Judgment.- The appellant was tried by the Special Judge, Special Police Establishment Cases, Secunderabad for offences under sections 161, Indian Penal Code and 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under each of the counts. But, the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He has filed this appeal challenging his conviction. The appellant was the Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Visakhapatnam from March, 1962 till 30th January, 1964. It is alleged that he demanded and accepted from P.W. 1, a Development Officer in the same office, a sum of Rs. 300 as gratification other than legal remuneration as a reward for having helped P.W. 1 in the settlement of his long pending travelling allowance bills. It appears that in the month of February, 1958, P.W. 1 had submitted to the Life Insurance Corporation, Sub-office at Vizianagaram his travelling allowance bill from March, 1957 to December, 1957. The bill for the month of June, 1957 was passed on to Visakhapatnam Branch Office for payment since it related to a journey pertaining to Visakhapatnam Branch office. The bills for the month of November and December, 1957 were passed by Vizianagaram Sub-office; the amounts of which were received by P.W. 1. But, the remaining bills were not passed on the ground that the accounts for 1957 were closed and since then P.W. 1 had been making efforts to get the payment for these bills. It was in March 1958 that P.W. 1 received a letter from Vizianagaram Sub-office saying that his bills could not be passed as the accounts for 1957 were closed. He made another representation through the appellant regarding the settlement of the pending bills It is said that the appellant promised to help. P.W.1 had also addressed a letter’ Exhibit P-1, dated 14th January, 1963 to the Zonal Manager with regard to the settlement of his bills. It is said that on 8th January, 1964 when he (P.W. 1) went to the Life Insurance Corporation Branch Office at Visakhapatnam at about 11-30 A.M. the appellant called him to his room and told him that he had received orders form the Divisional Office for the settlement of his bills which amounted to Rs. 1,130-90 Ps. It is said that on 8th January, 1964 when he (P.W. 1) went to the Life Insurance Corporation Branch Office at Visakhapatnam at about 11-30 A.M. the appellant called him to his room and told him that he had received orders form the Divisional Office for the settlement of his bills which amounted to Rs. 1,130-90 Ps. The appellant then called the section head, Bhagavanlu P.W. 9 and instructed to arrange payment of the amount in cash that day itself. It is also alleged by P.W. 1 that the appellant emphasised the fact that he was instrumental in getting these bills passed and, therefore, P.W. 1 must be thankful to him. After this the appellant left the office. P.W. 9 asked P.W. 1 to come at about 4 o’clock to receive the amount to which P.W. 1 replied that it was not possible for him to come at that hour and asked P.W. 9 to give him a cheque for the amount because P.W. 1 had heard that the appellant was collecting bribes from Development Officers, Agents, and Policyholders and he might ask for a bribe from him as well, as he had instructed P.W. 9 that P.W. 1 should be paid in cash. It was because of this ground that P.W. 1 insisted on payment being made by cheque. On 10th January, 1964, P.W. 9 told P.W. 1 to contact the appellant and P.W. 1 avoided on the apprehension that the appellant might ask him for payment of some amount as he had received the travelling allowance. Then there is a lull for nearly ten days. It is only on 20th January, 1964, when P.W. 1 went to Sobji Motor Works at about 4 p.m. for getting his car checked and happened to find the appellant there, the appellant called P.W. 1 aside and told him that he was expecting to be paid a substantial portion of the amount received by P.W. 1 under the pending bills. The appellant also was said to have told him that he had to pay the school and college fees for his children and he had also lost some money at the races at Madras. He asked P.W. 1 to meet him on the 23rd of January, 1964 wish a substantial amount. He also told him that he will be away on tour till the 22nd. He asked P.W. 1 to meet him on the 23rd of January, 1964 wish a substantial amount. He also told him that he will be away on tour till the 22nd. P.W. 1 went to the Branch office on 22nd January, 1964 and to his surprise he found that the appellant was in his office. The appellant called P.W. 1 and asked him whether he had brought the amount to which P.W. 1 replied that he did not expect that the appellant would be in the office that day and, therefore, he did not bring the amount, to which the appellant said that he should bring the amount the next day. Thereafter, it appears, when P.W. 1 contacted P.W. 12 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he told him that his jurisdiction does not extend to take any action against the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation, but