Honble N.L. TIBREWAL, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 31, 1977 of Special Judge for A.C.D. Cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No- 27/76 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(l)(a) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short, I.P.C. Act) to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-under each court (in default of payment of fine to farther undergo one month S.I.). The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. 2. In brief, the prosecution case can be narrated at the relevant time the appellant was a Patwari and was posted in the area Jagatsingh Walla, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar. The complainant, Jagir Singh (P.W.4), was allotted agricultural land in Chak No. 33 M.L. bearing Morabba No. 56, measuring... .....Killa for temporary cultivation. His application for permanent allotment of the said land was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Sri Ganga-nagar on August 23, 1975. The Addl. Collector had dismissed the application on the basis of a report made by the accused appellant to the effect that the complainant was not a landless person. In the evening of 1.10.75, the complainant submitted an application (Exhibit P.11" to P.W. 7 Babulai Sharma, Additional S.P., Anti Corruption Department, Sriganganagar. In the said application it was stated by the complainant that he was having temporary allotment of agricultural land in Chak No. 33-M.L. and on his application for permanent allotment of the said land, an appeal was pending before the Commissioner, Bikaner. In the said appeal he needed a verification from the concerned Patwari of his being landless person. It was also stated in the said application that he approched to the Tehsildar Raisinghnagar and moved an application seeking verification that he was holding no other land except the land allotted to him for temporary cultivation. The said application was forwarded to the Patwari of the area vide order of the Tehsildar dated 27.9.75. The application is Exhibit P. 10. on the record. It was further stated that he (complainant) went to the appellant, who was the Patwari of the area, with the said application, but he demanded Rs. 100/- for its verification, which he do not want to give. 3. After receipt of the said application, the Additional, S.P. directed the complainant to come on the next day in the morning. It was further stated that he (complainant) went to the appellant, who was the Patwari of the area, with the said application, but he demanded Rs. 100/- for its verification, which he do not want to give. 3. After receipt of the said application, the Additional, S.P. directed the complainant to come on the next day in the morning. On the next day, the complainant came in the Office of the Additional S. P. accompanied by Dudnath and Laxrni Prasad. A trap was arranged by Additional S. P. and the aforesaid two persons were made Motbir witnesses. The complainant gave a currency note of Rs. 100/- which was powdered with Phynolphthalene in the presence of the witnesses and necessary memos were prepared in which the number of the currency note was also noted. The currency note, then, was handed over to the complainant (decoy) for giving it to the appellant as bribe. On the same day, the Additional S.P. along with the aforesaid Motbir witnesses, complainant and other police personnels went to the village of the appellant in a jeep. The complainant was sent to the house of the accused appellant to find out if he was present there. The complainant went to the house of the accused and after his return, he intimated to the Additional S.P. that the accused had gone to Chak No. 1 MP in connection with production of girdawari. The complainant also intimated to the Additional S.P. that the accused will accept the bribe amount at Chak No. 1 M. P. The trap party then went to Chak No. 1 MP. The Jeep was stopped at a distance of one furlong and the complainant was sent to Chak No.l MP along with the Motbir witness Dudnath after giving necessary instructions. After sometime the Motbir Dudnath came back and he gave a signal, as previously agreed Thereupon the other members of the trap party went to the accused appellant who was sitting under a tree in Chak No. 1 MP. The accused and the complainant were sitting on a cot alongwith Preetam Singh and Ram Chetan. The Additional S. P. then introduced himself to the appellant and asked him as to whether he had taken Rs. 100/- as bribe. As per complainant himself, the accused appellant denied at that time that he had taken Rs. The accused and the complainant were sitting on a cot alongwith Preetam Singh and Ram Chetan. The Additional S. P. then introduced himself to the appellant and asked him as to whether he had taken Rs. 100/- as bribe. As per complainant himself, the accused appellant denied at that time that he had taken Rs. 100 as bribe and he gave explanation at that time that the currency note of Rs. 100/- was given to him as re-payment of the amount which was borrowed by the complainant. On the instructions of the Additional S.P. a search was made and Rs. 172.20 were recovered from the pocket of the Kurta of the appellant which he was wearing at that time. This amount was including the currency note of Rs. 100/- having the signature of the Additional S.P. After recovery of the said amount, the Additional S.P. completed all the formalities of preparing the seizure memos etc. The hands of the accused were also got washed from water in two- ¦different glasses. It is alleged that the colour of the water turned light rozy. The water was sealed in two bottles, Articles 1 and 2. The pocket of the Kurta from which Rs. 172.20 were recovered was also got washed from Sodium Carbonate and the mixture was put in a bottle Article 5 and the same was sealed. The Additional S.P. himself made the investigation. On the information of the accused (Exhibit-P. 11), the application (Exhibit P. 10) was recovered vide memo (Exhi-bit.