Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 390 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. GOPALBHAI DEVJIBHAI GAJERA

2013-07-08

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2013
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2007, rendered by the learned Second Fast Track Judge and Special Judge, Junagadh, in Special (ACB) Case No.7/1995, whereby the respondent original accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections7, 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, based upon the complaint lodged by Mohanbhai Bhimabhai Vaghela on 22.12.1994, is as follows: 2.1 The complainant is a resident of village Araniyala, Taluka Mendarada, District Junagadh. He has stated that on the western side of the village, the State Government has made plots of 100 yards each, to be given to economically poor persons, free of cost. The complainant was desirous of obtaining such plot, therefore, about two-and-a-half to three months before making the complaint, he had gone to the office of the Gram Panchayat to meet the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Araniyala (the accused) and filled up a Form for the allotment of a plot. He gave the application form, duly filled up, to the accused, who told him that the allotment of plots would be done at the time of the ‘Diwali’ festival; however, the complainant would have to pay an amount of Rs.200/- to him. The complainant asked the accused why he would have to pay Rs.200/-, to which the accused replied that the plot would be allotted speedily, if he pays the money. The complainant, therefore, gave an amount of Rs.200/- to the accused. At that time, none was present in the office of the Gram Panchayat except the complainant and the accused. Thereafter, five persons from the village, namely, Chandubhai Vastabhai Parmar, Jentibhai Bhikhabhai Rathod, Mansukhbhai Nathabhai Vaghela etc. were allotted plots, but none was allotted to the complainant. After the ‘Diwali’ festival, on Monday, 19.12.1994, the complainant went to Mendarada to meet the accused and told him that he had not been allotted a plot. He met the accused in Padar Chowk, at Mendarada. Upon asking him about the plot, the accused told the complainant that he would have to give an amount of Rs.300/after which the plot would be allotted to him. The complainant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.300/- and it was agreed that this amount was to be paid on Thursday, 22.12.1994, at Mendarada. No specific time was given by the accused for the payment of the money. The complainant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.300/- and it was agreed that this amount was to be paid on Thursday, 22.12.1994, at Mendarada. No specific time was given by the accused for the payment of the money. According to the complainant, none other was present when the accused demanded Rs.300/- as illegal gratification from the complainant. As the complainant was not desirous of giving the bribe money to the accused, he approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Junagadh (‘ACB’, for short) and lodged the complaint, being C.R.No.16/1994 (Exhibit22). After registration of the complaint, PW4, Hridaykunj Mangalprasad Buch, who was the Police Inspector (ACB) who registered the complaint, made necessary preparations for laying a trap. Two Panch witnesses were called and the background of the case was explained to them. Thereafter, PW4, accompanied by the Panch witnesses and other members of the raiding party, went in a Police vehicle from Bilkha Guest House to Mendarada village. The Jeep was stopped outside the village. The complainant and PW3, Vanmalibhai Trikambhai Mehta, who is the first Panch witness, alighted from the vehicle and inquired about the accused but he was not found. Upon inquiring at the house of the accused, they were informed by his wife that he had gone out of the village and it was not certain when he would return. It was decided to continue the procedure of the trap on the next day. On 21.12.1994, the raiding party again went in a Police vehicle to Mendarada. On reaching there, the complainant, accompanied by PW3, went to Padar Chowk. On that day as well, the accused was not found in Mendarada. They again inquired at his house and were told that he had left at about 9.00 a.m., for some work and would probably return at 8.00 p.m. The raiding party then went to Sasan at 13.45 Hours and returned to Mendarada at 19.50 Hours. The complainant and PW3 went to Padar Chowk but did not find the accused. Upon inquiring, they were informed that a bus had just arrived from Junagadh and the accused had arrived in that bus. The complainant and PW3 went to the Bus Stand. The complainant spoke to the accused, who demanded Rs.300/- from him and told him that when the Land Committee meets, the plot would be allotted to him. Upon inquiring, they were informed that a bus had just arrived from Junagadh and the accused had arrived in that bus. The complainant and PW3 went to the Bus Stand. The complainant spoke to the accused, who demanded Rs.300/- from him and told him that when the Land Committee meets, the plot would be allotted to him. The complainant then took out three notes of Rs.100/- denomination each that had previously been treated with Anthracene powder and gave them to the accused, who counted them and put them in the righthand pocket of his trousers. The complainant gave the prearranged signal, upon which the raiding party, headed by PW4, arrived and apprehended the accused. The accused was brought to the Government Guest House, Mendarada, and the notes were examined under the rays of an ultraviolet lamp. The person of the accused was searched and the clothes worn by him were seized vide a Seizure Memo. The accused came to be arrested and his statement was taken by the Raiding Officer. PW4 investigated the case and took the statements of witnesses. Sanction for the prosecution of the accused was obtained and on 29.04.1995, the charge-sheet was submitted. The charge was framed against the accused on 24.03.2006. It was read over and explained to him. The accused denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. After the recording of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses was over, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He pleaded his innocence and gave a written explanation, wherein his defence was that he had never demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant and the amount of Rs.300/- given by the complainant was on account of his unpaid tax dues of Rs.280/-. He has stated that as he was in the process of returning Rs.20/- to the complainant, he was apprehended by the raiding party. 