he would contact the Officers of the Special Police Establishment. A call was put through but the line was not in order. Therefore, P.W. 12 advised P.W. 1 to send a report to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment at Hyderabad, and he accordingly sent Exhibit P-2 by post. On 23rd January, 1964, P.W. 1 went to the Branch Office at about 7-45 a.m. Then the appellant called him and asked whether he had brought the amount. Then, P.W. 1 seems to have told the appellant that he had spent all the amount that he had received and he would pay him on the 28th January, 1964. The appellant asked him to pay the amount earlier than 28th January, 1964. At this stage, it appears, that the appellant mentioned to P.W. 1 what he meant by a substantial amount by fixing it at Rs. 300. Again, on the 28th the appellant asked him whether he had brought the amount of Rs. 300 and P.W. 1, expecting the Special Police Establishment people to take some action, told him that he would bring the amount the next day on 28th January, 1964 the Inspector of Special Police Establishment, P.W. 15, contacted P.W. 1 and then P.W. 15 decided to lay a trap. P.W. 1 was asked to come to the Railway Rest House where P.W. 15 was staying at about 9 a.m. in the morning of 29th January, 1964. P.W. 1 took along with him an amount of Rs. 300 in three hundred-rupee notes. P.W. 1 was asked to come to the Railway Rest House where P.W. 15 was staying at about 9 a.m. in the morning of 29th January, 1964. P.W. 1 took along with him an amount of Rs. 300 in three hundred-rupee notes. P.Ws. 3 and 5 who were called to witness the proceedings were present. The notes were dusted in front of them with phenolphthalein and the numbers of the notes were noted. Thereafter, they were given to P.W. 1 to be given to the appellant in case he asked for a bribe. P.W. 2, an employee of the Caltex Oil Refineries was asked to accompany the decoy, P.W. 1. It was decided that after the appellant had accepted the amount P.W. 2 would give a signal and then the police party would arrive on the scene. Accordingly, P.W. 2 gave a signal after the appellant had accepted the amount and put it in his purse. P.W. 15 after entering into the office of the appellant asked him to produce the bribe amount of Rs. 300 which he had taken from P.W. 1. The appellant wanted to pick up the purse, but the Inspector asked him not to touch it. A Class of water was brought into the room and after sodium carbonate was added to it the accused was asked to dip his fingers into the tumbler and when he did so the water changed its colour to pink. Then the appellant is said to have taken out from his purse the notes which were given to him along with some other papers that were m the purse. The numbers of the notes were checked and were found to tally. A panchanama was signed by P.W. 1 and the other officers present. It is Exhibit P-4. This in short is the prosecution case which has been sought to prove by the evidence of 15 witnesses. The appellant has given a different version. He has stated that there is no doubt that P.W. 1 made representations to him regarding the settlement of his outstanding bills. But he never held out any promese to P.W. 1 to help him in the settlement of those bills. The appellant has given a different version. He has stated that there is no doubt that P.W. 1 made representations to him regarding the settlement of his outstanding bills. But he never held out any promese to P.W. 1 to help him in the settlement of those bills. On 8th January, 1964 the appellant merely told P.W. 1 that the Divisional Officer has passed his bills and he might take the amount and before leaving the office that day for the lunch interval he signed the order directing payment to P.W. 1. But, he did not give any instructions to P.W. 9 how the amount is to be paid, whether in cash or by cheque. The normal practice in the office is to pay the amount in cash. He says that he did not do any favour to P.W. 1 in getting his bills sanctioned nor did he expect any illegal gratification to be paid. Nor on 10th January, 1964 did he tell P.W. 9 to ask P.W. 1 to see him in his office because he was very busy with the visit of the Zonal Manager from Madras and the conference of the Branch Managers that day. He has also denied meeting P.W. 1 on 20th January, 1964 for which he has submitted his tour programme, from which it appears that he was on camp from 20th January, 1964 to 22nd January, 1964. It is the case of the appellant that on 22nd January, 1964 P.W. 1 himself came to his room and that P.W. 6 told him that the appellant wanted a hand-loan of Rs. 300 and P.W. 1 told him that he would arrange the payment of loan the next day. D.W. 1 was present at the time when P.W. 1 told him so. Again on 23rd January, 1964 P.W. 1 told him so. Again on 23rd January, 1964 P.W. 1 came to his office and told him that he could not secure the amount which he had offered to lend him as hand-loan and that he would pay the amount