-P.8) and Site Plan (Exhibit-P.9) was also prepared. Then a report was made at Police Chowki. After registration of the case, the Additional S.P. (A.C.D.) himself completed the entire investigation. After obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute the appellant, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Special Judge for Anti Corruption Department Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. Charges under Section 16 IPC and Section 5(1(d)(2) of the PC. Act were framed against the appellant on 10.10.76. In the course of trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W.I Narendra Kumar Verma was examined to prove the sanction to prosecute the appellant which is exhibit- P.l. P.W.2 Laxmi Prasad and P.W.3 Dudnath are the Metbir witnesses. P.W. 4 is complainant (decoy) Jagir Singh. P.W.5 is Chetan Ram who is said to be present at the time of giving the bribe to the appellant. P.W.I Narendra Kumar Verma was examined to prove the sanction to prosecute the appellant which is exhibit- P.l. P.W.2 Laxmi Prasad and P.W.3 Dudnath are the Metbir witnesses. P.W. 4 is complainant (decoy) Jagir Singh. P.W.5 is Chetan Ram who is said to be present at the time of giving the bribe to the appellant. P.W. 6 is Subhash Chandra, who was Tehsildar at the relevant time before whom the application exhibit-P. 10 was submitted by the complainant and the same was forwarded to the appellant. P. W.7 is Babulal Sharma, who was Additional S.P. (Anti Corruption Department), Sri Ganganagar. He had arranged the trap and had also investigated the case. 5. In defence four witnesses were examined, they are, namely, D.W. 1 Bhomraj, D.W. 2 Bahadur, D.W. 3 Minta Singh and D.W. 4 Vichitra Singh. 6. Before dealing with the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I would like to discuss the evidence, in brief, which has come on record. P.W. 2 Laxmi Prasad and P.W. 3 Dudnath are the most important and material witnesses in the case as they were deputed as Motbir witnesses in the trap party. P.W. Laxmi Prasad has stated that on 2.10.75 he was working as a Peon in the Municipal Council, Sriganganagar and he was called by the Additional S.P. through the witness Dudnath. Then he has given out the formalities completed by the Additional S.P. before laying the trap. According to this witness, after completing the formalities, currency. Note of Rs. 100/- was given to the complainant with the direction to hand it over to the accused appellant on demand of the same. He was further directed to give signal to the trap party by putting his hand on his beard. According to this witness, no direction was given to him. He further stated that Jagir Singh, complainant, and Dudnath went to the accused while he was sitting in the Jeep along with the other members of the trap party. The accused was not found in his village then he was taken to another village. There too, the complainant Jagir Singh and the witness Dudnath went to the accused. After sometime, Jagir Singh (complainant) gave signal to Dudnath and Dudnath came to the police party and intimated about it. The accused was not found in his village then he was taken to another village. There too, the complainant Jagir Singh and the witness Dudnath went to the accused. After sometime, Jagir Singh (complainant) gave signal to Dudnath and Dudnath came to the police party and intimated about it. The police party then went to the accused who was sitting on a cot under a tree in an open place. The Additional S.P. and the members of the trap party then went to the accused. The hands of the accused were washed with water which turned in light Rozy colour. The water of the right hand turned in light Rozy colour, while the colour of the water of left hand did not change in light Rozy colour. The water was then put in different bottles which were seized. The accused was then asked about the currency note of Rs, 100/-. He further stated that the accused was wearing a Kurta and Rs. 172.20 were recovered from the pocket of the Kurta which included the currency note of Rs. 100/- he also testified all other formalities which were performed by the Additional S.P. at that time- 7. In cross-examination this witness admitted that some other persons were also sitting on the cot of the accused when they reached there. He further stated that the accused had given an explanation to the Additional S.P., when he was asked by him, that Jagir Singh had returned the amount of loan which was borrowed by him. This witness also stated that at the time, when the explanation was given, Jagir Singh complainant did not refute this fact and remained silent. 