JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated April 21, 1986 whereby, the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jaipur, convicted the accused-appellant Tej Singh in the offence under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1947') and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case is woven like this: That there was a mosque situated in Village Roopwas District Bharatpur. PW-1 Alladin was a 'Mutwali' on this mosque. It is alleged that the trespass was committed on the 'Chabutra' of the mosque and a case with regard to the eviction of the 'Chabutra' was pending in the court of Naib Tehsildar, Roopwas where the accused-appellant was posted was to be pronounced on May 30, 1979. It is alleged that the complainant went to Tehsil Roopwas for hearing judgment. There he met the accused Tej Singh, who informed him that judgment had been dictated which was not signed by Naib Tehsildar. He further told him that Naib Tehsildar was soliciting for a bribe of Rs. 150/- for signing on the judgment. The complainant expressed his inability to give Rs. 150/- because of his poor economic condition. Somehow, the accused-appellant agreed to accept Rs. 50/-. It is further alleged that the complainant did not want to give bribe to the accused-appellant, hence, he submitted a written complaint Ex.P/1 before PW-10 Uma Shanker Sharma, the then Dy.S.P., Anti Corruption Department, Bharatpur, who formulated a scheme for entrapping the appellant Tej Singh and co-opted two independent witnesses PW-2 Pramod Kumar and PW-3 Jugal Kishore. 3. The complainant gave Rs. 50/- currency notes of different denomination to Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption Department, who in the presence of the independent witnesses treated them with phenoptheline powder and having initialed them returned to the complainant with the direction that he shall pay these currencies notes to the accused on demand and give the agreed signal. PW-10 Shri Uma Shanker Sharma proceeded to Roop was along with the trap party and on getting agreed signal caught the appellant red-handed with marked currency notes of Rs. 50/-. PW-10 Shri Uma Shanker Sharma proceeded to Roop was along with the trap party and on getting agreed signal caught the appellant red-handed with marked currency notes of Rs. 50/-. He recovered the said marked currency notes vide memo Ex.P/5, prepared site plan Ex.P/6, arrested the FIR Ex.P/14, recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., obtained the sanction Ex.P/17 from District Magistrate, Bharatpur to prosecute the accused and after usual investigation sent the appellant for trial to the competent court. 4. In due course, the case came up for hearing before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jaipur. The accused was indicted for the offences under Sections 161 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the 'Act 1947', who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. In his explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused claimed innocence and pleaded that on May 30, 1979, he was working as a Receipt- Dispatch Clerk. About 2-2 1/2 months prior to the occurrence, the complainant Alladin along with Ganeshi Lal came to his house and asked for Rs. 100/- loan for Ganeshi Lal. He declined to give Rs. 100/- as he did not have that money with him. However, he assured to manage this money through his brother. The accused told the complainant that he did not know Ganeshi Lal and he shall manage Rs. 100/- through his brother on his guarantee. Whereupon, the complainant took the guarantee of returning this money on behalf of Ganeshi Lal. The appellant examined two witnesses DW-1 Ganeshi Lal and DW-2 Dal Chand in defence. On completion of trial, the court convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. 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 the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court acquitted the accused under Section 161 of IPC but convicted the accused under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Act 1947, whereas both the offences are related to the acceptance of illegal gratification. (ii) That the prosecution sanction Ex.P/17 accorded by PW-11 Gajendra Haldiya was given in a mechanical way without applying his mind. The learned trial court acquitted the accused under Section 161 of IPC but convicted the accused under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Act 1947, whereas both the offences are related to the acceptance of illegal gratification. (ii) That the prosecution sanction Ex.P/17 accorded by PW-11 Gajendra Haldiya was given in a mechanical way without applying his mind. (iii) That the accused is alleged to have obtained bribe of Rs. 50/- for getting the signature of Naib Tehsildar on judgment Ex.P/11, which was pending in his Court, whereas, PW-6 Niranjan Lal, the then Naib Tehsildar, Roop was deposed in the court that he pronounced the judgment on May 30, 1979 in the presence of the complainant Alladin. Thus, no question arose to demand bribe of Rs. 50/- for getting signature of Naib Tehsildar on the judgment in question. (iv) That the appellant managed a loan of Rs. 100/- from his brother for Ganeshi Lal at the instance of the complainant Alladin. This loan was to be returned within one month. But the complainant did not return the same, so, he was reminded to return the money verbally and through a letter. The complainant appellant accepted as loan amount only. This plea of the accused has been corroborated by the defence witnesses and the same is proved by the preponderance of probability and thus; (v) the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the accused may be acquitted. 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. Having perused the impugned judgment of the learned trial court, it is noticed that the learned trial court acquitted the appellant in the offence under Section 161 of IPC for the reason that the prosecution failed to prove any work to be done in favour of the complainant so pending with him. The learned trial court has also observed that the appellant did not obtain or accept Rs. 50/- for himself. Apart, there was no motive or reward to obtain the bribe of Rs. 50/- from the complainant. But he has been convicted in the offence under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Act 1947. The learned trial court has also observed that the appellant did not obtain or accept Rs. 50/- for himself. Apart, there was no motive or reward to obtain the bribe of Rs. 50/- from the complainant. But he has been convicted in the offence under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Act 1947. Hence, a very crucial question springing for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether the appellant by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant obtained Rs. 50/- for Naib Tehsildar, Roopwas in respect of obtaining his signatures on the judgment to be pronounced on April 30, 1979? 9. Section 5(1)(d) of the Act 1947 reads as: 5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty.-(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty (d) If he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 10. 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. 50/- other than the legal remuneration from the complainant Alladin for Naib Tehsildar, Roopwas in respect of obtaining his signatures on the judgment as a motive. The learned Special Judge acquitted the appellant in the offence under Section 161 of IPC but convicted him mainly on this ground that the accused admitted to accept Rs. 50/- from Alladin and that the accused failed to prove the amount of Rs. 50/- as return of loan which Alladin had raised for Ganeshi Lal. 9. The learned Special Judge acquitted the appellant in the offence under Section 161 of IPC but convicted him mainly on this ground that the accused admitted to accept Rs. 50/- from Alladin and that the accused failed to prove the amount of Rs. 50/- as return of loan which Alladin had raised for Ganeshi Lal. 9. Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads: Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 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. 11. 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 Section 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 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. 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 Section 101, Evidence Act rests on the prosecution. While the mere plausibility of an explanation given by the accused in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 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 Prasad Gupta v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 176. 12. 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. 13. Let us now consider the facts of the present case in the light of the principles ennunciated above. The testimony of its star witness PW-1 Alladin is that a case with regard to the eviction of 'Chabutra' of mosque was pending in the court of Naib Tehsildar, Roopwas. On May 30, 1979 he met the appellant Tej Singh who was posted in the office of Naib Tehsildar. He showed the judgment to him stating that he will have to give Rs. On May 30, 1979 he met the appellant Tej Singh who was posted in the office of Naib Tehsildar. He showed the judgment to him stating that he will have to give Rs. 150/- for getting decision in his favour and obtaining the signature of Naib Tehsildar on it. From the perusal of the judgment in question Ex.P/11, it is noticed that on May 30, 1979 this judgment itself was bearing the signatures of the then Naib Tehsildar. It is an admitted fact that when the judgment was taken in custody by the Anti Corruption Department on June 7, 1979, the judgment was bearing the signatures of Naib Tehsildar. This fact is strengthened by PW-6 Niranjan Lal, the then Naib Tehsildar, Roopwas who has deposed eviction of 'Chabutra' of mosque was decided by him on May 30, 1979 and the judgment was pronounced on May 30, 1979 in the presence of the complainant Alladin. He signed the judgment on the very same day. The order-sheet of this case was also written by him which bore his signatures. Thus it is evinced from the statement of PW-6 Niranjan Lal as also the judgment in question Ex.P/11 that it had been pronounced in the presence of the complainant Alladin on May 30, 1979 itself and on June 7, 1979 no work was pending with the accused. Thus the exhibition of an unsigned judgment by the appellant to the complainant stands totally falsified. 14. Thus the exhibition of an unsigned judgment by the appellant to the complainant stands totally falsified. 