JUDGMENT :- The State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Damoh in Special Case No. 7/92 acquitting the respondent under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act '). 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that respondent Dalchand Yadav was serving on the post of Tahsildar in the year 1989 and is posting was at Tendukheda. During that period complainant Premchand Jain submitted an application to get the Patta of the Government land given to him, renewed to the S. D. O. On the said application, Sub-Divisional Officer directed respondent to submit a report. It is the further case of prosecution that in order to give report/recommendation in favour of complainant, the respondent made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- from him and out of which earlier Rs. 800/- were paid by the complainant to the respondent and for the balance amount of Rs. 200/- gave assurance that the same shall be paid to the respondent later on. Since, the complainant did not want to give the balance amount of Rs. 200/- towards bribe, he submitted a written complaint on 7th March, 1989 before the Special Police Establishment at Jabalpur on the basis of which a trap was arranged. 3. In order to give positive result to the trap, two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each covered by phenolphthalein powder were given to the complainant and their numbers were noted down in the Panchanama. Thereafter, the trap party arrived in the Court of respondent where it is said that complainant gave those currency notes of Rs. 200/-to the respondent and thereafter gave signal to the members of the trap party. On seeing the signal, the members of the trap party entered inside the Court room of respondent and caught hold of his hands and they were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate. On washing of the hands, the solution turned to dirty pink colour. But the currency notes were not recovered from the possession of respondent. Thereafter, when the search was made, the currency notes were found lying behind the curtain of the window of his Court room, Their numbers were tallied with the number of the trap panchanama which were found to be the same. 4. The investigation agency thereafter investigated the case. But the currency notes were not recovered from the possession of respondent. Thereafter, when the search was made, the currency notes were found lying behind the curtain of the window of his Court room, Their numbers were tallied with the number of the trap panchanama which were found to be the same. 4. The investigation agency thereafter investigated the case. After the investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge who framed charge punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, which the appellant denied and requested for the trial. 5. The prosecution thereafter examined its witnesses and exhibited the documents. The specific defence of the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. is that he did not take any illegal gratification. The respondent also submitted written statement under Section 233(2) of Cr. P. C. and gave explanation. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence came to hold that the respondent did not commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually acquitted him from all the charges by the impugned judgment. 6. In this manner the present appeal has been filed by the State of M.P. assailing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge. 7. The contention of Shri Modh, learned Dy. Advocate General for appellant/State is that there is overwhelming evidence in the case holding the respondent to be guilty of the offences for which he was charged. By inviting my attention to the statement of the witnesses as well as the seizure memo of the currency notes and also the seizure memo of the hand wash solution of the respondent, it has been argued that since the hand wash solution of respondent turned to dirty pink, it can be inferred that the respondent accepted the currency notes covered by phenolphthalein powder and therefore the learned Special Judge erred in acquitting the respondent. 8. On the other hand, Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the present case, the currency notes of Rs. 200/- have not been seized from the respondent. 8. On the other hand, Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the present case, the currency notes of Rs. 200/- have not been seized from the respondent. Admittedly, they have been seized behind the curtain of the window of the Court room of the respondent. It is borne out from the testimony of witnesses and as well from the finding of the trial Court that the distance of the window from the chair of the respondent is 7 feet. In this context, the statement of R.C. Mishra (PW-3) who is witness of Map (Ex. P/4) may be seen. According to the evidence of complainant, Premchand (PW-4) the written complaint (Ex. P/5) was submitted by him on 7-3-1989 to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) at Jabalpur. The evidence of complainant is that in order to get his Patta of the land which is given to him renewed, he submitted an application to the Sub-Divisional officer who directed respondent to give his report and recommendation on the said application. According to the complainant to give favourable report in his favour, the respondent made demand of Rs. 1000/- towards illegal gratification and he paid Rs. 800/- to him and the balance amount of Rs. 200/- was to be paid but he did not want to give any illegal gratification and therefore, he submitted application before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. In the cross examination, he has admitted that the Patta was given to him 2-3 years prior to the incident (incident took place on 8-3-1989). The complainant has further admitted that a civil Suit in the Court of V Civil Judge, Class-II, Damoh has been filed by him against the State Government in respect to the same land, but, temporary injunction was not granted in his favour by the Civil Judge and the appeal filed by him before the District Judge was also dismissed. He has further admitted that the respondent was appointed by the collector as Officer Incharge to look after case on behalf of the State Government. He has further admitted that the respondent was appointed by the collector as Officer Incharge to look after case on behalf of the State Government. He has also stated that he sent telegram on 3-3-1989 to the respondent that he has to obtain the stay order and the case is to be heard by the District Judge on 7-3-1989. 