JUDGMENT : A.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. The judgment of absolvitur passed by learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 8/88 acquitting the respondent from the charges punishable under sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short ‘the Act’) and also under section 161, Indian Penal Code on 12th May, 1993, has been made pivot in this appeal by State of Madhya Pradesh by filing this appeal under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari is a practicing Advocate in Rahli, Distt. Sagar. His Bhabhi (elder brother's wife) is having some agricultural land in village Patna Kakri. Complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari was inclined to purchase one acre land of his Bhabhi for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/-. The deal was settled. At that time, the respondent was serving on the post of Patwari of village Patna Kakri. It is said that complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari asked respondent to prepare Aks (map) of the land which he purchased after getting it measured. For this. Respondent made a demand of Rs. 2,000/- from complainant. A sum of Rs. 500/- was paid by complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari and balance amount of Rs. 1,500/- was settled to be given on the date of incident viz. 15-4-1986. Since complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari was not inclined to give illegal gratification to the respondent and wanted to get him caught red handed eventually, on 15-4-1986 complainant submitted a complaint addressed to the Collector, Sagar, on the basis of which a trap was arranged. After registering the case and doing the needful, 15 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each coated by phenolphthalein powder, were handed over to the complainant and the same were kept in the pocket of his trouser and he was pacified that he should not touch the currency notes before handing over the same to the respondent. Thereafter, complainant called respondent at his residence and there he handed over the currency notes covered by phenolphthalein powder to him and thereafter a signal was given to the trap party who rushed and caught hold of the respondent. Thereafter his hands were washed and the hand wash was turned to pink. 3. After obtaining the sanction to prosecute the respondent under section 161, Indian Penal Code and also under sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Act, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court. Thereafter his hands were washed and the hand wash was turned to pink. 3. After obtaining the sanction to prosecute the respondent under section 161, Indian Penal Code and also under sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Act, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court. The Special Court, on going through the charge-sheet, framed charges punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Act and also framed a charge under section 161, Indian Penal Code. Needless to emphasis, respondent abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. 4. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and placed Ex. P/1 to P/17, the documents on record. The defence of respondent is of false implication and the further defence he set forth is that his brother Harinarayan has the land business and is a property dealer. By taking his brother's service, the deal between complainant and his Bhabhi was settled and complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari agreed to give a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the brother of complainant-Harinaraian towards commission. The brother of complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari namely Hari Ram Tiwari gave a sum of Rs. 500/- to Harinaraian (brother of respondent) and balance amount of Rs. 1,500/- was agreed to be paid later. Thereafter Hari Naraian started living at Sagar and he directed respondent who is his brother to receive his balance amount of Rs. 1,500/- from complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari and complainant was also told to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,500/- to respondent. The further defence is that indeed, complainant became dishonest and when the repeated demand of payment of Rs. 1,500/- was made from complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari, he became annoyed and started keeping enmity with him, and hence in order to implicate the respondent falsely, a false complaint was lodged and respondent was called by complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari at his residence and where he gave Rs. 1,500/- to him and also told that this amount is the balance amount of commission of his brother Harinaraian, since he (Harinaraian) settled the deal of the land which was purchased by the complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari. In this manner, the respondent kept the amount of Rs. 1,500/- and thereafter the trap party arrived and caught hold him. 5. 1,500/- to him and also told that this amount is the balance amount of commission of his brother Harinaraian, since he (Harinaraian) settled the deal of the land which was purchased by the complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari. In this manner, the respondent kept the amount of Rs. 1,500/- and thereafter the trap party arrived and caught hold him. 5. In support of his defence respondent examined as many as five witness, they are Umrav Singh (DW-1), Ghanshyam (DW-2), Mahesh Kumar Nayak (DW-3), his brother Harinarayan (DW-4) and Rewaram (DW-5). 6. Learned Special Judge, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, came to hold that neither any offence under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Act nor the offence under section 161, Indian Penal Code has been found to be proved and, eventually, acquitted the respondent by the impugned judgment. 7. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh assailing the judgment of absolvitur. 8. Shri T.K. Modh, learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellant/State, has submitted that in the present case receiving of amount of Rs. 1,500/- has been accepted by respondent and because the same was recovered from his possession after the trap was successful, therefore, the charges levelled against the respondent are proved. It has also been argued by learned Dy. Advocate General that when respondent received the amount of Rs. 1,500/- from complainant, the members of the trap parties arrived and the hands of the respondents were washed by the solution of Sodium Carbonet and the hand wash became pink, therefore, this would be an additional factor in order to hold that an amount of Rs. 1,500/- of illegal gratification was demanded by the respondent, and since undisputedly the currency notes were recovered from the possession of the respondent at the residence of complainant, learned Special Court erred in law in acquitting the respondent. 9. Per contra. Shri Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the respondent, argued in support of the impugned judgment and has submitted that the land was already sold earlier to the alleged demand of illegal gratification was made by the respondent and if that would be the position, there was no occasion for the respondent to make any demand. Further it has been argued by him that in order to get the sale deed executed, no map (Aks) is required. Further it has been argued by him that in order to get the sale deed executed, no map (Aks) is required. It has also been submitted by him that in order to get the land demarcated, an application is required to be submitted in the Court of Tehsildar and a judicial order would be passed in that proceeding directing the Patwari (respondent, at the relevant point of time, was serving on the post of Patwari) to prepare and submit the map (Aks). The contention of learned counsel is that no application was filed by the complainant before the Tehsildar and no case was registered and, therefore, there was no occasion to ask respondent to prepare map (Aks) after demarcating the land. By inviting my attention to the testimony of complainant, it has been argued that unofficially a copy of Aks (map) was demanded by the complainant and if that would be the position, the services which the complainant was desiring to obtain from respondent was not as a public servant as defined under section 2(c) of the Act. 10. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the respondent that learned Special Court found that there is enmity between the complainant and the respondent, since on the report of respondent as Patwari, a case was registered against the brother of complainant and fine was also imposed on him and in this respect certified copy of the proceedings and the order has been placed on record. On these premised submissions, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent that this appeal sans substance and the same be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. On going through the finding recorded by learned Special Judge in Para-23, this Court finds that before the date of incident the agricultural land for which an Aks (map) was demanded from the respondent, was already sold and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to make any demand to prepare the Aks (map) so that land could be sold. The Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211 , has held that if there was no occasion to make demand and acceptance of the bribe, the accused cannot be convicted. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211 , has held that if there was no occasion to make demand and acceptance of the bribe, the accused cannot be convicted. 13. Apart from this, even if it is held that any demand of Rs. 1,500/- was made by respondent from complainant, the said demand was not made by him as a public servant in order to discharge the public duty as defined under section 2(c) and (b) of the Act respectively. At the most, it can be said to be a reward without any motive. 14. Learned Special Judge in Paras 11 and 24 of its judgment has quoted the defence of the respondent. The defence of respondent is that complainant keeps enmity with him since upon his report, fine of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the brother of the complainant by Tehsildar and, therefore, it can be inferred that on account of enmity the respondent has been falsely implicated. To me, the finding of learned Special Judge appears to be reasonable and it can be inferred that respondent was falsely roped. 15. The other defence of respondent is also probable that in order to get the deal of land settled, complainant-Ram Ram Tiwari took the services of the brother of respondent namely Harinaraian who is a property dealer. The complainant was required to pay the amount of commission of Rs. 1,500/- to Harinaraian which was not paid to him despite repeated demand made by said Harinaraian. Thereafter Harinaraian started living in Sagar and before leaving village Rahli where respondent and complainant resides, it was told by Harinarayan to complainant to pay his balance amount of commission of Rs. 1,500/- to his brother (respondent) and, therefore, respondent approached complainant several times to make payment and this made annoyance to him as such he (respondent) has been falsely implicated. In order to prove his defence, respondent also examined defence witnesses including his brother Harinaraian (DW-4). The defence taken by respondent has also been found to be probable by learned Special Judge in Paras 24 and 25 of its judgment. To me, also the defence is probable and it has also been found to be proved by adducing the oral and documentary evidence by the respondent. The defence taken by respondent has also been found to be probable by learned Special Judge in Paras 24 and 25 of its judgment. To me, also the defence is probable and it has also been found to be proved by adducing the oral and documentary evidence by the respondent. The probable defence taken by the respondent which has also been found to be proved, its standard of proof cannot be equated with that of the burden of proof of the prosecution. The Court is only required to see whether the defence is probable and if the Court is satisfied that the same is probable, it should be given due weightage in favour of the accused. In this context, I may profitably place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Punjabrao vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (1) MPWN 72 . 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Indeed, learned Special Judge was absolutely right in acquitting the respondent from the charges. This appeal is found to be bereft of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed. The respondent is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby discharged.