4. The prosecution has examined four witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The defence has examined two witnesses. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The prosecution has examined four witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The defence has examined two witnesses. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. It was also found that the recovery of the alleged bribe money was not satisfactorily proved and that the defence put up by the accused was a possible and probable one. On the strength of the above findings, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal. 5. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in correct perspective. The prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused, as clearly emerges from the evidence on record. It is submitted that the complainant went to the accused on 19.12.1994, on which day the accused told him to pay an amount of Rs.300/-. The application form for the allotment of a plot was submitted by the complainant on 19.10.1994. Before that, the meeting of the Land Committee of the Taluka Panchayat had already been held, on 17.10.1994. As the process was over, the accused, intending to misuse his position, told the complainant that he would get a plot allotted to him upon payment of illegal gratification of Rs.300/-. It is submitted that the demand of the bribe money is established. Even earlier, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.200/- to the accused, at the time of tendering the application. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the bribe money was given by the complainant to the accused and accepted by the accused in the presence of PW1, therefore, the acceptance of illegal gratification is also established. The notes that had been treated with Anthracene powder were recovered from the person of the accused. As all the necessary ingredients for establishing the offence against the accused are present, the Trial Court has erred in recording a finding of acquittal. It is emphatically submitted that the defence of the accused, that the amount of Rs.300/- was tendered towards outstanding tax dues of the complainant is not probable, as the evidence of DW1 reveals that the amount of Rs.280/- has been deposited by the complainant. It is emphatically submitted that the defence of the accused, that the amount of Rs.300/- was tendered towards outstanding tax dues of the complainant is not probable, as the evidence of DW1 reveals that the amount of Rs.280/- has been deposited by the complainant. On the above grounds, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order be quashed and set aside and the appeal allowed. 6. The submissions advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been strongly opposed by Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the accused, by submitting that there are deep and inherent contradictions in the complaint as well as the deposition of the complainant that render the theory put forth by the prosecution unbelievable. It is pointed out that in the complaint, it is mentioned that the complainant had given an amount of Rs.200/- to the accused in his office, whereas in his deposition, he has stated that he had given this amount in Padar Chowk at Mendarada. It is further pointed out by the learned advocate for the accused that in the complaint it is nowhere stated by the Investigating Officer that it was recorded at Bilkha Guest House, but this aspect is evident from the deposition of the Investigating Officer himself. It is further pointed out on behalf of the accused that the demand of illegal gratification by the accused has not been proved and neither has its acceptance been established. PW3, Vanmalibhai Trikambhai Mehta, has stated in his deposition that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. As per the defence put up by the accused, the amount of Rs.300/- proffered by the complainant, was towards his outstanding tax dues and just as the accused was about to return Rs.20/-, he was apprehended. The evidence of DW1, Talati-cum-Mantri, clearly show that the amount of Rs.280/- towards outstanding tax dues was pending against the complainant. The receipt was made by the accused in advance, on being assured by the complainant that he was bringing the money. However, the complainant did not return and the original receipt is found on record. 6.1 Reiterating that the amount of Rs.300/- was not given by the complainant as illegal gratification, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the application at Exhibit23 has been submitted by the complainant directly to the Taluka Panchayat and not to the respondent. However, the complainant did not return and the original receipt is found on record. 6.1 Reiterating that the amount of Rs.300/- was not given by the complainant as illegal gratification, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the application at Exhibit23 has been submitted by the complainant directly to the Taluka Panchayat and not to the respondent. There was no occasion for the accused to demand illegal gratification for the allotment of a plot, the procedure for which is to be done by the Taluka Panchayat. 6.2 It is further submitted that DW2, an independent witness, has supported the case of the defence. He has stated he was present in the office of the Panchayat when the respondent informed the complainant regarding his outstanding tax dues of Rs.280/- and the complainant told him that he would come back with the money. 6.3 It is next submitted that the defence put up by the accused is possible and probable looking to the evidence on record, as it has been established that the complainant was in arrears of taxes to the tune of Rs.280/-. It was this money that was being proffered to the accused. It is lastly submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court is just and proper and the findings are supported by cogent reasons, therefore, this Court may not interfere and the appeal may be dismissed. 6.4 In support of the above submissions, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments : (i) State of U.P. Vs. Banne @ Baijnath & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) GLH 279. (ii) State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, reported in (2009)15 SCC 200 . (iii) Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2002 SC 486 . 7. In the background of the above submissions, it would be appropriate to notice the salient features of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, in order to re-appreciate the same vis-a-vis the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court. 8. The complainant, Mohanbhai Bhimabhai, has been examined as PW1, at Exhibit-21. He states that he had made an application to the accused who was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri of village Araniyala for the grant of a free plot of 100 sq.yards. According to him, the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.200/- from him to process the application speedily. 8. The complainant, Mohanbhai Bhimabhai, has been examined as PW1, at Exhibit-21. He states that he had made an application to the accused who was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri of village Araniyala for the grant of a free plot of 100 sq.yards. According to him, the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.200/- from him to process the application speedily. After submitting the application, he learnt that plots have been allotted to certain other persons, but not to him. He, therefore, met the accused. The accused purportedly gave him an assurance that the plot would be allotted to him but he would have to pay an amount of Rs.300/-. The complainant agreed to pay the said amount. However, he went to Junagadh and filed a complaint in the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). Thereafter, he, accompanied by the Raiding Officer (PW4), other Police personnel and two Panch witnesses, went to Bilkha Guest House. PW4 asked the complainant to produce the bribe money. The complainant handed over an amount of Rs.200/- and PW 4 added an amount of Rs.100/- to this. The three currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were treated with Anthracene powder and checked under the rays of an ultraviolet lamp. The muddamal notes were then put into the pocket of this witness. The raiding party, accompanied by this witness and two Panch witnesses, went to Mendarada in a Police Jeep. This witness states that on reaching Mendarada, they went to the house of the accused. They were told that he had gone out and his return was uncertain. The trap could not take place that day and the muddamal notes were returned to PW4. This witness further states that on the next day, the raiding party again went to Mendarada at 8’O Clock in the morning. Upon inquiring at the Pan Shop, they were informed that there is still no news of the accused. This witness, along with the raiding party, then went to Sasan and returned to Mendarada in the evening. Once again, they inquired at the Pan Shop and were informed by the shopkeeper that the accused had not arrived. They, therefore, went to the Bus Stand, where they saw the accused alighting from a bus. This witness, along with the raiding party, then went to Sasan and returned to Mendarada in the evening. Once again, they inquired at the Pan Shop and were informed by the shopkeeper that the accused had not arrived. They, therefore, went to the Bus Stand, where they saw the accused alighting from a bus. According to this witness, he asked the accused regarding the plot of land, upon which the accused is stated to have said that he would do the needful when the complainant gives him Rs.300/-. The complainant, therefore, took out Rs.300/- from his pocket and gave it to the accused. This witness disclosed the identity of the accused to the Panch witness. The accused was told to stand still, and in the meanwhile, PW4, accompanied by other members of the raiding party, came there and apprehended the accused. As per the testimony of this witness, the accused and members of the raiding party then went to Mendarada Guest House, where the amount of Rs.300/- was taken out from the pocket of the accused and a Panchnama was prepared. The bribe money was tested under the rays of an ultraviolet lamp. The hand and upper pocket of the accused from which the money had been taken out were found to have traces of Anthracene powder. In cross-examination, this witness states that he is not aware that the procedure for allotment of free plots is to be carried out by the Taluka Panchayat. He denies the suggestion that on 19.10.1994, he had submitted the application form directly to the Taluka Panchayat. He further denies that the application form at Exhibit23 was returned as it did not contain the opinion of the Talati-cum-Mantri. This witness admits an annual tax of Rs.70/- has to be paid in his village. The complainant denies the suggestion that on the day of the incident, the accused had asked him to pay the amount of the outstanding dues for the last four years and had said that he would not put his endorsement on the Form if the arrears of tax are not paid. This witness further denies the suggestion that the accused told him to make an affidavit to the effect that he does not have any share in his father’s property. This witness further denies the suggestion that the accused told him to make an affidavit to the effect that he does not have any share in his father’s property. This witness also denies the suggestion that the accused had asked him to pay an amount of Rs.280/- towards outstanding taxes and that he had told the accused that he would go home and return with the money. He further denies the suggestion that the accused had made out a receipt for Rs.280/-, in anticipation of his paying the money. 