The judgment establishes the principle that the presumption of accepting illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is rebuttable, and the accused can discharge the burden by showing that the gratification was not a motive or reward as alleged by the prosecution.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 24-6-1993 passed by special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :- under Section 161. IPC :- Six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 5 (lkd) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 :- One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraph Department, Sikar and was conducting an enquiry against Sh. Tara chand Deothia, Office Assistant, Telegraphs of DET, Sikar who was facing a departmental enquiry under Section 16 of ccs (Conduct) Rules for flouting the orders of his superiors. It is alleged that the appellant on 14/15-2-1985 demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/ - from Sh. Tara Chand Deothia to decide the department enquiry in his favour. During the conversation demand was reduced to Rs. 150/- from Rs. 200/ -. On 19-2-1985 once again the appellant pressed for payment of bribe amount failing which he threatened him to punish by withholding two increments in his enquiry. The complainant Tara Chand Deothia was not inclined to pay the bribe money, so he approached to superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of investigation (in short CBI) and on report ex. P1 trap was laid by the CBI Authorities and on 22-2-1985 the appellant was caught red handed by the CBI accepting the bribe of Rs. 150/- while sitting in his office. The memo of trap proceedings was drawn at the spot and the demanded money was recovered vide recovery memo Ex. P3. On conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, CBI (Rajasthan), Jaipur. Learned Special Judge, cbi framed the charges under Section 161, ipc and 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the act, 1947 (in short the Act) which was denied by the appellant and he claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of its case. Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure was recorded wherein the appellant stated that he had never demanded any bribe but Sh. Tara Chand Deothia returned the amount of Rs. 150/- which was earlier taken by him. Three witnesses including the appellant himself were examined in defence. The trial Judge after hearing for arguments convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the Special Judge, CBI Jaipur this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the record.

( 5 ) IT was strenuously argued by learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution utterly failed to make out a case under Section 161, IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Act. It was also argued that the appellant was not required to prove his defence to the hilt but he can discharge his burden to rebut the presumption by preponderance of probability in his favour. Learned Special Judge ignored the explanation of the appellant which he gave at the time of the trap to Dy. S. P. CBI, P. W. 16 sugan Singh which was corroborated by the prosecution witnesses R. K. Sehgal (P. W. 2) and Ranveer Singh Solanki (P. W. 3) who were appointed as Motbirs to witness the incident and also by other witness H. P. Vijarnia (P. W. 4) who was admittedly present in the office of the appellant. It was further contended that decoy Tara Chand Deothia was a man of dubious character and used to make false and frivolous complaints against his superiors and few months before the incident he lodged a false FIR with the intention to implicate the appellant in which after investigation police filed final negative report. It was also submitted that there was also inimical relations between a