14. Albeit, in the running note of Ex.P/1, PW-10 Uma Shanker Sharma has recorded the instantaneous explanation furnished by the appellant at the time of trap which reads as under: " vyknhu us ;s 50@& :i;s ds uksV tcjnLrh mldh tsc esa Mkys gSA vkSj ;g Hkh crk;k fd vyknhu ls mldk dksbZ >xM+k ugha gSA vkSj mlds ikl vyknhu dk dksbZ dke ugha FkkA " But the independent witness PW-2 Pramod Kumar who was present on the spot at the time of trap, deposed before the Court as under: " ;g ckr lgh gS fd eqyfte us ifjoknh dks ;gh dgk Fkk fd rqEgkjh ekQZr tks x.ks'kh yky dks lkS :i;s fn;s Fks os gh :i;s ywaxk iwjs nksA D;ksafd mldk HkkbZ ckj&ckj rdktk djrk gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ifjoknh vyknhu us tcjnLrh 50@& :i;s ds djsalh uksV~l eqyfte dh iSaV esa Mky fn;s FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eqyfte us ;s :i;s ysus ls euk dj fn;k FkkA " The second independent witness of this case is PW-4 Hukam Chand Jain who has also not supported the prosecution case. This witness in his examination in chief has deposed as under: " Mh0,l0ih0 us rstflag dks ;g iwNk fd mlus uksV vyknhu ls fdl ckr ds fy, gSa bl ij rstflag us igys ;g dgk fd mlus :i;s m/kkj ds fy, gSa o fQj dgk fd rst flag dh tsc esa vyknhu us :i;s tcjnLrh Mky fn;s gSaA " The appellant has examined DW-1 Ganeshi Lal and DW-2 Dal Chand in support of his defence. 15. The complainant in this regard has given altogether a contradictory statement. As per his deposition when Dy. S.P. asked appellant about the acceptance of bribe of Rs. 50/-, he suddenly got flustered and declined to accept the money. Whereas, PW-10 Uma Shanker Sharma has stated that when asked about the bribe the appellant admitted to obtain the money which he put in the pocket of his trouser. The complainant has made numerous improvements in his statements in material particulars. The statements of the star witness Alladin and the Investigating Officer PW-10 Uma Shanker Sharma are laden with contradictions, omissions and improvements in material particulars. The complainant has made numerous improvements in his statements in material particulars. The statements of the star witness Alladin and the Investigating Officer PW-10 Uma Shanker Sharma are laden with contradictions, omissions and improvements in material particulars. But nevertheless, from the evidence of PW-1 Alladin, PW-2 Pramod Kumar, PW-3 Jugal Kishore, PW-4 Hukamchand Jain, it is very well established that the appellant Tej Singh immediately after trap offered the explanation wherein he denied to obtain Rs. 50/-as bribe and claimed that no work of complainant Alladin was pending with him. 16. Mere receipt of Rs. 50/- by the appellant from PW-1 on 06.06.1979 (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 loan 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. 17. In the case of Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 486 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. 18. In Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujart 1976 Cri LJ 1180 , 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. 19. 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. 19. In State v. K. Narasimhachary (2006) 1 SCC 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. 20. 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 loan amount. The accused has not only claimed ignorance in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but has submitted the written explanation also in defence. The accused has adduced two witnesses in defence DW-1 Ganeshi Lal and DW-2 Dal Chand. He has also stated that the complainant Alladin along with Ganeshi Lal came to his house and asked for Rs. 100/- loan for Ganeshi Lal. He declined to give Rs. 100/- as he did not have that money with him. However, he assured to manage this money through his brother. The accused told the complainant that he did not know Ganeshi Lal and he shall manage Rs. 100/-through his brother on his guarantee. Whereupon, the complainant took the guarantee of returning this money on behalf of Ganeshi Lal. 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 Ganeshi Lal and DW-2 Dal Chand is not sufficient to rebut presumption raised under Section 4(1) of Act, 1947. The learned Special Judge has cursorily observed in a slipshod manner that the evidence of DW-1 Ganeshi Lal and DW-2 Dal 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. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2006 Cri LJ 4607 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. 22. Thus, it is well settled 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. Since no work of the complainant was pending with the accused appellant with regard to obtaining signatures of Naib Tehsildar on the judgment in question with the accused appellant, it cannot be inferred that the appellant obtained Rs. 50/-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 PW/1 Alladin untrustworthy and unworthy of credence. The explanation offered immediately after the trap by the accused appellant seems to be reliable and worthy of credence. 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. 50/- from the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is not found to be cogent, just and proper. The learned Single 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. 23. The learned Single 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. 23. For these reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences awarded to the accused-appellant Tej Singh S/o. Gyarsi Ram by-caste Jatav, resident of Village Jarela Tehsil Roopbas, District Bharatpur vide impugned judgment dated April 21, 1986 are set aside. Instead, the accused-appellant is acquitted for the charges under Section 161 of I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The accused-appellant is on bail, as such, his bail bonds stands discharged.Appeal Allowed. *******