9. PW2 is Laljibhai Jethabhai Pithadiya. He was serving as Senior Clerk in the Taluka Panchayat at the relevant point of time and has deposed at Exhibit-26. He states that the application form (Exhibit23) of the complainant for allotment of a free plot was received in the office of the Taluka Panchayat on 19.10.1994. However, as there was no opinion of the Talati-cum-Mantri (the accused) on this Form, it was returned. The Form was sent back by the accused after completion in December, 1994. In cross-examination, this witness states that the application form of the complainant was received in the office of the Taluka Panchayat directly, on 19.10.1994. He states that the meeting of the Land Committee of the Taluka Panchayat took place on 17.10.1994, and as the application form of the complainant came later, it could not be considered in that meeting. This witness states that the Form of the complainant was lying with him till 01.12.1994. Thereafter, it was sent to Araniyala village. This witness does not know what happened thereafter. This witness further states that the application form of the complainant at Exhibit24 has not been received in the office of the Taluka Panchayat and there is no seal or inward number on that Form. 10. PW3, Vanmalibhai Trikambhai Mehta, is the First Panch witness of the Panchanama at Exhibit35. He describes the procedure followed by the raiding party. He states that the accused was not found in Mendarada village on 22.12.1994, as he had gone out, therefore, they returned to Mendarada village on 23.12.1994, at 19.25 Hours. He, along with the other members of the raiding party, came to Mendarada and inquired about the accused at Padar Chowk. They were informed that the accused was standing at the Bus Stand. The raiding party then went to the Bus Stand and found the accused. He, along with the other members of the raiding party, came to Mendarada and inquired about the accused at Padar Chowk. They were informed that the accused was standing at the Bus Stand. The raiding party then went to the Bus Stand and found the accused. This witness states that he was at a distance of about 5 feet from the accused. According to this witness, the complainant gave the bribe money of Rs.300/- to the accused and there was some conversation between the complainant and the accused which this witness could not hear due to the noise of television sets and traffic. Thereafter, the complainant gave the signal and the raiding party arrived at the spot. The accused was caught and made to sit in the Police Jeep. He was taken to Mendarada Guest House, where the bribe money was recovered from him. This witness admits his signature on the Panchanama. This witness states in cross-examination that when the complainant was handing over the bribe money to the accused, he was standing at a distance of 5 feet and the other members of the raiding party were standing at a distance of about 10 to 12 feet. He states that he does not know whether the accused told PW4 that the amount of Rs.300/- was given to him by the complainant towards arrears of taxes. 11. PW4, Hridaykunj Mangalprasad Buch, is the Raiding Officer. His deposition is at Exhibit41. He describes the events that took place during the raid on 22.12.1994, when the raiding party went to Mendarada village but could not find the accused, who had gone out. This witness further describes the events of 23.12.1994, when the raiding party finally found the accused and apprehended him. He states that on the evening of 23.12.1994, the raiding party again came to Mendarada village and made inquiries about the accused. They were told that he was to arrive in the bus at 8.00 p.m. from Junagadh. According to this witness, the raiding party then went to the Bus Stand near the main gate. The members of the raiding party hid themselves nearby. Panch witness PW3 and the complainant were told to remain together. This witness states that when the bus from Junagadh arrived at 8.00 p.m., the accused alighted therefrom. On seeing him, the complainant went towards him. The members of the raiding party hid themselves nearby. Panch witness PW3 and the complainant were told to remain together. This witness states that when the bus from Junagadh arrived at 8.00 p.m., the accused alighted therefrom. On seeing him, the complainant went towards him. The accused crossed the road and went towards the Pan Shop and made certain purchases there. By that time, the complainant and Panch witness PW3 reached there. The complainant started talking to the accused regarding the plot of land. He informed the accused that he had brought the amount of Rs.300/- and handed over the bribe money which was accepted by the accused. The complainant then gave the prearranged signal. The members of the raiding party arrived and told the accused not to move. The money was recovered from the accused and the currency notes were subjected to the rays of an ultraviolet lamp. They showed traces of Anthracene powder. In cross-examination, this witness states that when the complainant came to the office of the ACB on 21.12.1994, he was ready to record the complaint. However, the complainant was not ready to give the complaint on that day. He further states that it was decided that the complaint would be recorded at Bilkha Guest House, as the complainant feared danger to his life and he did not want to go to Junagadh to record the complaint. This witness further states that when the complainant met him on 21.12.1994, he did not disclose the amount demanded as bribe money by the accused. He further states in cross-examination that upon investigation, it was found that the complainant has directly submitted the application for grant of a free plot in the office of the Taluka Panchayat. It has further emerged from his investigation that the complainant is in arrears of taxes for the use of water, in his village. This witness states that the conversation between the complainant and the accused took place near the Pan Shop, where the money was handed over to the accused. However, he has admitted that the owner of the Pan Shop has not been examined. 12. The defence has examined two witnesses. DW1 is Ramnikbhai Amrutlal Rupareliya, who was serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri at Araniyala village, at the relevant point of time. His deposition is to be found at Exhibit47. However, he has admitted that the owner of the Pan Shop has not been examined. 12. The defence has examined two witnesses. DW1 is Ramnikbhai Amrutlal Rupareliya, who was serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri at Araniyala village, at the relevant point of time. His deposition is to be found at Exhibit47. This witness states, on the basis of the record available with him, that an amount of Rs.280/- towards taxes is due from the complainant for the last four years. This witness further states that receipt No.34469 in the name of the complainant is available on the record. The original receipt is dated 20.12.1994. A carbon copy of the receipt is also on record. This witness states that it is possible that the receipt could have been prepared in anticipation of payment of the tax money by the complainant. In cross-examination, this witness states that the receipt is normally given at the time of making the payment of taxes. As per the Rojkam of the Panchayat dated 20.12.1994, the amount of Rs.280/- is credited. However, this witness admits that he does not have personal knowledge regarding whether this amount has actually been paid by the complainant, or not. 13. DW2 is Fulabhai Gopalbhai, whose deposition is at Exhibit-53. This witness states that he had gone to the office of the accused to pay his taxes. While he was present in the office of the accused, the complainant came there and, in the presence of this witness, told the accused to give his opinion on the application form for the grant of a free plot. This witness further states that the accused told the complainant to pay his outstanding taxes first, after which he would give the opinion. According to this witness, the complainant asked the accused how much money he would have to pay, to which the accused replied that he would have to pay Rs.280/-. This witness clearly states that the accused made out a receipt of Rs.280/- while the complainant started searching in his pocket for money. The complainant then told the accused that he would return after bringing the money. This witness states that the complainant did not return till the time he was present in the office of the accused. This witness clearly states that the accused made out a receipt of Rs.280/- while the complainant started searching in his pocket for money. The complainant then told the accused that he would return after bringing the money. This witness states that the complainant did not return till the time he was present in the office of the accused. This witness denies the suggestion that he is on good terms with the accused and states that he knows him only as a Talati-cum-Mantri, and in no other capacity. 14. The above, is a brief summary of the oral evidence led by the prosecution. Insofar as the documentary evidence is concerned, the complaint dated 22.12.1994 is to be found at Exhibit22. In the complaint, the complainant narrates the story regarding his filling up of an application form for the grant of a free plot and states that on Monday, 19.12.1994, he met the accused at Padar Chowk in Mendarada, in connection with his application. According to the recital in the complaint, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.300/- from the complainant, stating that the plot would be allotted when the money was given. It is further stated that the accused told the complainant to come to Mendarada on 22.12.1994 to give the bribe money, but no time was agreed upon. 15. The next important document relied upon by the prosecution is the Panchanama at Exhibit-35. It is more or less a narration of the entire sequence of events that purportedly took place during the raid. The above, in totality, is the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 16. On appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that there was no convincing evidence regarding the acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. It also found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was full of material contradictions. The Trial Court expressed the view that the defence put up by the accused was possible and probable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, leading to the acquittal of the accused. 17. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, certain salient aspects emerge for the consideration of this Court, which are briefly enumerated hereinbelow : (a) The application form for the grant of a free plot submitted by the complainant is at Exhibit23. 17. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, certain salient aspects emerge for the consideration of this Court, which are briefly enumerated hereinbelow : (a) The application form for the grant of a free plot submitted by the complainant is at Exhibit23. An examination thereof reveals that this application form has been submitted directly to the Taluka Panchayat. The original Form has the Inward Number given by the Taluka Panchayat endorsed on it and is dated 19.10.1994. The complainant has stated in his testimony that he has submitted this Form to the accused, at his office. This statement of the complainant is falsified by the Form itself, as the record reveals that it has been submitted by the complainant directly to the Taluka Panchayat. The say of the complainant that the accused demanded an amount of Rs.200/- at the time when the Form was submitted, cannot be believed as it is contrary to the evidence on record. (b) There are inherent contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant and the contents of the complaint. The first is regarding the place where the complaint was lodged. As per the deposition of the complainant, he had gone to the office of the ACB at Junagadh and lodged the complaint, whereas in the complaint the place of recording it has been clearly mentioned as Bilkha Government Guest House. In this regard, the deposition of the complainant is also in contradiction to the testimony of PW4, the Raiding Officer, who states that the complaint has been recorded in the Government Guest House at Bilkha, as the complainant was not desirous of going to Junagadh to lodge it, fearing a threat to his life, at that place. Further, Panch witness PW3 has also stated that he was called to the Government Guest House at Bilkha, and the complaint was recorded there. Another discrepancy that emerges in the oral evidence of the complainant is that he has stated in the examination-in-chief, that when the accused alighted from the bus, he went upto him and asked him regarding the plot of land, and the accused demanded Rs.300/- , which was given to him. Thereafter he, along with the Panch witness and members of the raiding party, took the accused to the Government Guest House, at Mendarada. Thereafter he, along with the Panch witness and members of the raiding party, took the accused to the Government Guest House, at Mendarada. In this context, PW4, the Raiding Officer, states that after alighting from the bus, the complainant first went to the Pan Shop and made some purchases. After this, the complainant and the Panch witness went upto him. This witness states that the complainant spoke to the accused regarding the plot and told him that he had brought Rs.300/-. He states that the accused accepted this amount with his right hand. PW4 further states that the money was taken out by the complainant from the left-hand side pocket and after its acceptance, the complainant gave the prearranged signal, upon which he and other members of the raiding party reached there. There is an inconsistency in the manner in which both the witnesses have described the sequence of events after finding the accused at the bus stand. The evidence of the complainant is further falsified and it appears that his testimony is not trustworthy. Both these witnesses were purportedly present at the spot, but have given different versions of the same events. (c) Another major contradiction arises from the evidence of Panch witness PW3, who states in his cross-examination that he was standing at a distance of 5 feet from the complainant when the latter was allegedly giving the money to the accused. He clearly states that PW4 and the other members of the raiding party were at a distance of about 10 to 12 feet. This witness has categorically stated that he could not hear the conversation that took place between the complainant and the accused, due to the noise from televisions sets and the traffic. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of this witness, who was the person nearest in distance from the complainant when the accused allegedly accepted the bribe money. The oral evidence of PW4 may now be noticed in this context. He states that when the complainant went to the accused, he spoke to the latter regarding the plot and informed him that he had brought Rs.300/-. PW4 states that the complainant took out the bribe money from his left-hand side pocket and the accused accepted it with his right hand. He states that when the complainant went to the accused, he spoke to the latter regarding the plot and informed him that he had brought Rs.300/-. PW4 states that the complainant took out the bribe money from his left-hand side pocket and the accused accepted it with his right hand. This witness is supposed to have been hiding at a distance of 10 to 12 feet away from the complainant and the accused. He could not possibly have overheard the conversation between the complainant and the accused from that distance, especially when Panch witness PW3, who was standing just 5 feet away and was the closest to the complainant and the accused, could not hear their conversation due to the noise of the traffic and television sets. The testimony of PW 4, in this regard, appears to be a blatant exaggeration, designed to buttress the theory advanced by the prosecution. (d) The next aspect that emerges is that the acceptance of the bribe money by the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is clear from the testimony of PW3, who was in the company of the complainant at the relevant point of time that he could not hear the conversation that took place between the complainant and the accused, when the complainant handed over Rs.300/- to the accused. There was a great deal of noise from the traffic and television sets that were on in the market. It is certainly possible and probable that the accused asked the complainant to pay the arrears of taxes, as stated by him in his defence. The defence put up by the accused in this regard becomes probable as it is stated by the accused that he was in the process of returning Rs.20/- to the complainant (as the overdue tax was Rs.280/-) when he was apprehended. In the circumstances, the alleged acceptance of money as a bribe by the accused has not been established by the prosecution. Viewed in the context of the defence put up by the accused, the initial demand of Rs.300/- as illegal gratification to process the Form of the complainant has also not established. A reference may be made in this regard to the evidence of the defence witnesses. Viewed in the context of the defence put up by the accused, the initial demand of Rs.300/- as illegal gratification to process the Form of the complainant has also not established. A reference may be made in this regard to the evidence of the defence witnesses. DW1, who was serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri in Araniyala village at the relevant point of time, has clearly stated in his deposition that the complainant was in arrears of taxes to the tune of Rs.280/-. The original receipt and its carbon copy were on record. The evidence of this witness gives rise to the probability that the receipt was never handed over to the complainant by the accused, though it was prepared in anticipation of the money being paid by the complainant, as assured by him. This evidence is further strengthened by the testimony of DW2, who is an independent witness. This witness had gone to make the payment of his own taxes in the office of the accused. The complainant was present there at the time. He has stated that he heard the accused telling the complainant to make the payment of the overdue tax of Rs.280/-. He clearly states that the complainant searched in his pockets and could not find the money; therefore, he gave an assurance to the accused that he would return with the money. Upon this assurance, the accused prepared the receipt of Rs.280/-. The evidence of DW2, coupled with the defence of the accused gives rise to a strong possibility that the amount of Rs.300/- that was allegedly handed over by the complainant to the accused was towards the arrears of taxes, and not as illegal gratification. Upon consideration of the above aspects, it transpires that the accused has successfully discharged the onus of rebutting the presumption under Section20 of the Act. 18. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779 , the Supreme Court has held as below : “21. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the court that the prosecution has proved that the accused received the amount towards gratification. 22. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. “4. ... It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden is shifted to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts i.e. that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. (emphasis supplied)” 19. Examining the facts and evidence in the present case in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, the respondent has succeeded in proving the preponderance of probability in favour of his case. On the other hand, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 20. In State of Maharashtra Vs. On the other hand, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 20. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede (Supra.), the Supreme Court has reiterated the same principles of law in the following terms : “16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-a-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.” 21. In Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra.), the factual matrix of the case is similar to that obtaining in the present case. In that case, the accused Patwari had allegedly demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.100/-. However, the accused offered an explanation that the money was collected as a loan amount from Rayats and not as illegal gratification. The explanation given by the accused in the present case is of a similar nature. In his defence, the respondent has stated that the amount of Rs.300/- was given by the complainant towards overdue taxes to the tune of Rs.280/- and as he was in the process of returning Rs.20/- to him, he was apprehended by the raiding party. In the above reported judgment, the Supreme Court held that: “3. We have examined the judgment of the learned Special Judge as well as that of the High Court. In the above reported judgment, the Supreme Court held that: “3. We have examined the judgment of the learned Special Judge as well as that of the High Court. 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. It is undisputed that from 24th to 26th the Patwari was collecting loans in a collection campaign. It is, of course, true as observed by the High Court that when the Investigating Officer seized the amount from the Patwari-accused, he did not offer the explanation that it was in relation to a collection of loan, but that by itself would not be sufficient to throw away the explanation offered by the accused in his statement under Section 313 when such explanation could be held to be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case, as indicated by the learned Special Judge while acquitting the accused. It also transpires that the High Court, while setting aside an order of acquittal recorded by the Special Judge, has not focused its attention to the reasoning advanced by the Special Judge, and by mere re-appreciation has come to the conclusion, and in our view the conclusion is based upon a misreading of the relevant evidence including the evidence of PW 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court erred in interfering with the well reasoned judgment of the Special Judge in an order of acquittal. We, therefore, set aside the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The bail bond stands discharged.” This judgment would squarely apply to the factual matrix in the present case. 22. Viewed from all angles, this Court is of the view that the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper. Further, the Trial Court has advanced convincing and cogent reasons in support of its conclusion, with which this Court is in agreement. 23. 22. Viewed from all angles, this Court is of the view that the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper. Further, the Trial Court has advanced convincing and cogent reasons in support of its conclusion, with which this Court is in agreement. 23. It may further be noted that in State of U.P. Vs. Banne @ Baijnath and others (Supra.), the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that “if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court”. 24. The cumulative result of the above discussion is that this Court finds no merit in the appeal, which deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.