Judgment SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) NAGGING question that cropped up in the instant appeal is whether payerts testimony can be relied upon in a bribery case in absence of reassuring support. ( 2 ) THE instant appeal impugns the judgment dated March 22, 1984 of the learned Special Judge, C. B. I. Jaipur whereby the accused appellant (for short the accused) was convicted as under: Under Section 161, IPC to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the Act) to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/ -. In default of payment of fine to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Both these substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 3 ) BRIEF resume of the facts is that on 23-7-1979 one Tularam (for short the decoy) made a complaint before the RS. O. Bikaner stating therein that accused Charan Singh demanded bribe of Rs. 250/- and he wanted to trap him red-handed. The aforesaid complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, SPE Jaipur for necessary action. The Superintendent of Police SPE Jaipur, directed to Shri P. N. Shukla, Dy. S. P. to proceed to Suratgarh to verify the contents and to take further necessary action in the matter. He was also directed to take Shri J. S. Bagaria, Inspector, Shri H. C. Singh Inspector and F. C. Balu Singh. Shri P. N. Shukla in pursuance of the directions reached Suratgarh on 25-7-1979 at 11. 00 hrs. Decoy Tula Ram appeared before him at about 14. 30 hrs. , who interrogated him. Decoy confirmed the contents of the application and stated that Shri Charan Singh accused was demanding bribe of Rs. 250/- to be paid to him for continuance of his temporary gang beyond 14-8-1979 the sanctioned period. Tularam was directed again to contact Shri Charan. Singh accused anti to find out whether he was still demanding the money and also to fix place and time when he would accept the said bribe. About 4. 00 p. m. Shri Tularam again appeared before Shri P. N. Shukla and informed that Charan Singh accused was still demanding the bribe and he has desired that it should be paid tomorrow either in the morning at about 7. 00 hrs or at about 3. About 4. 00 p. m. Shri Tularam again appeared before Shri P. N. Shukla and informed that Charan Singh accused was still demanding the bribe and he has desired that it should be paid tomorrow either in the morning at about 7. 00 hrs or at about 3. 30 p. m. when he would be going to his office from his house on the Broad Gauge platform. Accordingly Tula Ram was directed to report at 6. 00 a. m. alongwith money which intends to give as bribe. Presence of witnesses was also arranged at 6. 00 a. m. through Shri H. C. Singh. Inspector. After the departure of the decoy the Dy. S. P. decided that the operation would be taken up at 3. 3opm. On 26-7-1979 at 6. 00 a. m. decoy Tularam appeared and the witnesses Shri Pratap Singh. Security Supervisor. Central State Farm, Suratgarh and B. D. Kachhava. Accountant. S. B. B. J. . Suratgarh also appeared who were directed to report again at 1. 00 p. m. At 1. 00 p. m. the decoy and the witnesses appeared. Tularam was introduced to the independent witnesses and the members of trap party and the trap was arranged. The G. C. notes were smeared with phenolphthlian powder and handed over to Tularam for giving the same to accused Charan Singh on demand. He was directed not to shake hand with accused Charan Singh. (ii) At about 15. 40 hours accused Charan Singh entered the B. G. platform and came in contact with Tularam. decoy Traping party followed Tularam. At about 15. 45 hrs consequent upon receipt of signal from Tularam the trap party. challenged Charan Singh and disclosed its identity. P. N. Shukla asked accused whether he had accepted money from Tularam as bribe. Charan Singh admitted that he had received money from Tularam which was given by him earlier to Tularam as a loan. When he was asked how much amount was given by him to Shri Tularam, he told that it was Rs. 200/- and the same amount was received by him but he had actually not counted the G. C. notes received by him from Tularam. When he was asked how much amount was given by him to Shri Tularam, he told that it was Rs. 200/- and the same amount was received by him but he had actually not counted the G. C. notes received by him from Tularam. Tularam who was present said that it was false that he has taken any loan from Charan Singh and that this amount was taken by Charan Singh as bribe for continuing functioning of his temporary gang of which he was mate beyond August 14. 1979. When asked whether he has any document to show giving of this loan or any other loan to mate or any gangman and accused denied to have maintained any such document and stated that it was only a temporary loan given on June 4. 1979 at Suratgarh. Water in a clean glass was obtained and sodium carbonate powder was mixed in that water. In that solution fingers of both the hands of accused Char an Singh were got dipped the colour of the solution as a result changed to light pink. Notes amounting to Rs. 250/were recovered from the possession of accused Charan Singh were sealed with the help of above witnesses. Thereafter FIR was registered on 30-7-1979 and charge- sheet was filed against the accused under Section 161. I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d)of the Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried (iii) The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. The accused produced DW 1 Avnish Lal in support of his defence and examined himself as DW 2. After completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused as mentioned herein above. ( 4 ) MR. B. K. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the accused made scathing criticism of the impugned judgment and canvassed that regarding demand there is only one witness who, is decoy himself and regarding conversation which took place at the platform, there are material contradictions in the statements of Motbirs. The accused at the very outset, while he was apprehended came out with the version. That it was a loan amount of Rs. 200/- which he had given to the decoy on June 4, 1979, the same has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses. The accused at the very outset, while he was apprehended came out with the version. That it was a loan amount of Rs. 200/- which he had given to the decoy on June 4, 1979, the same has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses. The accused has further explained the same by producing Avnish Lal and himself in defence. Had it been a demand of Rs. 250/- then there was no occasion for the accused to have replied that he received only Rs. 200/- against the loan because the decoy says that he made it clear to the accused that he was giving Rs. 250/- to the accused. Reliance was placed on V. D. Jhingan v. State of U. P. Raghuveer Singh v. State of Haryaya Lachman, Das v. State of Punjal, and Man Singh v. Delhi Administration. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. G. C. Chatterjee, learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the learned trial Judge and contended that the accused was rightly convicted. ( 6 ) I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. Indisputably, the accused did make a statement that moment he was apprehended that he had given a loan amounting to Rs. 200/- to the decoy on June 4, 1979. The decoy Tularam (PW1) in his cross-examination admitted that the accused did not count the notes one put them in the pocket and when police apprehended the accused, he told that he had received back the money in the sum of Rs. 200/- which he had given on loan. Pratap Singh (PW 2 ). P. D. Kachhava (PW 3), Purushottam Narain Sharma (PW 4) also supported this version. ( 7 ) IT is well settled that onus of proof lying upon the accused is to prove his cases by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so the burden is shifted to the prosecution which still has to discharge his original onus that never shifts Le. that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case on hand the accused not only explained his conduct in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. but he also appeared as defence witness and stated on oath that he had given loan to Tularam decoy in the sum of Rs. In the case on hand the accused not only explained his conduct in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. but he also appeared as defence witness and stated on oath that he had given loan to Tularam decoy in the sum of Rs. 200/- on June 4, 1979 which the decoy repaid him and without counting the same he put the money in his pocket. The version of the accused appears to be reasonable firstly his statement was not belated. He did immediately make it while he was apprehended and secondly he came with a definite theory of loan of Rs. 200/ -. The case of the decoy was That accused demanded bribe of Rs. 250/- if that would have been the demand of the accused he would have said that he had given a loan of Rs. 250/- to the decoy but he did not say so. ( 8 ) IN Man Singh v. Delhi Administration (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus: 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 under Section 4 stands rebutted. ( 9 ) IN the instant case from the evidence referred to above the defence of the accused has been clearly proved under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The testimony of decoy has been shattered in the cross-examination. It could not be established that the accused had authority to abolish the gang and that he ever threatened to abolish the gang on August 14. 1979. He admitted in his cross-examination that there were about 20 persons in the gang and no person from the gang was produced as a witness to establish that the accused had threatened to abolish the gang. It does not appear reasonable that the accused demanded Rs. 250/- from Tularam only for abolishing the gang of 20 persons on the whole therefore. I am satisfied that there is considerable room for doubt in this case and that the statement of Tularam which alone is the foundation of the charge against the accused cannot be accepted without corroboration. It does not appear reasonable that the accused demanded Rs. 250/- from Tularam only for abolishing the gang of 20 persons on the whole therefore. I am satisfied that there is considerable room for doubt in this case and that the statement of Tularam which alone is the foundation of the charge against the accused cannot be accepted without corroboration. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed the conviction of the accused appellant stands set aside and he is acquitted from the charge under Section 161. I. P. C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. If fine has been paid by the accused appellant, it shall be refunded to him. Record of the case be sent back. Appeal allowed.