JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has challenged the Judgment of Special Judge, Akola in Special Case No. 12 of 1991, dt.27112000, by which he is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) r/w. 13(2) of the Act. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is as under : Complainant Syed Rauf was running Janta Milk Dairy Society, Mangrulpir. He was Chairman of the said Society in the year 1989. The Society was purchasing milk from the Members of the Society and was delivering milk to the Government. The Society was maintaining the register about collection of milk. The Office bearers of the Society were elected after three years. The Society was maintaining the proceedings of meetings of the Society. Accused and one Ade were working in the Office of District Dairy Officer at Buldhana. Syed Rauf was called in the Office of District Dairy Officer. Before that, accused had visited the Society and inspected Accounts Register etc. After election, he was called in the Office of District Dairy Officer. 3. The accused told him that the election was not proper and directed to again hold elections. The accused was giving trouble to him. The accused demanded amount of Rs.1000/-. The complainant was not willing to pay the amount of bribe. Therefore, he approached to the Office of Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) and lodged Complaint (Exh.24). 4. As usual two panchas were called. Demonstrations etc. were given to panchas. Panchanama no.1 (Pretrap panchanama) was prepared. On the next day, trap was laid. On the day of trap, the accused was sitting in his Office. Two persons were also sitting in front of him. Complainant Syed Rauf along with pancha no.1 approached to the accused. The accused removed those two persons from the Office. He also driven panch no.1. Thereafter, he demanded the amount of bribe. Complainant gave the same. On the day of trap, the accused was sitting in his Office. Two persons were also sitting in front of him. Complainant Syed Rauf along with pancha no.1 approached to the accused. The accused removed those two persons from the Office. He also driven panch no.1. Thereafter, he demanded the amount of bribe. Complainant gave the same. He came out and gave agreed signal to the Trap Party. The Trap Party along with panch no.2 caught hold of the accused. Amount of bribe was recovered from the accused. Almirah of accused was checked. More amount was found in the almirah. It was seized. Panchanama (Panchanama No.2) was prepared. Thereafter, report was lodged. After getting sanction, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge. 5. The Special Judge framed charge at Exh.8. Same was read over and explained to the accused. He denied the charge. Prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, the Special Judge convicted the accused, as stated above. 6. Heard Mr. A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant was not having good relations with his Superior Officer Shri Ade. The Superior Officer directed the complainant to involve the accused in a bribe case. Therefore, the complainant lodged report. 7. Heard Mr. N.R. Patil, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. He has strongly supported the impugned Judgment. 8. Perused the evidence. From the evidence on record, it appears that Complainant Syed Rauf Syed Ahmad (PW1) has supported the defence of accused. He has stated in his evidence as under : “(7) On 3.10.89 I went to the Office of District Dairy Officer. I met Adesaheb. I told Adesaheb that the accused was strict. Adesaheb told me that I should go in the Office of Anti-Corruption as the accused was troubling. He gave me Rs.400/-. Those money was given to me for trapping the accused. I went to the Office of Anti Corruption. (8) I do not remember the date when I went to the office of Anti Corruption. I told the officer of Anti corruption that the accused was troubling. The officer wrote what I stated. The officer did not read over me what he wrote. The complaint bears my signature. I cannot say the complaint now shown to me is the same. ” 9. I told the officer of Anti corruption that the accused was troubling. The officer wrote what I stated. The officer did not read over me what he wrote. The complaint bears my signature. I cannot say the complaint now shown to me is the same. ” 9. As per the case of prosecution, pancha no.1 was along with PW1/complainant Syed Rauf at the time of trap. Pancha no.1 has stated in his evidence that he was driven out by the accused out of his Office. He was standing and heard the conversation. This particular evidence is not reliable. As per evidence of complainant Syed Rauf, other two persons were also sitting. They were also driven out by the accused. They were standing along with panch no.1. One of those persons namely Narayan Raut (PW11) has not stated about the conversation between the accused and the complainant. Therefore, evidence of pancha no.1 is not reliable. 10. Accused has established probable defence. Burden of proof is not so heavy on the accused to prove his defence as like the burden on the prosecution. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, accused has to prove his probable defence. The complainant himself has stated in his evidence that he was directed by the Superior Officer of the accused to involve him in a bribe case. Moreover, accused was troubling to the complainant and therefore, he lodged the report on the say of Superior Officer of the accused. In para nos. 7 and 8 of his examination-in-chief itself, the complainant has stated that the accused was the strict Officer and his Superior Officer namely Ade told him that he should go to the Office of A.C.B. Ade himself gave him Rs.400/-. This itself shows that there was dispute between the accused and his Superior. As per say of Superior, complainant Syed Rauf lodged report against the accused. Probable defence is established by the accused. 11. Complainant himself has not stated that the accused demanded and accepted the amount of bribe. Evidence of panch no.1 is not reliable because he was not along with complainant at the time the accused demanded the amount of bribe. On the other hand, the accused has proved his probable defence that he is falsely involved in the case as per the say of Superior Officer Ade. Evidence of panch no.1 is not reliable because he was not along with complainant at the time the accused demanded the amount of bribe. On the other hand, the accused has proved his probable defence that he is falsely involved in the case as per the say of Superior Officer Ade. Learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the appellant. Hence, I am inclined to allow the appeal and proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the Special Judge, Akola on 27.11.2000 in Sessions Case No.12 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)r/w. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences charged against him. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The record and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court.