JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated September 06, 1986 whereby, the Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur, convicted the accused-appellant Jagdish Narain in the offences under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1947') and sentenced as under:- under Section 161 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Act 1947: Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:- That on November 26, 1980 the complainant PW-2 Ramjiwan submitted a written report Ex.P/2 before the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur stating that he was a resident of village Mohammad Nagar Dhani. He was allotted 10 bighas of land bearing khasra No. 216 in Samvat 2019 and has been cultivating the same since then. About three years back, the accused-appellant Jagdish Narain entered the aforesaid allotted land in the name of Chhittar and Narain, against which he filed a suit before the Collector, Tonk. For that purpose, he required a copy of the Khasra Girdawari and for obtaining the same, he filed an application, which was returned to him by the accusedappellant Jagdish after striking of the Samvat mentioned in the application with the objection that it had not been stated for which year the copies were required. Thereafter, he submitted a fresh application indicating the Samvat i.e. Samwat year 2036-37, for which the copy was required. It is alleged that the complainant met the concerned Patwari and prayed for issuing the copies of concerned khasras. He solicited for a bribe of Rs. 200/- from him. The complainant expressed his inability to give Rs. 200/- because of his poor economic condition but the accused-appellant did not yield and the date, November 27, 1980 was fixed for giving the copies after payment of Rs. 3 200/-. Since the complainant did not want to grease the palms of the accused, he therefore lodged the report Ex.P/2 whereupon, the S.P., Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur endorsed the report to PW-9 Ummed Singh, Addl. 3 200/-. Since the complainant did not want to grease the palms of the accused, he therefore lodged the report Ex.P/2 whereupon, the S.P., Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur endorsed the report to PW-9 Ummed Singh, Addl. S.P., Jaipur who formulated a scheme for entrapping the accused-appellant and co-opted two independent witnesses PW-3 Dev Karan and PW-4 Abdul Rahman. 3. The complainant gave Rs. 200/- currency notes of different denominatins, one Rs. 100/-, three currency notes each of Rs. 20/- and four currency notes of Rs. 10/- to the Addl.S.P., who in the presence of the independent witnesses treated them with phenolphthalein powder and having initialed them returned to the complainant with the direction that he shall pay these currency notes to the accused on demand and give the agreed signal. Thereafter, PW-9 Shri Ummed Singh, Addl.S.P., on November 27, 1980, proceeded to the residence of the accusedappellant along with the trap party and on getting agreed signal, caught the appellant redhanded with marked currency notes of Rs. 200/-. He recovered the said marked currency notes vide memo Ex.P/7, lodged the FIR and during investigation of the case recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, obtained the prosecution sanction Ex.P/1 and after usual investigation sent the appellant for trial to the competent court. 4. The accused-appellant was indicted for the offences under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Act 1947, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses. In his explanation under Section 3134 of Criminal Procedure Code the accused claimed innocence and pleaded that neither he solicited for bribe nor he obtained the same. He has been implicated in this case on account of the animosity with the complainant. 5. Heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and with their assistance scanned the material on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:- (i)That, there is no evidence worth the name that any demand of bribe was made by the appellant from complainant Ramjiwan. There is a solitary statement of the decoy so far as the demand of bribe is concerned and his statement is contradictory to his earlier statement and the contents of FIR and thus the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused-appellant demanded bribe. There is a solitary statement of the decoy so far as the demand of bribe is concerned and his statement is contradictory to his earlier statement and the contents of FIR and thus the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused-appellant demanded bribe. (ii)That, since the demand of bribe goes to the very root of the case and it is not proved from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful. (iii)That, the motbirs in their statement given on oath, deposed that the accused-appellant had accepted Rs. 200/- from the complainant against the land revenue dues. PW-8 Ishak Khan has admitted in cross-examination that there was a receipt in the name of Ramjiwan in the receipt book and the record had also been taken into possession by the Addl. S.P. The Addl. S.P. in his statement in the examination-in-chief has admitted that article 14 receipt book was taken in possession by him on the spot. He said that he had returned the receipt book. With regard to returning the receipt book his statements are contradictory. (iv)That the appellant furnished an instantaneous explanation at the time of recovery of amount to the Addl.S.P. Mr. Ummed Singh with regard to the marked currency notes that the said amount was towards the payment of land revenue and it was not the bribe money. (v)That there is no ground to disbelieve the spontaneous explanation furnished by the appellant which contains no grain of falsehood and as such the appellant has established his defence by preponderance of probability. (vi)That the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which has resulted into erroneous finding of conviction and the same deserves to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has simply urged that the impugned judgment is cogent and well merited. The learned Special Judge has critically examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses in great details and there does not appear any infirmity therein, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Two charges, one under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Act 1947 and the other under Section 161 of IPC were framed against the appellant wherein, it was stated that he obtained gratification of Rs. 200/- other than the legal remuneration from the complainant Ramjiwan for issuing copies of khasras as a motive. 