sam Dutt, Vigilance Inspector along with complainant went to the Police Station Kotwali City, Bijnor from where he took constable Raj Kumar in plain uniform and reached the police outpost Abkari and from there he also took two police constables Sardar Singh and Girish Chandra in plain clothes. Thereafter he sent Suresh Chandra to find out the whereabout of Ram Babu. However, Surash Chandra complainant returned at about 6 P. M. at the police outpost Abkari and told the Vigilance Inspector that Ram Babu appellant had gone to Harihar Temple and his return was not certain. The Vigilance Inspector directed Suresh Chandra to meet him again on the next morning at police outpost Abkari. ( 4 ) SURESH Chandra complainant met Sri Som Dutt Tyagi, Vigilance Inspector next morning on 16. 12. 79 at police out post Abkari. The Vigilance Inspector took constables Sardar Singh and Girish Chand in plain uniform with him and then also secured the presence of Subhash Chand and Redhey Mohan witnesses. He then took the complainant and the witnesses in room in the outpost where he had explained the entire story of trap to the witnesses. The complainant handed over to the Vigilance Inspector the currency notice worth Rs. 100/- to be given as bribe to the appellant The Vigilance Inspector made an exhibition of the colour of phinopthilien powder and Sodium Carbonate and he also put phinophthilein powder and sodium carbonate on the currency notes worth Rs. 100/- and then returned the said notes to Suresh Chandra, He also took a sample of the said phinophthelin powder and Carbonate Mixture in a philal and sealed the same and propared memo thereof. Thereafter the Vigilance Inspector accompnied by the witnesses reached at Laxmi Sweet Centre, Bijnor wherebe took a post in the back portion of the shop along with the witnesses and sent Suresh Chandra, complainant to call Ram Babu appellant to reach the said shop. Thereafter the Vigilance Inspector accompnied by the witnesses reached at Laxmi Sweet Centre, Bijnor wherebe took a post in the back portion of the shop along with the witnesses and sent Suresh Chandra, complainant to call Ram Babu appellant to reach the said shop. Ram Babu shortly after reached the said shop in the company of Suresh Chandra Complainant and started taking tea with Suresh Chandra and then, Suresh Chandra requested Ram Babu Sharma to get a licence issued to him at an early date. Thereupon Ram Babu appellant demanded payment of Rs. 100/- as promised and, then Suresh Chandra gave two currency notices worth Rs. 50/ - (fifty) to Ram Babu appellant who then promised to issue a licence at the earliest and also to remove the inconvenience caused to Suresh Chandra. Having heard the conversation between the accused and the complainant and also having seen the giving and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 100/- the Vigilance Inspector came out from the back portion of the shop and after disclosing his identity he arrested the accused and recovered two currency notes of Rs. 50/- from the possession of the appellant Ram Babu. He also got the right hand of Ram Babu washed in the Sodium Carbonate and took a sample of the said water in a clean philal. Thereafter he got the right hand of Suresh Chandra Washed in the water of Sodium Corbonate and also took a sample of the said water. He also got the right pocket of Ram Babu washed with water of Sodium Carbonate and took sample of the same in a clean philal. He also prepared a memo for the same in the presence of the witnesses. Thereafter he took the accused Ram Babu to the Police Station Kotwali City, Bijnor where he lodged a report of the occurrence and on the basis of which the Head Constable prepared a chick report and registered a case against the appellant in the General Diary of the Police Station. ( 5 ) INVESTIGATION of the case was entrusted to Ram Autar (P. W. 6) who after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the accused. ( 6 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that on 25. 10. ( 5 ) INVESTIGATION of the case was entrusted to Ram Autar (P. W. 6) who after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the accused. ( 6 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that on 25. 10. 1979, the complainant Suresh Chandra, Shiv Kumar and Radhey Mohan came to him and requested for issuing a licence of retail and on 25. 10. 1979 the appellant also realised the license fee from these persons. He further stated that on 26. 12. 1979, the aforesaid persons again came to the appellant to Pay the Mandi Samiti fee and as such the appellant had prepared a receipt Ex. Ka-6 for the payment of Mandi Samiti fee of Rs, 100/- But when he demanded the said fee, Suresh Chandra look time to pay the same on the ground that the amount was short and, after 15 or 20 minutes Suresh Chandra returned in his office and put the currency notes on the table and then Sri Tyagi entered the office along with police constables and arrested him and falsely implicated in this case. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined in all six Witnesses and out of them Suresh Chandra Agarwal (P. W. 3), Radhey Mohan (P. W. 4) and Sri Som Dult Tyagi (P. W. 1) were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence. The accused has also examined 3 witnesses, namely Mohan Singh (P. W. 1) Shyam Singh (p. W. 2) and Sanjiv Rajan (P. W. 3 ). ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence produced in the case came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charge against the accused and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. ( 9 ) SURESH Chandra (P. W. 3) is the applicant and he has narrated the whole prosecution story in detail. He has admitted in cross-examination that on 6. 11. 