8. P.W. 3 Dudnath had given more or less similar statement. According to this witness, at the time when the trap was conducted, he followed Jagir Singh. The accused was sitting on a cot under a tree and he was called by Jagir Singh. Thereafter Jagir Singh and Bikram Singh accused went in a side and returned at the cot after 4-5 minutes. He also stated that when the Additional S.P. asked about the money then the accused gave the reply that the same were in his pocket. In cross-examination, this witness also admitted that the accused had given an explanation on the spot when asked by the Additional S.P., that the amount was returned by the complainant which was borrowed by him. He also stated that when the Additional S.P. asked about the money then the accused gave the reply that the same were in his pocket. In cross-examination, this witness also admitted that the accused had given an explanation on the spot when asked by the Additional S.P., that the amount was returned by the complainant which was borrowed by him. He further stated that the complainant remained silent when he was asked by the Additional S.P., but subsequently, he stated that he had given the amount as bribe. 9. Jagir Singh, complainant, has tried to testify the entire story. In cross-examination this witness admitted that his application for permanent allotment of the land was dismissed by the S.D.M. about six months prior. About the demand, the witness stated that the said demand was made after three days of making the application (Exhibit P. 10) by him to Tehsildar and there was no body else when the demand was made by the accused. He also admitted that his house was situated at a distance of 3-4 Murabbas from the Patwar Ghar. Then he stated that the accused had demanded the amount of fees two to three times. He then stated that the demand was made second time when exhibit P. 10 was handed over to the accused. Then he stated that the demand was made five days prior to the submission of the application before Additional S.P. He also admitted that he did not make any complaint to any villager about the demand of bribe made by the accused. He further stated that at the time when the was given by him, the Sarpanch Preetam and witness Chetan Ram were present amount and none else was present. He also admitted that the time and place of giving the amount of bribe to the accused were not fixed. He then stated that exhibit-P. 10 was with him when the accused demanded the bribe first of all, but he did not give the application on that day. Then he stated that he did not meet with the accused a day prior to making the report to the Additional S.P., Anti Corruption. Then this witness was confronted the portion A to B of Exhibit-P. 11 (application which was made to Additional S.P. for trap) in which it was mentioned that the demand of bribery was made a day prior of making the said application. Then this witness was confronted the portion A to B of Exhibit-P. 11 (application which was made to Additional S.P. for trap) in which it was mentioned that the demand of bribery was made a day prior of making the said application. The witness replied that the demand was made only one day prior and not five days prior as earlier stated by him. Then this witness was also confronted from portion A to B of Exhibit D. 1 which is a statement recorded by the Magistrate. The witness denied to have given this statement. He also admitted that on the spot, on being asked by the Additional S.P. the accused had given explanation that the complainant had returned the amount which was borrowed by him. 10. P.W. 5 Chetan Ram, a witness, who is said to be present at the time of giving the amount has stated that when the money was given by Jagir Singh complainant to the accused, he told him take your money. Though this witness has declared hostile, but in cross-examination this witness also stated that on being asked by the Additional S.P., the accused had replied that Rs. 100/- were returned by the complainant which was borrowed by him. He also admitted that about a month prior to the occurrence, the complainant had borrowed Rs. 100/- from the accused. Then this witness stated that the accused had got the allotment of the land of complainant rejected, as such, he was annoyed and had declared that he will take the revenge from him. 11. This is in all the prosecution evidence. D.W. 1 Bhomraj and D.W. 2 Bahadur were examined in defence to prove that Rs. 100/-were borrowed by the complainant Jagir Singh in their presence. D.W. 3 Minta Singh and D.W. 4 Vichitra Singh have testified that they were sent to the complainant by the accused for the return of the amount borrowed by him. 12. The learned counsel, for the appellant has challenged the conviction of the appellant on various grounds. His first submission is that in the trap cases, the prosecution evidence with regard to the demand should be scrutinized carefully as the demand of bribe is the basis on which the entire structure of the trap is based. 12. The learned counsel, for the appellant has challenged the conviction of the appellant on various grounds. His first submission is that in the trap cases, the prosecution evidence with regard to the demand should be scrutinized carefully as the demand of bribe is the basis on which the entire structure of the trap is based. According to the learned counsel, if the evidence about making the demand by the accused is found faulty or unbelievable then it destroys the entire prosecution case. The learned counsel further submits that in the instant case, besides the statement of the decoy witness, there is no independent witness to corroborate his testimony that Rs. 100/- were given by him as bribe amount. He further urged that the position of a decoy witness is that of an accomplish and unless his evidence is corroborated by an independent witness/ evidence, the same cannot be acted upon as evidence for recording the conviction. The learned counsel then argued that the accused appellant had given spontaneous explanation immediately when he was asked by the Additional S.P. and the said explanation was given by him in the presence of the complainant & the complainant did not refute the said explanation at that time. According to the learned counsel this circumstance itself distroyes the entire prosecution case that the amount given by the complainant to the accused appellant was bribe amount. The learned counsel further argued that the burden on the accused to establish his plea is not so ordeal as it lies on the prosecution and the burden can be discharged by the accused by mere showing preponderence of probabilities in favour of the plea. According to the learned counsel, under the facts and circumstances, no presumption can be drawn against the appellant under section 4 of the P.C. Act. He further argued that otherwise also the said presumption stood rebutted from the evidence on record. 13. Now I would like to refer the various judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Lachhman Dass V. State of Punjab (1). The conviction of the accused under Section 161 IPC and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the P.C. Act was based on the sole evidence of the complainant. The complainant had reason to harm the accused. The conviction of the accused under Section 161 IPC and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the P.C. Act was based on the sole evidence of the complainant. The complainant had reason to harm the accused. The trial Court convicted the accused for taking bribe depending on the sole evidence of the complainant and the High Court maintained the conviction. The Supreme Court observed as under : "As against this, there is only the sworn testimony of Kishori Lal to compare, because none of the witnesses for the said ever heard any conversation. There is no other witness to support Kishori Lal in what he says. Kishori Lal had reason to harm the appellant as he had twice reduced his bills substantially. There ought to be some other evidence before his word can be accepted which so much other evidence to contradict him. In trap cases at least some panchas over hear the conversation or see something to which they can depose. In this case as against Kishori Lals evidence we have circumstantial and documentary evidence and the evidence of the Executive Officer of Chamanlal and of Ambresh Narain in whose presence the receipt was prepared and given to Kishori Lal. On the whole, therefore, we are satisfied that there is considerable room for doubt in this case and that the statement of Kishori Lal which alone is the foundation of the charge against the appellant cannot be accepted without corroboration." In Pannalal Damodar Ratni v. State of Maharashtra (2) the Appex Court of this Country has observed as under— "It will be seen that the version of the complainant that the appellant asked the complainant whether he bad brought the money and that the complainant told him that he had and that the appellant asked him to pay the money to the second accused is not spoken to by the Panch witness P.W. 3. According to Panch witness on the complainant asking the appellant whether his work will be achieved, the appellant assured him in the affirmative and the appellant told the complainant what was to be given to the second accused, it is significant that P.W. 3 does not mention about the appellant asking the complainant whether he had brought the money and on the complainant replying in the affirmative asking the complainant to pay the money to the second accused. Omission by P.W. 3 to refer to any mention of money by the appellant would show that there is no corroboration regarding the demand for the money by the appellant. On this crucial aspect, therefore it has to be found that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant on this aspect cannot be relied on". In Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Adm.) (3) it was held that mere recovery of certain money from the person of the accused without any other circumstances, was not sufficient for drawing of the presumption of section 4 (1) of P.C. Act. 14. In Vijay Dan v. The State of Rajasthan (4), it was held that the accused can discharge the 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 sec. 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 preponderence of probabilities in his favour. In Shiv Nandan v. State(5) this Honble Court observed that in trap cases corroboration of the evidence of the decoy is mandatory. This observation has been made on the basis of the judgment in Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra (supra). With regard to the Motbir witnesses this Court observed that they were required to watch and hear the conversation and in the absence of the evidence as to what transpired between the decoy, and the accused at. the time of passing of the currency notes, it cannot be said that it was for the accused to explain the circumstance under which he had received the currency notes. In this connection, para No. 34 of the above judgment, may be referred for conve-nience:- "As said earlier, Sugandass (P.W. 3) and Magan Behari (P.W. 4) were choosen as panch witnesses and they have been directed during trap to watch and hear the activity and conversation with the appellant. But, these two witnesses did not say even a single word with regard to the conversation held in between the appellant and the decoy. But, these two witnesses did not say even a single word with regard to the conversation held in between the appellant and the decoy. They are the witnesses only of trap which has not been disputed by the appellant. In this view of the matter, it can be said that the panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution story on the real controversy and in the absence of which, it cannot be said that the offence against the appellant has been brought home. There is no clear evidence about what talk preceded the of the currency notes. It cannot be said that even if the prosecution had not indicated what exactly the conversation was, once the passing of the currency notes was accepted it was for the accused to explain the circumstance under which the same had been received and in a given case, the appellant has explained in his statement which is probable and proved by the documents as well as the prosecution testimony, referred to above that an amount of Rs. 25/- was repaid to him by the decoy towards the debt owed to him by the appellant". In Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (6) this Court did not believe the statement of decoy alone on the question of the alleged demand of illegal gratification. In Bal Krishan Sayal v. State of Punjab (7) the Supreme Court took into consideration un-saiisfactory character of the prosecution evidence in regard to the conversation preceding the passing of the currency notes while holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In the light of the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Apex Court of the Country, as stated above, I have to examine the present case. 16. In the bribe cases, the demand of illegal gratification is the basis upon which the entire pyramid of the case stands. The evidence of demand of illegal gratification is an integral part of the story. The story starts from the demand of illegal gratification and ends on the acceptance of the same. The evidence of demand assumes more importance when it is disputed by the accused that the amount received by him was not illegal gratification. Therefore, I have to minutely scrutinize the prosecution evidence on this fact. The only evidence on this point is that of the decoy PW 4 Jagir Singh. The evidence of demand assumes more importance when it is disputed by the accused that the amount received by him was not illegal gratification. Therefore, I have to minutely scrutinize the prosecution evidence on this fact. The only evidence on this point is that of the decoy PW 4 Jagir Singh. In the application Exhibit P. 11 made to the Additional S.P. (Anti Corruption Department), it was stated that the demand was made on the day prior to the said application. However, this witness, in his statement in the Trial Court, had given a different story and time for the alleged demand made by the appellant. The witness has stated that the accused had demanded the amount after three days of his submitting the application, Exhibit P. 10, before Tehsildar. This application was made on 27.9.75. So as per this statement the amount was demanded on 30.9.75. Then this witness stated that this amount was demanded 2-3 times and further stated that the demand was made second time when Exhibit-P. 10 was given to the accused. Exhibit-P 10 was given to the accused on 1.10.75 Then this witness stated that the demand was made five days prior to his giving the application in the Anti Corruption Department. When this witness was confronted about the contradiction on this fact from the fact mentioned in the application Exhibit P. 10, the witness changed his version and said that he demand was not made five days prior to the giving of the said application, but it was made only one day prior. The witness was also confronted from his previous statement Exhibit-D. 1 portion A to B recorded by the Magistrate. In Exhibit D-l he has given a different story about the demand made by the accused. Thus a scrutiny of the statement of the complainant Jagir Singh on the point of the alleged demand made by the accused, it is clear that he has made inconsistent and contradictory statements and on what day and on what occasion the appellant made the demand of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification. He has even denied his previous statement given to the Magistrate on this point. There is no other evidence on this fact. Therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant had made a demand of Rs. 100/- from the decoy as! illegal gratification. 17. 100/- as illegal gratification. He has even denied his previous statement given to the Magistrate on this point. There is no other evidence on this fact. Therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant had made a demand of Rs. 100/- from the decoy as! illegal gratification. 17. In this connection, one more factor is also material to be stated. As per the prosecution case itself, the accused appellant had already made a report/verification to the effect that the complainant Jagir Singh was not a landless person as he was already having agricultural land, and on the basis of his report/verification, the Collector had rejected his application. It is alleged by the prosecution that an appeal against the said order was pending in which the complainant needed a report/verification about the fact that he was having no other agricultural land. One fails to understand that how the appellant, who had already given a report/verification, could have given a different report on this fact; as such, there was hardly any occasion for the appellant to have made the demand of money as illegal gratification. In the same proceeding, as per the prosecution, the verification was needed by the complainant in which the appellant had already given his report/verification to the effect that the was not a landless person. Then no evidence was produced by the prosecution to establish that any such verification or report was again demanded by the appellate Court. Therefore, judged from any angle, it is highly doubtful that the appellant could have made any such demand or in fact made a demand of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification to make a verification in favour of the complainant Jagir Singh. 18. Once this evidence is dis-believed, then the entire prosecution story about acceptance of amount as illegal gratification by the accused shatters. Otherwise also, I may examine the evidence about the acceptance of Rs. 100/-as illegal gratification by the appellant. 19. As already stated, two Motbir witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Laxmi Prasad and P.W. 3 Dudnath were deputed to watch and hear the conversation between the decoy and the accused at the time of passing the money in the course of trap arranged by the Anti Corruption Department. 100/-as illegal gratification by the appellant. 19. As already stated, two Motbir witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Laxmi Prasad and P.W. 3 Dudnath were deputed to watch and hear the conversation between the decoy and the accused at the time of passing the money in the course of trap arranged by the Anti Corruption Department. It is noteworthy that none of these witnesses has stated that they heard or tried to hear the conversation between them so as to say that the amount of Rs. 100/- was passed on by the decoy as illegal gratification to the accused. As per the statement of P.W. 2 Laxmi Prasad, he did not go with the decoy and remained contended by sitting in the Jeep along with police personnels of the trap party. P.W. 3 Dudnath, though followed the decoy at the time of passing the amount, but he has not stated a single word about the conversation and talk which took place between the decoy and the accused so as to deduct from the said talk/ conversation that the amount of Rs. 100/- was received by the appellant as illegal gratification. Thus, an important piece of evidence of the conversation/ talk at the time of passing of the amount is completely missing which could have shown that the amount of Rs. 100/- was as illegal gratification. P.W. 4 Jagir Singh has stated that when he gave the currency note of Rs. 100/- to the accused Sarpanch Preetam and Chetan Ram were there. Sarpanch Preetam was not examined by the prosecution and Chetan Ram appeared as P.W. 5. Chetan Ram or Chetram has stated that at the time of handing over currency note of Rs. 100/- to the accused, Jagir Singh said "take your money". Though this witness was declared hostile, but still there is some evidence to indicate that the amount accepted by the accused appellant was not as illegal gratification. Then the only evidence remains that of the decoy P.W. 4. Now it is well settled that the evidence of a decoy cannot be accepted without in-dependant corroboration as his evidence also stands on the footing of an accomplish, further, Jagir Singh has made contradictory and inconsistent statements about the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. He has even denied his statement, portion A to B of Exhibit-D. 1, recorded by the Magistrate. He has even denied his statement, portion A to B of Exhibit-D. 1, recorded by the Magistrate. Thus in my view, the statement of decoy alone cannot be sufficient under the facts and circumstances of the present case that Rs. 100/- paid by him to the appellant in pursuance to the trap was as illegal gratification. 20. The case may also be judged from another angle. The accused has come with an alternative version that the decoy Jagjir Singh had borrowed Rs. 100/- from him and he gave a currency note of Rs. 100/- by saying that he was returning the said amount. In this connection the statement of P. W. 2 Laxmi Prasad, P. W. 3 Dudnath and even of the decoy Jagir Singh may be referred in which they have admitted that when the Additional S. P. came to the accused after getting a signal of passing away the amount, the accused gave spontaneous explanation on being asked by the Additional S. P. that the decoy had borrowed the amount and the same was returned by him. It is further noteworthy that P.W. 2 Laxmi Prasad has stated that when this explanation was given by the accused, the decoy remained silent and did not refute the same. P.W. 3 Dudnath has also stated that on giving this spontaneous explanation by the accused, the Additional S. P. asked Jagir Singh but the remained silent initially but subsequently he stated that he had given the amount as bribe. The decoy P. W. 4 Jagir Singh also admits the above spontaneous explanation by the accused, though he has denied the fact that he did not refute the said version at that time. From the above evidence, one thing is quite clear that the accused appellant had given spontaneous explanation at the time when he was demanded explanation by the Additional S. P. just after his reaching there. From the statement of P.W. 2 Laxmi Prasad it further appears that the decoy remained silent who did not refute the version given by the accused. There is no reason to discard this statement of P.W. 2. Though in the subsequent statement of P.W. 3 Dudnath, an attempt has been made by the prosecution to make improvement from the statement of P.W. 2 Laxmi Prasad on this point that the decoy had refuted the version of the accused. There is no reason to discard this statement of P.W. 2. Though in the subsequent statement of P.W. 3 Dudnath, an attempt has been made by the prosecution to make improvement from the statement of P.W. 2 Laxmi Prasad on this point that the decoy had refuted the version of the accused. But P.W. 3 Dudnath has also stated that initially the decoy remained silent when he was asked by the Additional S. P. on the spontaneous explanation given by the accused and subsequently he stated that it was bribe amount. In my view, this statement is an after thought and appears to have been introduced to explain the statement of P.W. 2 Laxmi Prasad. This conduct of the complainant in not refuting the spontaneous explanation of the accused is a strong telling fact against the prosecution case at the amount of Rs. 100/- was accepted by the appellant as illegal gratification. In Shiv Nandan vs. State (supra) this Court has observed as under:— "All the prosecution witnesses have admitted at that time when the trap was laid and the Dy. S. P. questioned about the money then only answer given out by the appellant in the presence of the decoy was that the amount of loan was repaid by the decoy. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed before the trial Court or in their police statement that the afore said statement of the appellant was controverted by the decoy. The trial Court while discussing the evidence failed to consider this important aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that if the decoy witness would have been honest then he could have immediately controverted the version of the appellant but his silence at that time shows that he did not care to controvert the statement of the appellant rather bore hostility to the appellant. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly of Surya Prakash and of the Dy. S. P. is clear on this point by not stating that the earlier version of the appellant was then controverted by the decoy." 21. Then the prosecution has not examined the Sarpanch Preetam Singh who is stated to be present as per decoy Jagir Singh when the amount of Rs. 100/- was passed on to the accused. S. P. is clear on this point by not stating that the earlier version of the appellant was then controverted by the decoy." 21. Then the prosecution has not examined the Sarpanch Preetam Singh who is stated to be present as per decoy Jagir Singh when the amount of Rs. 100/- was passed on to the accused. P.W. 5 Chetan Ram does not support the prosecution story rather he corroborates the defence version when he stated that at the time of passing the currency note of Rs. 100/- the decoy said to the accused "take your money". The defence witness D.W. 1 Bhomraj, DW. 2 Bahadur, D.W. 3 Minta Singh and D.W. 4 Vichitra Singh have supported the defence version taken by the accused. 22. From the above discussion of the entire evidence, I am of the confirmed view that the prosecution has failed to establish that the amount of Rs. 100/- were given to the accused as illegal gratification. (No presumption can be drawn under Section 4 (1) of the P. C. Act against the appellant under the facts and circumstances of this case. Even otherwise, the said presumption stands rebutted from the prosecution evidence as well as defence witness evidence as discussed above. 23. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences passed against the appellant under section 161 IPC and section 5(1) (d) read with seetion 5(2) of the P. C. Act are set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges. He is on bail and need not surrender. The bail bonds ere discharged.