8. Two charges, one under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Act 1947 and the other under Section 161 of IPC were framed against the appellant wherein, it was stated that he obtained gratification of Rs. 200/- other than the legal remuneration from the complainant Ramjiwan for issuing copies of khasras as a motive. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant in the offence under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) mainly on this ground that the accused admitted to accept Rs. 200/- from Ramjiwan and that the accused failed to prove the amount of Rs. 200/- as payment of land revenue from Ramjiwan. "9. Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads:- "Where in any trial of an offence punishable under sec.161 or section 165 of the Indian Penal Code (or of an offence referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of this Act punishable under sub-section (2) thereof, it is proved that an accused-person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempt to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said section 161, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate." 9. From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that its operation, in terms, is confined to a trial of an offence punishable under section 161 or section 165, Penal Code or under clause (a) or (b) of section 5(1) read with sub-section (2) of that sec. of the Act. If at such a trial the prosecution proved that the accused has accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration, the court has to presume the existence of the further fact in support of the prosecution case, viz., that the gratification was accepted or obtained by the accused as a motive or reward such as mentioned in section 161, Penal Code. The presumption however, is not absolute. It is rebuttable. The accused can prove the contrary. The presumption however, is not absolute. It is rebuttable. The accused can prove the contrary. The quantum and the nature of proof required to displace this presumption may vary according to the circumstances of each case. Such proof may partake the shape of defence evidence led by the accused, or it may consist of circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence itself, as a result of cross-examination or otherwise. But the degree and the character of the burden of proof which section 4(1) casts on an accused person to rebut the presumption raised thereunder, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof which under sec.101, Evidence Act rests on the prosecution. While the mere plausibility of an explanation given by the accused in his examination under sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code may not be enough, the burden on him to negate the presumption may stand discharged, if the effect of the material brought on the records, in its totality, renders the existence of the fact presumed, improbable. In other words, the accused may rebut the presumption by showing a mere preponderance of probability in his favour;it is not necessary for him to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt) See Mahesh Prasad Gupta V. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 10 SCC 371 . 10. Another aspect of the matter which has to be borne in mind is that the sole purpose of the presumption under section 4(1) is to relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving a fact which is an essential ingredient of the offences under section 5(1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161, Penal Code. The presumption therefore can be used in furtherance of the prosecution case and not in derogation of it. If the story set up by the prosecution inherently militates against or is inconsistent with the fact presumed, the presumption will be rendered sterile from its very inception, if out of judicial courtesy it cannot be rejected out of hand as still born. 11. Let us now consider the facts of the present case in the light of the principles enunciated above. The testimony of its star witness PW-2 Ramjiwan is that when he presented application Ex.P/4 for obtaining certified copies of khasras Girdawari for the St. 2026-37, the accused demanded Rs. 11. Let us now consider the facts of the present case in the light of the principles enunciated above. The testimony of its star witness PW-2 Ramjiwan is that when he presented application Ex.P/4 for obtaining certified copies of khasras Girdawari for the St. 2026-37, the accused demanded Rs. 200/- for issuing the same whereupon the complainant asked the accused that the amount demanded was higher, as he was a poor man, but the accused did not agree and 27.11.80 was fixed for delivering the copies on obtaining the said money. At the relevant time the accused asked him as to how much money he had brought to which he replied that he had brought Rs. 200/-, and the complainant gave this money to him. PW-9 Shri Ummed Singh has admitted in the examination-in-chief that he had obtained the copy of demand notice Ex.P/11 from the office of Tehsildar and had also taken in the possession the Dhalbarch articles. And from these two documents it was clear that there were dues of revenue against the complainant Ramjiwan. Albeit, both the independent witnesses PW-3 Dev Karan and PW-4 Abdul Rahman have