JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was accused on the file of learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rajasthan Jaipur, bearing Special Criminal Case No.10/74. Hewas convicted and sentenced on 1.2.1980 as under : (i) Under Section 161, IPC to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. (ii) Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the Act) to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fines, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment on each count. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief resume of the facts is that the accused-appellant (for short the accused) was working as an Agent of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur at Khetri Nagar Branch since 1966. The loan of Rs. 3,500/- for purchasing a pumping set was sanctioned to Shri Jagram and Indraj Singh of Bishanpura village and a letter for supplying the pumping set was issued to M/s. Kishan Electric Corporation, Chirawa on 7.12.1972. It was alleged that the accused was avoiding payment to the supplier Shri P.S. Mann, though he met the accused on December 15 and 18,1972. It was further alleged that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- from Shri P.S. Mann for the payment of his bills for Rs. 3,500/- and that on 20.12.1972 when Shri Mann presented the bills for payment, the accused demanded Rs. 100/-as bribe. The matter was reported by Shri P.S. Mann to Shri Chunni Lal, P.S.E. Inspector, who arranged police party from Jaipur and got a trap laid on the accused. After accepting Rs. 100/-on 20.12.1972, the accused was trapped by S.P.E. (C.B.1.) Officials, who recovered Rs. 100/- from his possession, although at the time of trapping, the accused immediately told the S.P.E. (C.B.1.) Officials that the money was given to him for exchange of one new packet of Rs. 1 /- each. The charge-sheet, after completion of investigation, was submitted against the accused in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rajasthan Jaipur. Charge under Section 5(1)(2) of the Act and Section 161, IPC was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as nineteen witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter a statement of the accused under section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. Charge under Section 5(1)(2) of the Act and Section 161, IPC was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as nineteen witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter a statement of the accused under section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused produced six witnesses and after hearing the arguments, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned hereinabove. 3. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, made a scathe criticism of the impugned judgment and canvassed that there are material contradiction of the statements of motbirs. The accused at the very outset while he was apprehended, came out with the version that the money was given to him for exchange of new packet of Rs. 1/- each. The accused further established his defence by producing defence witnesses. Thus, the accused could not have been convicted under the aforesaid sections. 4. 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. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. 6. Undisputably the accused did make a statement the moment he was apprehended, that the money was given to him for exchange of one new packet of Rs. 1/- each. This spontaneous explanation given on the spur of moment, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the accused, has not been given due weight by the learned Judge. 7. In this regard learned Lower Court observed thus : "Although he took the defence immediately that he has received much amount for a change, but this story of defence has become conventional for habitual corrupts and the same has to be judged out of totality of surrounding circumstances." 8. The case of prosecution is that Shri P.S. Mann gave the pre-arranged signal after giving the CG notes of Rs. 100/- to the accused by starting tying muffler over his head. This was at about 3.30 p.m. PW 18 Liak Singh, seeing such pre-arranged signal of the decoy passed on such signal to Shri P.D. Ajmera and his associates. On this, Shri Ajmera accompanied by the C.B.I. officials and both motbirs entered the room of the accused and gave introduction of them all. Shri Ajmera asked the accused to produce the tainted amount of Rs. On this, Shri Ajmera accompanied by the C.B.I. officials and both motbirs entered the room of the accused and gave introduction of them all. Shri Ajmera asked the accused to produce the tainted amount of Rs. 100/-, which the accused obtained from decoy P.S. Mann. Accused felt little nervous and said that the decoy had given such CG notes of Rs. 100/- for exchanging them for a fresh packet of Rs. 1/- each. This version of the accused was immediately rebutted by the decoy who asserted that he had passed such GC notes by demand as bribe to the accused for payment of the said bill. Thereupon a glass of water was arranged and Sodium Carbonate powder was poured into the same and there was no change in the colour of the water. The accused was asked to dip fingers in such water solution. On doing so, the colour of the water turned light purple and such solution was poured into a clean glass bottle and the same was sealed. 