para 11 that the respondent/accused was posted as Patwari in the concerned Halka for last 10 years. The Patwari had registered two encroachment cases in the year 2003-04 and 2005-06 against him and his brother Bahoran and they had been fined in the said case. The complainant deposed that on the date of the incident, when he had gone along with the trap party, the respondent/accused was present in his office and after 15 minutes, the accused asked him about the bribe money. When the complainant intended to give the bribe money, he asked him to keep the same inside the register and on his instructions, he had kept the said money therein and thereafter, gave signal to the trap party. Thereafter, the accused was caught red handed for accepting the bribe money and the bribe money was recovered from the register. DK Malewar (PW-1) categorically deposed contrary to the statement of Baliram Jaiswal (PW-2). He stated that when the trap party reached the residence of the Patwari, the respondent/accused was not present sitting on the chair and when the trap party called him, he came to his room. When the trap party asked about the bribe money and made a search, the tainted money was received from a register and thereafter, when the hands of the respondent-accused were dipped in the solution, the colour of his hands did not change. In the matter of MK Harshan (supra) also , tainted bribe money was put inside the drawer. Considering the nature of evidence, by preponderance of probabilities, the accused therein has sufficiently shown that in his absence somebody else might have put the tainted money in his drawer.