turned hostile, these witnesses in their statement supported the prosecution case to the extent of treating the currency notes by phenolphthalein powder, issuing directions to the complainant, issuing directions to them also with regard to have a watch on the complainant and the accused and nabbing the appellant red-handed at his residence. With regard to obtaining or accepting the bribe money, they have stated that when Addl.S.P. gave his introduction to the appellant, he was, in the beginning, flustered but spontaneously furnished an explanation that the amount of Rs. 200/- passed on by the complainant to him, was an amount towards payment of land revenue and it was not the bribe money. With regard to obtaining or accepting the bribe money, they have stated that when Addl.S.P. gave his introduction to the appellant, he was, in the beginning, flustered but spontaneously furnished an explanation that the amount of Rs. 200/- passed on by the complainant to him, was an amount towards payment of land revenue and it was not the bribe money. The statement of PW-3 Dev Karan is reproduced thus:- iVokjh :i;s ds ckcr ;g dg jgk Fkk dh yxku dh ds iSls gS rFkk jkethou ;g dg jgk Fkk fd fj'or ds iSls gS A iVokjh us ;g dgk fd og jkethou dks dkQh le; ls iSls tek djkus ds fy;s rdktk dj jgk Fkk A In the searching cross-examination he has deposed:- ;g lgh ugha gS fd yxku ds :i;s ifjoknh es cdk;k gksuk vfHk;qDr us uksV cjkenxh o gkFk /kqyokus ds ckn dgk Fkk cfYd 'k: es Hkh dgk FkkA ---------- vfHk;qDr us ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd ifjoknh ;g dg dj x;k Fkk fd og yxku fd cdk;k jk'kh ckn es nsxkA Likewise, the statement of PW-4 Abdul Rahman, given in examination in chief, is reproduced as under:- iVokjh us ;g dgk Fkk fd ifjoknh us 500 :i;s yxku ds cdk;s Fks ftl es ls og 200 :i;s ns x;k Fkk o ckdh :i;s ckn es nsus dks dgkA ,Mh0 ,l0 ih0 ds ;g iwNus ij fd yxku cdk;k gksus dk dksbZ jsdkMZ gS bZl ij iVokjh us <+yckaN jftLVj is'k fd;k FkkA gkFk /kqyokus o uksV cjken djus ds ckn vfHk;qDr us ;g dgk Fkk fd jkethou es 500 :i;s yxku ds ckdh Fks ftl es ls og 200 :i;s ns x;k gSA Not only the independent witnesses but other members of the trap party belonging to Anti Corruption Department such as PW-5 Balwir Sahai, PW-6 Kedar Nath, and PW-9 Shri Ummed Singh, Addl.S.P., himself have admitted that when the accused was asked about obtaining the bribe amount of Rs. 200/- from the complainant Ramjiwan, he declined to have accepted Rs. 200/- as bribe money. On the contrary, he furnished an explanation that these Rs. 200/- he accepted against the payment of land revenue from the complainant. 200/- from the complainant Ramjiwan, he declined to have accepted Rs. 200/- as bribe money. On the contrary, he furnished an explanation that these Rs. 200/- he accepted against the payment of land revenue from the complainant. Thus, from the evidence of PW-3 Dev Karan, PW-4 Abdul Rahman, PW-5 Balwir Sahai, PW- 6 Kedar Nath and PW-9 Ummed Singh, it is very well established that the appellant Jagdish Narain immediately after trap, offered the explanation where he denied to obtain Rs. 200/- as bribe and claimed that he had received this amount against the payment of land revenue from the complainant. DW-1 Ram lal has stated that the Patwari asked Ramjiwan to deposit Rs. 650/- towards arrears of land revenue but he told him that he would come at Tonk for depositing the revenue and there was an altercation between him and the Patwari. DW-2 Rafikulla has stated that demand notice Ex.P/21 was issued against Ramjiwan which was served upon his son as Ramjiwan was not available in the village. DW-3 Shabbir stated that Ramjiwan came to the Patwari and wanted certified copies which were given to him and the Patwari also asked him to deposit the arrears of land revenue. DW-4 Ramjilal stated that Rajiwan came and deposited only Rs. 200/- with the Patwari inspite of his repeated request to deposit full amount of Rs. 642/- may be deposited together. The patwari prepared receipt for Rs. 200/- but in the meanwhile the ACD people came there and caught hold of him. 12. Mere receipt of Rs. 200/- by the appellant from the complainant Ramjiwan on 27.11.1980 (admitted by the appellant) will not be sufficient to fasten guilt under Section 5(1) (a) or Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. If the amount had been paid as payment of land revenue or even if it was not so paid, but the accused was made to believe that the payment was towards loan amount, he cannot be said to have committed any offence. If the reason for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and reasonable, then the appellant had to be acquitted as rightly done by the Special Court. 13. In the case of Punjabrao Vs. If the reason for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and reasonable, then the appellant had to be acquitted as rightly done by the Special Court. 13. In the case of Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2002 (10) SCC 371 ) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: "it is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability. (emphasis supplied) 14. In Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujart ( AIR 1976 SC 1497 ) , this Court held that: "the burden that rests on an accused to displace the statutory presumption that is raised under Section 4(1) of the Act, is not onerous as that cast on the prosecution to prove its case. But such burden has to be discharged, by brining on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as is referred to in Section 161, IPC." (emphasis supplied) 15. In State v. K. Narasimhachary (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 41 , the court reiterated the wellrecognised principles that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower court; and that only where the material on record leads to a sole and inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court. 16. In the case of Punjabrao, a patwari was on a campaign to collect loan amounts due to Government. The complainant therein was admittedly a debtor to the Government. The accused explained that the amount in question was received towards loan. The Hon'ble Apex Court accepted this explanation and held that the appellant had established the defence by preponderance of probability and thus acquitted him. In the instant appeal also, the appellant has also instantly denied to obtain the bribe money and immediately offered this explanation that the complainant had given money as payment of land revenue. The Hon'ble Apex Court accepted this explanation and held that the appellant had established the defence by preponderance of probability and thus acquitted him. In the instant appeal also, the appellant has also instantly denied to obtain the bribe money and immediately offered this explanation that the complainant had given money as payment of land revenue. The accused has not only claimed ignorance in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code but has submitted the written explanation also in defence. The accused has adduced one witnesses in defence DW-1 Nihal Chand. The learned Special Judge has not believed the explanation of the accused offered immediately after trap and the corroborative statements of the prosecution witnesses in this regard. The learned Special Judge has cursorily observed in a slipshod manner that the evidence of DW-1 Nihal Chand is not sufficient to rebut presumption raised under Section 4(1) of Act, 1947. The learned Special Judge has also not assigned any reason for not believing the explanation offered by the appellant as also the testimony of defence witnesses. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and anr. ( 2006 (6) SCC 39 ) has held that: "Moreover, the onus on an accused is not as heavy as that of the prosecution. It may be compared with a defendant in a civil proceeding." 18. Thus, it is well settled that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt like that of prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability. According to the appellant the amount of Rs. 200/- passed on to him was the payment of land revenue, as such it cannot be inferred that the appellant obtained Rs. 200/- from the complainant for any motive or reward. Thus, there being no occasion for the accused to demand the bribe from the complainant, I am constrained to hold the evidence of the complainant Ramjiwan untrustworthy and unworthy of credence. The explanation offered immediately after the trap by the accused appellant seems to be reliable and worthy of credence. 19. 200/- from the complainant for any motive or reward. Thus, there being no occasion for the accused to demand the bribe from the complainant, I am constrained to hold the evidence of the complainant Ramjiwan untrustworthy and unworthy of credence. The explanation offered immediately after the trap by the accused appellant seems to be reliable and worthy of credence. 19. In the case of T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that if the amount had been paid as lease rent arrears due to the temple or even if it was not so paid, but the accused was made to believe that the payment was towards lease rent due to the temple, he cannot be said to have committed any offence. If the reason for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and reasonable, then the appellant had to be acquitted. In the instant appeal there were land revenue dues towards complainant and the appellant had reminded him to deposit the same. The appellant admitted to have accepted as the part payment of land revenue arrears, albeit it was not permissible under rules. The part payment of land revenue arrears made by the complainant arose a doubt in his mind so he threw the money which was finally recovered from the floor lying beneath the Almirah. The tainted money was not recovered from the person of the appellant, rather it was collected from the floor. The explanation given by the appellant immediately after the incident clearly explained all the circumstances and raised not only a resonable but a very serious doubt about the amount having been received by him as an illegal gratification. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:- "If two views were possible from the very same evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the sum of Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification. Thus the trial court was right in holding that the charge against the appellant was not proved and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same." (Emphasis supplied)The learned trial court has not considered the explanation offered by the appellant in right perspective and has ignored the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time in this respect. 20. 20. In the ultimate analysis, it is held that the demand of bribe is very material in trap cases. Once the story of demand falls through, the authenticity of trap becomes highly doubtful because acceptance of bribe germinates through demand. The prosecution has failed to prove against the appellant both the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 200/- from the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is not found to be cogent, just and proper. The learned trial Judge has erred in ignoring the probable explanation offered by the appellant which in the facts and circumstances of the case stands fully established by preponderance of probability. I do not concur with the finding of conviction arrived at by the learned trial Court and the same deserves to be set aside. 21. For these reasons, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant Jagdish Narain son of Bhanwar Lal is allowed. His conviction and sentence awarded to him in the offences under Sections 161 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 vide impugned judgment dated September 06, 1986 are set aside and he is acquitted in the said offences. The appellant is on bail, he need not surrender and his bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******