11. In the present case the specific defence taken in the written statement filed by respondent under Section 233(2) Cr. P. C. is that in the Revenue Appeal 147/A65/ 86-87 on 30-6-1987 Additional Commissioner, Sagar passed an order that the Patta given in favour of one Hukum Bai is valid and by passing an order in her favour, directed to restore possession to her. The complainant Premchand submitted an application for renewal of the Patta of the same land and this application he submitted on 16-3-1988 to the Collector, Damoh. Eventually the said application was marked to the respondent to give his report, so that necessary orders may be passed on the application of the complainant. Thereafter, the respondent submitted his report/recommendation that in terms of the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar the possession is to be given to Hukum Bai. He has also stated in the written statement that expressly or impliedly he was not having any concern with the renewal application of the complainant. The Collector agreed with the recommendation made by the respondent and eventually dismissed the application of renewal of lease of the complainant on 24-9-1988. Thus, on 8-3-1989, when the trap was arranged, no matter was pending before the respondent. 12. Respondent has further stated in his written statement under Section 233(2) Cr. P. C. that he issued notice on 14-10-1988 to the complainant to vacate the said land and thereafter respondent filed Civil Suit No. 89-A/88 before the V Civil Judge Class-II, Damoh and also submitted an application for issuance of temporary injunction which was rejected on 28-2-1989. The Collector on 27-10-1988 appointed respondent as OIC in the civil suit filed by the complainant to represent the State Government and to submit reply and because he was appointed as OIC and was appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh to defend the case and was appearing in the Court of Civil Judge and was throughout opposing the case of plaintiff, therefore he has been falsely roped. It has also been stated in his written statement that because on the recommendation of the respondent, the application of complainant of renewal of his lease, has been rejected by the Collector, complainant started keeping enmity with him. When V Civil Judge, Class-II, Damoh rejected the application for temporary injunction of complainant on 28-2-1989, he (complainant) filed Appeal No. 3/89 before the District Judge which was listed for hearing on 7-3-1989. In this regard on 28-2-1989 and thereafter on 3-3-1989, complainant sent two telegrams to him that he (complainant) is bringing the stay order and therefore the shop (Tapra) of the complainant may not be dismantled. According to the explanation of the respondent, when from the Court of District Judge, stay order was not granted in favour of the complainant, he started harassing the respondent and in order to give positive steps to his vile idea, he made false complaint and arranged for a trap. It has also been submitted in the written statement by the respondent that on the date of incident i.e. 8-3-1989 at 1-2 p.m. when he was giving dictation to his Reader Nagsen Ahirwal, at that juncture, complainant came to his office and showed one photocopy of the order of the District Judge. Earlier also complainant Premchand used to give the copies of the proceedings of the Civil Court and copies of applications which he submitted in the Civil Court to him. On going through the photocopy of the order, respondent told complainant that no stay has been granted to him, thereafter complainant told that (whatever would happen it will be seen and thereafter he had gone). After 5-10 minutes, complainant came along with the trap party and the Inspector caught hold of his hands and made enquiry but he told him that he has no money with him. Thereafter the Inspector Draun Datt had some talk with complainant Premchand and then he seized the currency notes lying behind the curtain of the window, the glasses of which were broken. He has also stated in the written statement that the papers which were passed by Premchand to him might have covered by Phenolphthalein powder and in this manner he came into contact of those papers covered by Phenolphthalein powder. 13. In support of his written statement filed under Section 233(2) Cr. He has also stated in the written statement that the papers which were passed by Premchand to him might have covered by Phenolphthalein powder and in this manner he came into contact of those papers covered by Phenolphthalein powder. 13. In support of his written statement filed under Section 233(2) Cr. P. C. respondent filed copy of the order dated 30-6-1987 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar passed in the case of Hukum Bai which is Ex. D-3C. The respondent has also submitted the documents of his recommendation dated 16-6-1988 which is against the complainant in which he has recommended to deliver the possession to Hukum Bai in pursuance to the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar. This recommendation of respondent is Ex. D4C. On going through the document of report/recommendation Ex. D4C, it is gathered that firmly and strongly the respondent wrote against the complainant that his application for renewal of lease should not be allowed because there is an order of Additional Commissioner to restore possession to Hukum Bai. The defence which has been taken by respondent by filing written statement and also under Section 313 Cr. P. C. has also been proved by defence witness Tatu Lal (DW-1) who at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of UDC and was Reader of the respondent. The respondent also examined DW-3, Nag Sen Ahirwar, Clerk of his Court who has stated that on the date of incident respondent was giving dictation to him, at that juncture complainant came and told to respondent that the stay order has been given to him. On this respondent asked to pass on the paper of the stay order and thereafter complainant handed over a photocopy of one paper to respondent which respondent took and after reading the same told to complainant that the stay order has not been given to him and thereafter the trap party arrived and this is how the Incident took place. 14. On the basis of evidence and material placed on record, the defence of respondent appears to be quite probable that the complainant was keeping enmity with him because respondent did not submit the recommendation in his favour and he was also OIC in the civil suit and was defending the State of Madhya Pradesh by opposing complainant. 14. On the basis of evidence and material placed on record, the defence of respondent appears to be quite probable that the complainant was keeping enmity with him because respondent did not submit the recommendation in his favour and he was also OIC in the civil suit and was defending the State of Madhya Pradesh by opposing complainant. It appears that in order to get the lease renewed, a report was called from the respondent and in Ex. D/4-C the respondent strongly recommended not to renew the lease because there is already an order of Additional Commissioner in favour of Hukum Bai to restore possession to her. The Supreme Court in the case of Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (1) MPWN Short Note 72 : ( AIR 2002 SC 486 ) has categorically held that in the cases under the Act the accused is not required to establish defence by proving it beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is only required to establish probability and preponderance and if the defence of the accused is found to be probable, the same should be given due weightage. In the present case also, the defence which has been taken by respondent in the written statement under Section 233(2) Cr. P. C. is found to be quite probable and, therefore, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in accepting the same by acquitting the respondent. 15. One important fact which canno t be marginalized and blinked away is that the report/recommendation (Ex.D/4-C) was already given by respondent on 16-6-1988 long before the date of trap which took place on 8-3-1989 and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to make any demand of illegal gratification because on the date of incident nothing was to be done by the respondent. Hence, I am of the view that there was no occasion for respondent to make any demand of illegal gratification. In this con text, I may profitably rely on the decision of Supreme Court Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211 : (2005 Cri LJ 3454) 16. Hence, I am of the view that there was no occasion for respondent to make any demand of illegal gratification. In this con text, I may profitably rely on the decision of Supreme Court Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211 : (2005 Cri LJ 3454) 16. The defence which has been taken by respondent that certain papers were passed by the complainant to him immediately before the trap and perhaps in order to give positive effect to the trap and in order to implicate the respondent falsely, the complainant anyhow managed to put some little quantity of phenolphthalein powder and this was the reason that the colour of the hand wash was not turned to pink, but, turned to dirty pink. No prudent man would digest that after the recommendation Ex. D/ 4-C written by respondent and submitting it to the Collector against the complainant long back on 16-6-1988, the respondent, would make any demand of bribe after near about nine months when he (respondent) was not required to do anything in the case of complainant. 17. Apart from this, there is no recovery of the currency notes from the appellant and the same were found and recovered behind the curtain of the window of the Court room which is at a distance of 7 feet from his chair. There is also discrepancy in respect to the recovery of the currency notes. According to prosecution, the currency notes of Rs. 200/- were lying behind the curtain of the window but PW-7, Ganga Datt who is the member of trap party is saying that these currency notes were kept in an envelop behind the curtain of the window. It is borne out from the record that the glasses of the window were broken and behind the window there is a ground in which any person may freely access. Thus, keeping the currency notes from the broken glass of the window behind the curtain in order to implicate respondent falsely cannot be ruled out. 18. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Special Judge and I find them to be quite cogent as they are based on correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. 19. Resultantly, this appeal is found to be bereft of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed. Respondent is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed.