JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 374(2) Cr.PC. is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.82 whereby the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases. Jaipur Rajasthan held the appellant guilty of offences under section 161 IPC and Under section 5(1 )(d) r.w. 5(2) of the Anti Corruption Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') convicted him therefor and sentenced him to one year R.l. and fine of Rs. 300/- for each of the said offences. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that on September 19, 1979 PW/2 Ram Nath, a consumer of electric energy at village LABANA under Police Station Chandwaji, Distt. Jaipur, reported to PW/12 Sawai Singh, the Dy.S.P Anti-Corruption wing of the Police Department in Rajasthan, that the appellant, who had then been working as a lineman at Chandwaji in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB), was demanding Rupees 100/- as bribe for replacing the electric meter at his tube-well which was burnt, like 10-12 others, due to some fault in the electric-energy supplying line. A trap was proposed to be laid on the appellant to catch him red-handed. The Dy.S.P therefore called PW/3 Mahendra Singh and PW/4 Mansingh, Lower Division Clerks in the Niyojan Vibhag and applied Phenolphthalein power on five currency notes of Rs. 10/- each and one of Rs. 50/-. The currency notes had been given to the Dy.S.P by Ram Nath and their distinguishing numbers had also been noted down by the Dy.S.P separately. He had initiated them as well, Ram Nath was asked to deliver those currency notes to the appellant and after having done that to comb his hair which act of his was to convey message to the Dy.S.P that bribe had been accepted by the appellant. The two witnesses, named above, were directed to remain present near about the place where Ramnath was to deliver the currency notes to the appellant and listen to the talks exchanged between them and see the transaction of the delivery of the currency notes from Ram Nath to the appellant. Ram Nath's cousin, PW/8 Prabhati was to play the role of the shadow witness. The Dy.S.P then took Ram Nath, Mahendra Singh, Man Singh, named above, PW/9 Ishad Head Constable and some other policemen with him and reached Labana, where Prabhati told them that the appellant had gone to Achrol. The raiding party left for Achrol. Ram Nath's cousin, PW/8 Prabhati was to play the role of the shadow witness. The Dy.S.P then took Ram Nath, Mahendra Singh, Man Singh, named above, PW/9 Ishad Head Constable and some other policemen with him and reached Labana, where Prabhati told them that the appellant had gone to Achrol. The raiding party left for Achrol. The vehicle was stopped at the new Bus Stop and Ram Nath and the witness went to the Old Bus stand in the town. The appellant was there. During the meanwhile the police party headed by the Dy.S.P also reached there leaving the jeep behind. Ram Nath told the appellant that he had brought the demanded money. The appellant and Ramnath then went behind a Piyao where Ram Nath gave the currency notes to him and then-go-bed his hair, Prabhati and the other two witnesses had listened the talks between the appellant and Ramnath and had witnessed the passing of the currency notes from the hands of Ram Nath to the appellant. The appellant had kept the currency notes in his pocket. On noticing the signal, given by Ram Nath, the raiding party rushed to the place and caught hold of the appellant. On being questioned about taking bribe of Rs. 100/- by him from Ram Nath the appellant stated that he had taken no bribe at all but had received Rs. 200/- from him to be deposited with the Deptt. for replacing the burnt metre and that Rs. 221/- were required for work but Ram Nath had promised to give the balance of Rs. 21/- later on. Any way, both the hands of the appellant were got washed in four separate glasses, full of water. Water turned pinkish in colour of two but only dusty in the remaining two. In all Rs. 100/- plus Rs. 166/-, all the currency notes, were recovered from the packet of the appellant. The number of the currency notes of Rs. 100/- recovered from the pocket of the appellant tallied with those already noted by the Dy.S.P. The pocket of the shirt was also got washed. That too gave pinkish colour. The water was filled in bottles and those and the shirt were seized and sealed in presence of the witnesses. The learned trial Judge had accepted this version as also the evidence in support of such version. He decided the defence version as improbable. 3. Mr. That too gave pinkish colour. The water was filled in bottles and those and the shirt were seized and sealed in presence of the witnesses. The learned trial Judge had accepted this version as also the evidence in support of such version. He decided the defence version as improbable. 3. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated either the prosecution evidence or the defence evidence in right perspective. The learned counsel submitted that not only that the decoy and shadow witnesses were not reliable and other witnesses had not supported the demand of bribe by the appellant from Ram Nath but also the spontaneity in the statement made by the appellant at the time of the incident, his normal and natural conduct of not trying his arrest or resisting the same, recovery of more than Rs. 200/- currency notes from his pocket and the testimony of the independent witnesses, Mahendra Singh and Man Singh, and other namely PW/5 Ladoo, PW/6 Kajod, PW/7 Bhagwan Sahai besides that of the defence witnesses Tara Chand and Kalyan made the defence theory highly probable and fully rebutted the presumption creates under section 4 of the Act. Mr. Gupta thus submitted that at any rate the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned Public Prosecutor however supported the impugned judgment and order and further submitted that since the guilty currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant and Ram Nath and his brother Prabhati are seen to be having any ill-will or grudge against the appellant there were no cogent reasons to discard their sworn testimonies. 4. In order to appreciate the testimony of the decoy witness and the shadow witnesses in this case it is necessary that the producer adopted by the RSEB in the matters of burning of electric metres installed for the use of the consumers of electric energy. PW/1 Satyapal Kapoor, the Executive Engineer, PW/11 Dinesh Bhushan, the Assistant Engineer and PW/10 Krishna Bihari the Junior Engineer, are the persons who were working with and for the RSEB at the relevant time. They have stated that where the electric metre gets burnt due to any fault on the part of the consumer, the same is replaced/repaired at the cost of the consumer. They have stated that where the electric metre gets burnt due to any fault on the part of the consumer, the same is replaced/repaired at the cost of the consumer. But there it is burnt due to any fault in supply line or in some other like manner the RSEB, replaces the same without charging any expenses from the consumer. In any case the consumer moves an application to the Assistant Engineer of the RSEB, in-charge of the locality where at the default takes place and the metre gets burnt and he passed appropriate orders in that behalf. The orders are conveyed to the Junior Engineer who depute the concerned Lineman to replace the metre or get the same repaired with the help of the helpless attached with him. The metres are supplied by the RSEB and private purchase thereof is not favoured. In view of this procedure to be adopted for getting a burnt metre either replaced or repaired the prosecution advanced a case that PW/2 Ram Nath had move the requisite application which was sent to the appellant who in his turn delivered the same to his helper Gopal Meena and Gopal Meena had delivered the same to another helper Chanda. The said application was alleged to have been destroyed or lost by the appellant and/or his two helpers. The police had therefore challan and all the three, the appellant for committing offences under section 161 and 201 IPC and under sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Act and Gopal Meena and Chanda under section 201 IPC. On trial the learned trial Judge found no case proved against any of the three for the offence punishable under section 201 IPC and acquitted all of them of the same. Therefore, it is doubtful whether Ram Nath had ever moved an application or not. 5. The case put forth by Ram Nath in the FIR Ex.P/1 was that two or two and half months back 10 to 12 electric metre installed at the tube-well in the village had burnt due to the fault in the electric energy supply line and that on coming to know of that about a month or so back he had moved an application In that respect to the Junior Engineer at Bhanpur and thereafter the appellant had gone to the village to check and examine the metre installed at his tube well. The appellant had then demanded Rs. 100/- for writing a favourable report in his favour but since he did not have that much of money with him he could not give the same to him. He further stated that on 18.9.79 the appellant came to his village and told him that he would again come on the following morning and that he (the witness) should make arrangement of Rs. 100/-. It may be recalled that PW/10 Kishan Bihari is the concerned Junior Engineer and he has stated on oath that Ram Nath had never delivered any application for the purpose in his office. PW/5 Ladoo. a resident of the same village, is also a consumer of electric energy being supplied by the RSEB to his well by the same line which supplies such energy to the well of Ram Nath, has stated that his metre was never burnt, though he had got the same changed or replaced during the last year. PW/6 Kajod is another consumer of electric energy at his well in the same village. He also stated that his metre was not burnt, but had stopped functioning and therefore he had got the same replaced. He had no knowledge about the burning of metre of Ram Nath. Both these witnesses were neither declared hostile nor the defence cross-examined them. Their statement refute the very assertion of Ram Nath and that due to a faulty electric line his metre had been burnt. The conduct of Ram Nath and other consumers of the electric energy from his metre in not reporting the matter to the officers of the RSEB for more than one month at least further suggest that the metre had probably gone out of order or stopped functioning due to some mistake or fault committed by the consumer. An agriculturists consumers the electric energy for agricultural purposes could have hardly afforded to wait for the replacement or repair of the metre which was burnt to some fault or defect in the supply line. That apart Ram Nath was a guard with the Sales Tax Dept. It is not believable that he could not have arranged Rs. 100/- at the relevant time to give to the line man and would have wait for more than two months for the replacement or repairs thereof. This aspect of his conduct and behaviour makes the testimony of this decoy witness quite doubtful. It is not believable that he could not have arranged Rs. 100/- at the relevant time to give to the line man and would have wait for more than two months for the replacement or repairs thereof. This aspect of his conduct and behaviour makes the testimony of this decoy witness quite doubtful. 