on 28th January, 1964. On 28th January, 1964 again P.W. 1 met him and told him that he would pay on 29th January, 1964. In the presence of P.W. 1 he (the appellant) drew a cheque for Rs. 300 on L.I.C. and cashed it. On 28th January, 1964 again P.W. 1 met him and told him that he would pay on 29th January, 1964. In the presence of P.W. 1 he (the appellant) drew a cheque for Rs. 300 on L.I.C. and cashed it. As he had already overdrawn from the bank his only idea was to replenish his bank loan if P.W. 1 gave him the next day. On 29th January, 1964, P.W. 1 came to his room and gave him the amount of Rs. 300 which he took and put in his purse and kept the purse on the table. It is true that immediately P.W. 15 and others entered his room and asked him to produce the money which P.W. 1 had give him. He told P.W. 15 that the money which P.W. 1 is said to have given him was a hand-loan. But, P.W. 15 told him “naturally you will say so”. He had admitted that the phenolphthalein test was carried out. He also said that after he read the panchanama he found that it was silent with regard to the statement he had made that the money was given to him as a hand loan. Since he could not do anything in the matter he wrote a letter Exhibit P-12 and sent it to the Zonal Manager by getting it typed by P.W. 6, his steno. P.W. 6 was asked to register the letters the next day. He has also stated that it is not correct to say that Exhibit P-12 was written on 30th December, 1964 as stated by P.W. 6. Further, he has stated that P.W. 3, who is an Assistant Divisional Manager in the Life Insurance Corporation may have instigated P.W. 1 to take up the matter with the police bearing ill-will against him. In support of his plea the appellant has examined D.W. 1. who is an Agent of the Life Insurance Corporation, Simhachalam which is at about 10 miles from Visakhapatnam. This writness has deposed that on 22nd January, 1964 he went to the Branch office of the Life Insurance Corporation at Visakhapatnam to enquire of the appellant about his next visit to Simhachalam for booking the proposal of one K. Narasimhachary who was expected to take a policy for not less than Rs. 25,000. This writness has deposed that on 22nd January, 1964 he went to the Branch office of the Life Insurance Corporation at Visakhapatnam to enquire of the appellant about his next visit to Simhachalam for booking the proposal of one K. Narasimhachary who was expected to take a policy for not less than Rs. 25,000. When he was talking to the appellant he (P.W. 1) came into the office and told the appellant that P.W. 6, wanted him to arrange a hand-loan of Rs. 300 for the appellant and he (P.W. 1) would bring the amount and would give it to the accused the next day. From the plea of the accused it will be seen that the decision of the case is within a short compass. The appellant has admitted the taking of Rs. 300 from P.W. 1 but not as a gratification or reward for having helped P.W. 1 in the settlement of his long pending travelling allowance bills. In this situation section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is attracted because when it is proved that the accused person has accepted or obtained for himself any gratification other than legal remuneration or any valuable thing from any person it shall be presumed unless contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained that gratification or valuable thing as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 161, Indian Penal Code. From the wording of the section it has to be seen how far and in what manner the person accused of an offence under section 161, Indian Penal Code has to discharge the burden placed on him under the abovementioned section. This has been the subject of consideration not only by this Court but by the Supreme Court as well. In re K.V. Ayyaswamy1, a Bench of this Court held that “It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule in rebutting the presumption placing the onus upon the accused either under sub-section (1) of section 4 or sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act, that he must adduce evidence aliunde, and that his explanation taken with other circumstances which might appear in the prosecution evidence will not afford a rebuttal of that presumption. While the explanation of the accused may be taken into consideration and treated as evidence in the case in order to rebut such a presumption, it is not sufficient that the version given by him is merely reasonable or probable. In order to rebut the presumption the statement of the accused taken with other circumstances must be accepted as true, or should amount to”proof“within the meaning of section 3 of the Evidence Act.” The Supreme Court in V.D. Jhingan v. State of U.P.2, has made it much more clear by observing that “The burden of proof lying upon the accused under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act will be satisfied if he establishes his case by a preponderence of probability as is done by a party in civil proceedings. It is not necessary that he should establish his case by the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” From these observations it will be seen that the test of proof in relation to an accused is somewhat different from that which is to be expected from the prosecution. If the explanation given by the accused is plausible and gets corroboration from the circumstances appearing in the case and if there is a preponderance of probability that his case is true in that case there is no reason why the explanation given by the accused should not be equated with the evidence. The evidence of P.W. 1 itself is not very convincing. On 8th January, 1964 when the order was received from the Divisional Office for the settlement of the pending bills of P.W. 1 the appellant is said to have told P.W. 1 that he was instrumental in getting his bills passed and he should be thankful to the appellant. From the way in which this story was told by P.W. 1, it appears, that P.W. 9 was also present at the time when the appellant told him that he was instrumental in getting the bills passed. But P.W. 9’s evidence is silent on this aspect. But, as it is, it does not appear that besides this the appellant was expecting anything more substantial. It was P.W. 1’s own fear from what he had heard about the appellant that he anticipated a demand of bribe. But P.W. 9’s evidence is silent on this aspect. But, as it is, it does not appear that besides this the appellant was expecting anything more substantial. It was P.W. 1’s own fear from what he had heard about the appellant that he anticipated a demand of bribe. In his anxiety to make the Court believe his story he has made a wrong statement that usually the payment is made by cheques and cash is paid only when the party makes a request for cash payment, but P.W. 9 who is the head of the payment section has categorically stated that amounts due to the members of the staff by way of T. A. is made by means of a cheque only (when asked for and) then a cheque is issued. The idea that the appellant would demand the payment of a bribe from P.W. 1 had ingrained so much in his mind that he avoided to see the appellant when P.W. 9 told him on 10th January, 1964, that the appellant wanted to see him. On 20th January, 1964, when the appellant is said to have met P.W. 1 at the garage of P.W. 4 even then he did not mention to him what amount he was expecting from P.W. 1, because P.W. 1 says that only a substantial amount was mentioned without fixing it. When P.W. 1 met him on the 22nd in the office he was simply asked whether he brought the money to which P.W. 1 is said to have replied that he was not expecting the appellant in the office on that day and he would bring it the next day. It is only on 28th January, 1964, that the appellant is said to have told P.W. 1 that he should be paid Rs. 300. This appears to me to be a false statement made by P.W. 1 because on a perusal of Exhibit P-2, the complaint that he had sent to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment Cases, Hyderabad, on 23rd January, 1963, shows that the Branch Manager (Appellant) was expecting at least Rs. 300 from him. According to P.W. 1 himself nothing specific was mentioned about the amount excepting that the appellant was expecting a substantial amount. 300 from him. According to P.W. 1 himself nothing specific was mentioned about the amount excepting that the appellant was expecting a substantial amount. It is also obvious from the evidence of the prosecution itself that the appellant did not take any keen or improper interest in getting the pay bills of P.W. 1 sanctioned. From Exhibit P-22 it is contended that the appellant had recommended the payment of the T.A. to P.W. 1 at the rate of As. 4 per mile. This letter is evidently in response to an enquiry from the Divisional Office. The appellant, as a Branch Manager, has written to the Divisional Manager that the charges for the bullock cart as he was personally aware would work out to more than As. 4 per mile. But, as pointed out by the Divisional Manager P.W. 1 is entitled to only As. 4 per mile, This letter does not show any anxiety on the part of the appellant with regard to the payment being made to P.W. 1. This correspondence between the Branch Office and the Head Office is proved by the prosecution from Exhibits P-16 to P-23 and it shows that it is a normal correspondence. Exhibit P-17 indicates that the Divisional Office had taken a view considering the modes of conveyance used by P.W. 1 in the course of his travel and also the previous bills of P.W. 1 that were sanctioned, that P.W. 1 should be paid at the rate of 25 paise per mile. I do not think that this decision by the Divisional Office was in any way influenced by the appellant. P.W. 6, who is the Steno of the appellant has been examined by the prosecution to rebut the case of the appellant that it was he who had negotiated a loan from P.W. 1. P.W. 6 was on leave in those days. He has deposed that P.W. 8, a peon of the Branch office came to his house when he was away and told his wife that the Branch Manager, meaning the appellant, wanted P.W. 6 to come to him immediately. When P.W. 6 came to his house this message was conveyed by his wife and he accordingly proceeded to the Branch Office on 30th January, 1964. When P.W. 6 came to his house this message was conveyed by his wife and he accordingly proceeded to the Branch Office on 30th January, 1964. The typewriter was kept in the car of the appellant and P.W. 13, another peon was asked to get some white papers and carbon papers which he gave to P.W. 6. Thereafter, P.W. 6, was taken by the appellant to his house and there a draft was given to him to be typed. When he read the draft he was surprised to find that the appellant had mentioned that it was P.W. 6 who had negotiated a loan from P.W. 1 on behalf of the appellant and therefore, he even told the appellant that he knew nothing about the matter nor did he negotiate on his behalf and he should not be dragged into the picture. But, the appellant assured him that nothing would happen and he should not be perturbed. P.W. 6 also states that he had typed the letter, Exhibit P-12 on 30th January, 1964 and dated it as 29th January, 1964 as stated by the appellant. The evidence of this witness also does not appear to me to be true. It appears that he was very much worried that he was associated with the alleged loan transaction and there was a prick of conscience that he should bring all the facts to the notice of the proper authorities. Therefore, he sent a letter, Exhibit P-15 dated 31st January, 1964 to the Zonal Manager at Madras in which he mentioned all the abovementioned facts. There is also a note attached to this letter in which it has been seated that in the draft Exhibit P-12 there was no mention of the name of P.W. 6. On the other hand it was stated that the appellant himself has directly approached P.W. 1 for a loan. But, subsequently being advised by an advocate Lanka Venkateswarulu, that the appellant should bring in some body to negotiate on his behalf for a loan the appellant scored out few lines and inserted thee name of P. W. 6. Firstly, this letter appears to have been posted on 3rd February, 1964 three says after it was typed. It will be seen that the Special Police Establishment Police was at Visakhapatnam from 28th January, 1S64. Firstly, this letter appears to have been posted on 3rd February, 1964 three says after it was typed. It will be seen that the Special Police Establishment Police was at Visakhapatnam from 28th January, 1S64. If he was so much worried and there was a prick of conscience he could have unburdened himself much earlier. P.W. 6 further stated that he was on leave and, therefore, he questioned the propriety of typing the letters of the appellant in this period. But, because he was afraid of the appellant he submitted calmly. Even this explanation does not appear to be true If he was so much afraid of the appellant it is hardly likely that he would dare address a letter to the Zonal Manager under Exhibit P-15 or that he would personally protest to the appellant about his name being dragged. There does not seem to be any explanation why he waited for three days to post the letter when he had actually typed it on 31st January, 1964. It is further stated that on 30th January, 1964 he went in the car of the appellant from the office to his house taking along the machine. But from the evidence of P.W. 4 it appears that the car of the appellant was in his workshop for repairs. Although the learned trial Judge has met this point by observing that P.W. 4 did not state that the car of the appellant was in his garage for the whole of the day and that it was only for checking of the fuel pump and delco points which may not have taken long but at the same time it shows that truth of the allegation of the appellant that his car was sent to the garage on the 30th January, 1964. It is not for a Court to draw an inference only favourable to the prosecution when particularly that is not the only inference that can be drawn. P.W. 4 has neither stated that the car of the appellant was in his garage only for a short time nor is there any evidence to show that the car was in the garage of P.W. 4 for a particular time. In these circumstances it would be wrong to draw an inference against the accused. Although I am not satisfied with the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of P.Ws. In these circumstances it would be wrong to draw an inference against the accused. Although I am not satisfied with the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 6, but still I have to consider whether the appellant has succeeded in bringing out preponderance of probabilities in support of this plea According to the appellant he had dictated the letter Exhibit P-12 on that very day when he was visited by the Special Police Establishment Inspector But P.W. 6 says that he typed the draft on 30th January, 1964. I