1979 the appellant Ram Babu had served a notice on him to submit the particulars of the goods purchased by him, and that the appellant had also served on him earlier 3 notices in 1978 and 1979. It was also admitted by him that the accused had issued notice to him for producing the particulars of goods for leveying Mandi Samiti fee. It thus shows that the complainant had enmity with accused from before the occurrence. It was also admitted by him that the accused had issued notice to him for producing the particulars of goods for leveying Mandi Samiti fee. It thus shows that the complainant had enmity with accused from before the occurrence. ( 10 ) THE accused had also produced receipt dated 26. 10. 1979 Ex. Kha-6 for Rs. 100. 60 in the name of Sita Ram and Suresh Chandra of Bijnor. This receipt does not bear the signature of Ram Babu Sharma. By producing the receipt the accused had tried to show that he had prepared the receipt for Rs. 100. 60 in connection with the payment of Mandi Samiti fee which was due on the complainant. He has also stated that the complainant came to him in his office to deposit the Mandi Sulk of Rs. 100. 60 and then he (accused) had prepared the aforesaid receipt for the same but when the said amount was demanded by him from the complainant he promised to pay the same within 10-15 minutes and went out of the office. Thereafter Suresh Chandra same back again and he put two currency notes of Rs. 50/ each on his table and put his hand in his pocket to pay the balance and soon after Sri Sam Dutt Tyagi Vigilance Inspector accompanied by police constable came there and arrested him. ( 11 ) THE learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the defence version only on the ground that the appellant did not produce any person or the clerk of his office in his defence. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not realised the extent of burden of proof which lies on the accused in rebuttal of the charge. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on Man Singh v. Delhi Administration where it has been held that for dislodging the charge, strict standared of proof is not necessary. It is sufficient if the accused offers a probable explanation as he is not required to prove his defence by strict standard of proof of reasonable doubt. In the present case, the accused Ram Babu Sharma has offered an explanation which is probable and also acceptable. It is sufficient if the accused offers a probable explanation as he is not required to prove his defence by strict standard of proof of reasonable doubt. In the present case, the accused Ram Babu Sharma has offered an explanation which is probable and also acceptable. ( 12 ) IT is note worthy that the prosecution did not examine any employee or proprietor Laxmi Sweet Centre where the whole transaction of bribe is alleged to have taken place and there is no plausible explanation on the record by the prosecution as to why no. one was produced from amongest them. The prosecution, besides the complainant, has examined Radhey Mohan who belongs to the bradri of complainant Suresh Chandra and he is also inimical to the accused in as much as the appellant had served a notice on firm Bhagwan Dass Harswaroop Mal on 19. 3. 1979, 17. 11. 1978 and 8. 10. 1978 prior to this incident and Radhey Mohan being the proprietor of the firm Bhawan Dass Herswaroop Mal had also filed objection Ex. Kha S. 4 dated 7. 10. 1978 against the notice of payment of Mandi Samiti Fee. The accused has also filed copy of Disperch. Registrar Ex. Khe-1 and Khe-3 and copy of notice dated 29. 3. 1979 Ex. Kha-2 and Kha-5. The trial court has also held Radhey Mohan (J>. W. 4) not independent witness on account of notice issued aginst him by the accused prior to the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge had also expressed his displeasure in pargraph 26 of judgment that the Vigilance Inspector should have made efforts to secure the presence of independent witnesses at the time of laying the trap and he should not have secured the presence of witnesses like Radhey Mohan and Suresh Chandra; complainant who were admittedly disposed with the secured or against whom the accused had served show cause notices and challenged them before the court. He should have secured the presence of the independent witness of the locality so that the Court might feel safe to place reliance on the testimony of independent witnesses and the chance of false implication of public servant in the above case may be reduced. Under the circumstance, as discussed above it is difficult to hold that the complainant Suresh Chandra (P. W. 3) and Radhey Mohan (P. W. 4) are reliable witnesses. Under the circumstance, as discussed above it is difficult to hold that the complainant Suresh Chandra (P. W. 3) and Radhey Mohan (P. W. 4) are reliable witnesses. ( 13 ) SRI Scm Dutt Tyagi had no enmity with the appellant but he being the incharge of the trap party was highly interested in the success of the trap and it will be highly unsafe to place implicit reliance on his testimony in the absence of examination of independent witnesses who were admittedly present inside the Laxmi Sweet Centre where the alleged trap was laid and the alleged bribe money was said to have been recovered from the accused. His conduct is also not above board in not producing independent witnesses of the locality who were admittedly available. Under the circumstance the evidence of Sri Scm Dutt Tyagi does not inspire confidence. ( 14 ) THE conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, thus, deserves to be set aside. ( 15 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences against the appellant recorded by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor are set-aside. The appellant Ram Babu Sharma is on bail. He need not surrender. His ball bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .