JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgement and order dated 26.11.82 whereby the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 7/79, held the appellant guilty of the offences under section 161 and under section 5(1 )(d)(ii) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') convicted him as such and sentenced him to undergo R.l. for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- for each of the said offences. 2. Relevant facts are these :During the year 1978 Ram Gopal appellant was posted as Patwari' at village Garh Tiknet in Tehsil Sri Madhopur, Distt. Sikar. PW/1 Nand Ram, an agriculturist resident within his Halqa stood in need of the copy of Khasra girdawari for four years in respect of Khasra No. 650, which was though recorded as 'Charagah' in Revenue record yet was in possession of the said agriculturist. Nand Ram. therefore, sent his nephew PW/3 Nag Ram to obtain the required copy. Nagram allegedly moved the requisite application for copy of the desired document before the appellant but the appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- from him to issuing the copy. Nag Ram informed Nand Ram of the demand of the appellant. Nand Ram contacted the appellant for two or three times. The appellant repeated his demand for bribe. Nand Ram and Nag Ram contacted PW/12 Virendra Kumar, Dy.S.P Anti-Corruption Deptt. on 17.8.78. The Dy.S.P proposed to lays trap on 18.8.78, Nag Ram and one Phoola Ram were made Motabirs. Five currency notes of Rs. 10/- each and one currency note of Rs. 50/- on which Phenolphthalien had been duly applied in presence of the Motabirs were given to Nand Ram and he was directed to give them to the appellant. The Motabirs were directed to witness the delivery of the currency notes by Nand Ram to the appellant and also to hear the talks which takes place between them. Nand Ram was directed to take off his turban after the delivery of the currency notes to the appellant as a sigh of his having done so. The Dy.S.P and his subordinate stationed themselves near the Patwari Ghar at village Garh Tiknet. Nand Ram did as he was directed to do. The appellant after receiving the Phenolphthalienated currency notes of Rs. The Dy.S.P and his subordinate stationed themselves near the Patwari Ghar at village Garh Tiknet. Nand Ram did as he was directed to do. The appellant after receiving the Phenolphthalienated currency notes of Rs. 100/- kept them in the lower drawer of his almirah and issued the desired copy of the revenue record to Nand Ram. On Nand Ram's signal PW/12 Virendra Singh Dy.S.P, PW/6 Dhashrathmal, PW/10 Roop Singh PW/11 Kesar Singh reached the Patwarghar which was in the room in the village Dharamshala. The Dy.S.P asked the appellant whether he had received Rs. 100/- as bribe from Nand Ram. The appellant stated that he had received Rs. 33.10 from Nand Ram and some amount from Nagram towards the amount of penalty which was due from them. The Dy.S.P then took a glass-full of water, added some quantity of Sodium Carbonate to the water, PW/2 Nanag Ram, who was present there, was asked to wash his fingers in that solution but on his doing so the water did not change its colour. Then the appellant was asked to dip his fingers in the solution. On his doing that the water in the glass became pinkish in colour. The appellant was then asked to present the currency notes before the Dy.S.P The appellant took then out from the drawer of his Almira and handed over the. same to the Dy.S.P. The Dy.S.P seized and sealed the sodium carbonated water and the currency notes separately in presence of the witness. On chemical examination the Public Analyst of the State Central Public Health Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur, detected Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein in the solution sent by the Dy.S P. to him. After obtaining the requisite sanction for the proposition from the Collector, PW/13. P. Pramesh Chandra, the police report was submitted and on trial the learned Special Judge held the appellant guilty of the offences under section 161 IPC and under section 5(1 )(d)(ii) of Act of 1947. 3. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, urged that in holding the appellant guilty of the offences under section 161 IPC and under section 5(1 )(d)(ii) of Act of 1947 the truth in the defence plea has been wrongly rejected by the learned trial Judge. 3. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, urged that in holding the appellant guilty of the offences under section 161 IPC and under section 5(1 )(d)(ii) of Act of 1947 the truth in the defence plea has been wrongly rejected by the learned trial Judge. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that PW/1 Nand Ram and his nephew, who both were the star witnesses in the case, were inimical towards the appellant from before the alleged incident and the appellant under the orders of his superior authorities had proceeded against them for their having taken unlawful possession of the Charagah land and had imposed penalties upon them and was presenting hard for realising such penalties from them. Mr. Gupta led me through the evidence available on the record of the lower court and highlighted the fact that both the star witnesses had been declared hostile by the prosecution and that their testimony did not establish the case of the prosecution against the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant had received the amount of Rs. 100/- from the witness towards the penalty and other dues, due from them and his spontaneous and consistent version should have been given due weight. 4. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in appreciating evidence in trap cases the conditions prevailing in the society in general and the public servants coming in direct touch with the people in particular should not be ignored, it was submitted that though Nand Ram and Nag Ram were declared hostile for their not stating the facts as they had stated before the police in the course of the investigation yet their testimony was required to be appreciated alongwith the testimony of other witnesses on the point and it should not be lost sight of that such other witnesses had no enmity with the appellant so as to implicate him in a false case. 5. It is not in dispute in the present case that the currency notes of Rs. 100/-were recovered from the drawer of the Almira of the appellant on the relevant date, time and place and that the Sodium Carbonated water wherein the appellant had washed his fingers was found containing Phenolphthalein. 5. It is not in dispute in the present case that the currency notes of Rs. 100/-were recovered from the drawer of the Almira of the appellant on the relevant date, time and place and that the Sodium Carbonated water wherein the appellant had washed his fingers was found containing Phenolphthalein. The main question for determination in the case, therefore, is whether the currency notes so recovered from the drawn of the Almirah represented the amount of bribe money stated to have been demanded by the appellant from Nand Ram for issuing the copy of the Khasra Girdawari for four years to him. In this behalf the testimony of the decoy witness, PW/1 Nand Ram and the shadow witness PW/3 Nag Ram is of vital importance and is required to be closely examined . 6. In order to appreciate the testimony of the two above mentioned star witnesses of the prosecution it is relevant and necessary to keep in mind the defence version as advanced by the appellant. The defence version of the incident was that PW/1 Nanda had an elder brother in Nathu. Sheopal, PW/2 Nanga, Godha, Bhagwana, Onkar alias Nagram (PW/3) and Kala were the sons of Nathu. Khasra Nos. 593, 650 and 796/1 of village Garh Tiknet were recorded as 'Charagah' in Revenue record and as such vested in the Gram Sabha. Whereas PW/1 Nanda had made unauthorised and unlawful possession of the land of Khasra No. 650 and made a bara on a part thereof and started cultivating the rest, Nag Ram (PW/3) and Sheopal on the land of Khasra No. 796/1 and Nanga (PW/2) on the land of Khasra No. 593 committed similar acts of unlawful possession. DW/3 Nathu Ram. the Village Sarpanch, called the meeting of the village Panchayat on 13.7.78 and at the meeting a decision was taken to remove the unauthorised possession of the villagers from the Charagah and other Govt. lands. The Sarpanch accordingly obtained appropriate orders on 22.7.78 from the Sub-Divisional Officer Neem Ka Thana for measurement of the Charagah land and the proceedings for removal of unauthorised possession was commenced w.e.f. 26.7.78 in the presence of DW/1 Nathu Singh, Adhyaksh Co-operative Society, DW/1 Nathu Ram Sarpanch, other panches and several villagers. The Charagah land was measured and the appellant prepared a report enlisting the names of the trespasser. The Charagah land was measured and the appellant prepared a report enlisting the names of the trespasser. The list prepared contained the names of Nand Ram, Nanag Ram and Nag Ram (PW 1 to PW 3) besides those of several others. That was submitted through PW 7 Manni Lal Girdawar. PW/8 S.D. Gupta, the Tehsildar, thereupon levied penalty of Rs. 54.01 on Nand Ram and of Rs. 152.78 on Sheopal, Nanag Ram, Nag Ram, Bhagwana, Goda, Kaloo. The appellant thereupon demanded the amount of penalty and other dues from Nand Ram who did not pay the same despite made through the sepoy's of the Tehsil, PW/4 Goga Ram and PW/5 Laxman. Thereafter Nand Ram approached him to issue the copy of Khasra No. 650. Nathu Ram Sarpanch was then examining the ration card out side the Patwarghar room. The appellant asked Nanag Ram to pay Rs. 1.92 towards the fee charges for issuing the required copy. Nanda Ram gave a Ten Rupees currency note which he declined to take as he was not having the change with him. The appellant asked Nanag Ram to get the change. Nand Ram asked him to prepare the copy. At that time the appellant felt pain in his stomach and went out of his room and get himself eased. Nand Ram was sitting near the Almirah. After having eased himself and taken tea with the Sarpanch, Adhyaksh and other persons he returned to his room and issued the required copy to Nand Ram and obtained his thumb impression on the relevant registered. At that time the police raiding party and some others entered his room and asked him to take the currency notes from the drawer of the Almirah. On his refusal to do that the Police put pressure on him and on his picking up the notes asked him to dip his fingers in a solution. This is the version which was stated by the appellant in short on being examined under section 313 Cr.PC. and in sufficient detail in the written statement filed by him as part of his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. This is the version which was stated by the appellant in short on being examined under section 313 Cr.PC. and in sufficient detail in the written statement filed by him as part of