have already indicated that the evidence of P.W. 6 in this respect that he was taken in the car on 30th January, 1964 to the residence of the appellant and there typed out the draft is not convincing. In any case this letter was despatched on 30th January, 1964. Even if it is typed on the 30th and sent on the same day I do not think there is much delay in bringing the facts to the notice of his superior officer. Although the appellant has stated that he has mentioned to the Inspector, P.W. 15 that it was a handloan that he had obtained from P.W. 1 and not a bribe it was not written in the panchanama. This part of the statement of the appellant may not be true because at the moment when the police raided his room his mental balance may have been terribly disturbed and he may have even lost his equilibrium as even an innocent man is likely to do and he may have taken some time to compose himself. It is too much to expect that a person no sooner he is accused of an offence, must be ready with an explanation or come out with a case exculpating himself. In my view it depends on the circumstances of each case how soon the accused person should come out with his explanation. I have somewhere in the judgment stated with reference to the evidence of P,W. 1 that the demand of a specific amount of Rs. 300 by the appellant from P.W. 1 on 28th January, 1964, cannot be true. That the appellant was in need of money for the payment of school and college fee of his children is proved by the evidence of P.W. 1 himself. 300 by the appellant from P.W. 1 on 28th January, 1964, cannot be true. That the appellant was in need of money for the payment of school and college fee of his children is proved by the evidence of P.W. 1 himself. For this purpose he had drawn a cheque on his bank in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation and had obtained the amount. But, he wanted to replenish his account if P.W. 1 favoured him with a loan. From this fact also it appears that the appellant was in dire need of cash. In these circumstances it has to be seen whether what the appellant got from P.W. 1 was as a reward or motive for having done some favour to P.W. 1 or only as a handloan. From the evidence of P.W. 1 himself it appears that he was under an impression that the appellant was in the habit of taking bribes from Development officers. It is just possible that this occasion might have been considered a fit one by persons who were against the appellant to get him into trouble and thereafter the plan was hatched. From the fact that actually no specific demand for the payment of a bribe was made from 8th of January, to the 28th of January, 1964. I find the explanation of the appellant plausible that he wanted the handloan to pay the school and college fee of his children. The handloan itself was negotiated much later after P.W. 1 had received the amount about his travelling allowance. If the appellant actually wanted a bribe from P.W. 1 he could have easily indicated to P.W.1 even before he made a recommendation to the Divisional Office through his letter Exhibit P-20. From the evidence of P.W. 1 it also appears that P.W. 1 was making repeated representations to the Zonal and Deputy Zonal Managers with regard to the settlement of his travelling allowance bills long before the recommendation made by the appellant under Exhibit P-20. It is his evidence that he made one such representations to Mr. Venkatachalam, who was for some time Divisional Manager at Madras. As a result of his representation to him Mr. Venkatachalam called the Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation at Visakhapatnam and asked him to look into the bills of P.W. 1 and further directed that the bills should be passed. Venkatachalam, who was for some time Divisional Manager at Madras. As a result of his representation to him Mr. Venkatachalam called the Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation at Visakhapatnam and asked him to look into the bills of P.W. 1 and further directed that the bills should be passed. Somewhere in 1962 when P.W. 1 went for an interview before the Selection Committee at Hyderabad in connection with his promotion to the post of the Assistant Branch Manager, Mr. Venkatachalam was one of members of the Selection Committee. After the selection committee meeting was over Mr Venkatachalam pointedly asked P.W. 1 with regard to his travelling allowance bills. That shows that a person higher in authority to the Branch Manager was interested in seeing that the travelling allowance bills of P.W. 1 were sanctioned. In these circumstances I do not think that there was any occasion for the appellant to have asked for a bribe. On the other hand, from the circumstances which I have mentioned in the course of my judgment, it appears, to me that there is a preponderance of probability in support of the plea of the appellant. Therefore, setting aside the conviction and sentence, I allow this appeal and acquit the Appellant. G.S.M. ----- Appeal allowed.