6. The three witnesses from the RSEB. who are responsible and respectable officers, have stated that a metre which is required to be replaced on account of the default of the consumer, is replaced on his depositing a sum of Rs. 200/- with the RSEB. Viewed in the context of this procedural requirement of RSEB in such matters and the doubtful nature of the version given by the decoy witness Ram Nath and his elder brother Prabhati, the defence version is required to be treated at the alter of probability. The version given by the appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 and in the written statement filed in support thereof is to the effect that Ram Nath had contacted him at Achrol and asked for the replacement of the defective or out of order metre and thereupon he had asked the witness to deposit Rs. 221/- with the RSEB to meet the required expenses. Ram Nath had asked him to come to the Purana Bus stop where his elder brother Prabhati would bring the required money and the same would be paid to him there. The appellant reached there and when he and the decoy witness and his brother were taking tea on a restuarent Ram Nath gave him Rs. 200/- currency notes which he kept in the pocket of his shirt and asked him to pay Rs. 21/- more which he promised to give. It was at that time that the raiding party reached there and took search of his pocket and seized more than Rs. 200/- from there. This version has been supported not only by DW/1 Tara Chand and DW/2 Kalyan who are stated to be present there at the relevant time but also by PW/7 Bhagwan Sahai, the hotelwala at the Bus Stop and to a great extent by the two independent witnesses, PW/3 Mahendra Singh and Man Singh, LDCs. Recovery of more than Rs. 200/- from the pocket of the appellant is admitted even to PW/12 Sawai Singh. Dy.S.P himself besides the alleged two independent witnesses. Recovery of more than Rs. 200/- from the pocket of the appellant is admitted even to PW/12 Sawai Singh. Dy.S.P himself besides the alleged two independent witnesses. Curiously enough neither the two independent witnesses not the shadow witness PW 8 Prabhati. the cousin of the decoy witness state to have heard the talks which allegedly took place between the appellant and Ram Nath. Prabhati even admitted that he had come to know of the arrest of the appellant from the appellant himself. This witness was a co-consumer of the electric energy being supplied by the RSEB to the well of Ram Nath and he denied that the appellant had demanded bribe. According to him the appellant had told them that they shall have to incur some expenditure for replacement of the metre. In the seizure memo Ex.P/3 it is clearly mentioned that apart from the currency notes of Rs. 100/- alleged to have been given by Ram Nath to the appellant by way of bribe one currency notes of Rs. 100/-, one of Rs. 20/-, nine of Rs. 5/- each and one of Rs. 10/- denominations were also recovered from the same from pocket on left side of the shirt of the appellant. It is in evidence that the currency notes given by Ram Nath to the appellant had not been counted by him and had kept them in his pocket. There is no convincing evidence on the point that the currency notes given by Ram Nath to the appellant had been recovered as kept separately by the appellant in his pocket. 7. Section 4 of the Act no doubt creates a presumption against the bona fides of the accused when the bribe money is recoveries from his possession, but the presumption so created by that provision of law is a rebuttable presumption and an accused may rebut such presumption either on relying upon the facts coming out from prosecution evidence himself or by adducing satisfactory evidence in his defence. For the success of the defence version it is sufficient that the version given by the accused in his defence is probable and accords with the normal human conduct and behaviour, relevant to the facts and circumstances of the given case. For the success of the defence version it is sufficient that the version given by the accused in his defence is probable and accords with the normal human conduct and behaviour, relevant to the facts and circumstances of the given case. In the instant case in the totality of the circumstances of this case the defence version cannot be rejected as being improbable and the evidence in support of such version, coming out of either the prosecution evidence itself or from the month of the defence witnesses, cannot be rejected as being after thought and devoid of any truth and merits therein. The defence version weekends the probative value of the already doubtful prosecution evidence led by the decoy and shadow witnesses. In substance reasonable doubt is created in the truthfulness of the prosecution evidence and therefore the benefit of such doubt, to my mind, should go to the appellant. 8. In the result the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under sections 161 IPC and 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Act are set aside and he is acquitted of those offences. Consequently the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge passed in this case are set aside and the appeal allowed.Appeal allowed. *******