9. The accused was examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. and he denied that he had ever demanded any such bribe or that he has ever obtained any such bribe from PW 2 P.S. Mann. He further maintained that P.S. Mann has passed on the tainted amount with a request to arrange for packet of Rs. 1 /- hundred notes in exchange for such amount and as soon as he was going towards the counter of the clerk concerned to obtain such exchange notes, he was apprehended by the C.B.I. officials. He has stated that since he had refused to be unduly influenced by PS. Mann by obliging him to make irregular payment, that enraged and annoyed P.S. Mann, who had managed to get him falsely implicated on the basis of a cooked-up story. The accused examined as many as six witnesses in his defence, namely DW 1 Paras Chand Jain, DW 2 Shyam Sunder, DW 3 Mahesh Chandra Mathur, DW 4 Shri Krishna Charan, and DW 5 Bhanwar Lal Sharma. The defence witnesses supported the version of the accused. I myself have carefully scrutinised the testimony of different defence witnesses and in my opinion, the testimony has not been shattered in cross-examination. 10. The defence witnesses supported the version of the accused. I myself have carefully scrutinised the testimony of different defence witnesses and in my opinion, the testimony has not been shattered in cross-examination. 10. Learned Court below after appreciating the testimony of defence witnesses observed thus : "All these facts when cumulatively considered, only lead to one conclusion that the accused had left no stone unturned to frustrate the present action against him with the aid and assistance of his fellow officials and the subordinates, and if Ex. D.10, D.12 and D.19 are taken to be the statements of such witnesses concerned, they were nothing but a creation of perjury to defeat the provisions of law and the Court has to be on its guard so as not to succumb to the same. Ex. D.34 was also an attempt in the same direction. The accused did attempt to prove, with the aid of statements of PW 7 Dharamveer Singh, PW 8 P.S. Bhamboo, PW 11 P.L. Sharma, PW 13 K.S. Baghel, DW 1 Paras Chand Jain and lastly, DW 4 Shri Krishna Charan Hand Writing Expert, that Ex. D. 10, Ex. D.12 and Ex. D.19, all photo copies, were respectively in the hands of PW 8 P.S. Bhamboxo, PW 7 Dharamveer Singh and PW 11 P.L. Sharma, but as already held, there is absolutely no reason to believe that those statements were either voluntarily given or the same had any grain of truth in them......" In respect of the statement of DW 2 S.S. Gupta, the learned Trial Court has observed that this witness has been presented belatedly and he had absolutely no business to seethe accused himself since the accused was not directly concerned with the purpose for which he alleges to have gone to the Bank. He had regular dealings with the Bank and the Bank transactions are closed usually at 2 p.m., while he alleges that he had obtained payment of such cheque at 3 p.m., which is quite unnatural. His statement was not believed by the learned Trial Court. The prosecution, though proved that the changed money was received by the accused but it has also been established that at the time when the accused was apprehended, he immediately gave the explanation that the money was paid to him for exchanging them with a fresh packet of Rs. 1/- each. 11. The prosecution, though proved that the changed money was received by the accused but it has also been established that at the time when the accused was apprehended, he immediately gave the explanation that the money was paid to him for exchanging them with a fresh packet of Rs. 1/- each. 11. In Man Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1979 SC 1455 , 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 p roof 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." 12. 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. PW 2 P.S. Mann admitted in his cross-examination that the accused had given explanation that the money was paid to him for exchanging the same for a fresh packet of Rs. 1/- each. PW 3 Hari Ram Sharma, motbir, also admitted that the accused gave explanation that the money was paid to him for exchanging the same for a fresh packet of Rs. 1/- each. PW 5 Banwari Lal, another motbir, also admitted that the accused had given aforesaid explanation. 13. Thus, the testimony of decoy has been shattered in the cross-examination. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that there is considerable room for doubt in this case and the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the explanation given by the accused as well as his defence version. The explanation given by the accused appears to be reasonable. The accused was an agent of the Bank and it was possible that the decoy P.S. Mann had paid him GC notes of Rs. 10/- for exchanging them with a fresh packet of Rs. 1 /- each. The explanation was offered by the accused at the spur of moment immediately after he was apprehended by the C.B.I. officials and under this presumption under Section 4 stands rebutted. The observations of the learned Trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures. The testimony of defence witnesses ought to have been appreciated in the light of the explanation given by the accused. 14. The observations of the learned Trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures. The testimony of defence witnesses ought to have been appreciated in the light of the explanation given by the accused. 14. 1 am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the accused stands set aside and he is acquitted from the charge under Section 161, IPC and under 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 the amount of fine has- been paid by the accused-appellant, it shall be paid back to him. Record of the case be sent back. AUGUST8 Appeal allowed. *******