his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. The defence version, as stated above, stands fully corroborated not only by PW/1 Nathu Ram Sarpanch, DW/2 Surajbhan, DW/3 Nathu Singh, the Adhyaksh of the Co- operative Society but also by the prosecution witnesses namely PW/8 SC Gupta, the then Tehsildar, PW/7 Mangi Lal Girdawar, PW/4 Goga Ram and PW/5 Laxman, the Tehsil peons and PW/9 Bhanwar Singh police constable who had assisted the appellant in his drive against dispossessing unauthorised and unlawful possession on Govt. Land by the prosecution witnesses PW/1 Nand Ram. PW/2 Nanag PW/3 Nag Ram and several others, the resolution passed on 13.7.78 by the village Panchayat (Ex.D/3). and the order dated 23.7.78 from Nathu Ram Sarpanch to the appellant (Ex.D/4) land good support to the version given by the above mentioned witnesses. It is the unchallenged position in this case that at the very time of the incident the appellant had denied to have demanded any bribe either from Nanag Ram or his nephew Nag Ram and that he had at that very time stated that he had asked Nand Ram to pay the penalty and other dues. 8. Judged in the context of the probable truth in the defence version of the incident when we come to appreciate the testimony of the three star witnesses of the prosecution namely PW/1 Nand Ram and his two nephews PW/2 Nanag Ram and PW/3 Nag Ram it becomes quite clear that they were quite inimical towards the appellant and had an animus to falsely implicate the appellant. On going through the testimony of PW/1 Nand Ram it comes out clearly that he could not deny that in the first instant he had delivered a Ten Rupees currency note to the appellant to get the desired document and the appellant had asked him to bring the change as he himself was not having the change. It is also admitted to him and PW/3 Nag Ram that on that day the appellant was having a bad stomach and had gone out to ease himself leaving an open Almira. Both the above named witnesses were declared hostile for admitting those facts. It is also admitted to him and PW/3 Nag Ram that on that day the appellant was having a bad stomach and had gone out to ease himself leaving an open Almira. Both the above named witnesses were declared hostile for admitting those facts. That apart Nand Ram told that he himself had remained out of appellants room when the 100/- Rupees currency notes were given by Nag Ram to the appellant. In substance the testimony of any of the three partial and interested witnesses inspired no confidence so as to hold the appellant guilty of either of the offences he had been charged with. It is to be appreciated that in normal course had the appellant received Rs. 100/- from Nand Ram as bribe money he would have liked the same to be put in his pocket and not in the lower drawer of an open Almira where no other cash had been kept. 9. Section 4 of the Act no doubt created a presumption that when the painted money is recovered from the possession of the accused it may be presumed that he had received such money as a motive, or reward as contemplated in Section 101 CPC but such is a rebuttal presumption which the accused may rebut either from the facts appearing in the prosecution evidence itself or by producing his own evidence in defence. The standard of proof required from the accused for rebutting the presumption is not of that degree which is required to prove his guilt. If the facts and circumstances having a bearing on the presumption and the evidence available in the statements of either the prosecution or examined by him on his defence probables the theory advanced by the accused and such evidence rebut the presumption of law against him, he becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. In the instant case, as has been discussed above, not only the star witnesses had a strong animus against the appellant to implicate him falsely in a case of this type but also there was no independent evidence to prove that the appellant had ever demanded bribe from the prosecution witness. 10. In the instant case, as has been discussed above, not only the star witnesses had a strong animus against the appellant to implicate him falsely in a case of this type but also there was no independent evidence to prove that the appellant had ever demanded bribe from the prosecution witness. The incident is alleged to have taken place at a time, and place when there were present responsible and respected persons including the village sarpanch and the Adhyaksh of the Co-operative Society, who fell within the category of superior to the appellant in relation to the official duties being discharged by him. The facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, went against the truth in the prosecution theory. Whereas the star witnesses of the prosecution were quite inimical to the appellant and are untrustworthy and unreliable, the defence witnesses were quite independent, in partial and respectable persons and are supported in their version Dy the public documents besides the Govt, servants from the Revenue Deptt. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case I hold that neither of the two charges stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. He deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 11. In the result the impugned judgment and order are set aside and the appellant acquitted of the offences under section 161 IPC and Under section 5(1 )(d). 5(2) of the Act. Appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed. *******