Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the manager of the Dr. Ambedkar Memorial Upper Primary School started for the benefit of Harijans at Muttappally in Kanjirappally. The Special Judge, Trivandrum, convicted him under S.5 (2) read with S.5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, II of 1947, and S.161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him on each count to simple imprisonment for on e year. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that pursuant to an agreement between the appellant and pw.1 that the latter would be appointed as a teacher in the school if he paid Rs. 2000/-the former on 14 51964 received from him Rs. 601 towards it as illegal gratification, and appointed him as a teacher. He took charge on 161964 and served there till 3151967 on which date he was relieved from there as per the order of the Assistant Educational Officer as he was untrained. On 27121967 he sent Ext. PI petition to the Superintendent of Police, X. Branch Vigilance division complaining about the appellant's conduct in having received the money from him. It was on the basis of if that the case was taken up. 3. Ext. P2 is the document executed by the appellant on receipt of Rs. 601. The appellant has signed in it in his capacity as manager. He has stated in it that pw.1 has been appointed as a teacher. Before that it is also mentioned in it that for the initial expenses connected with the starting of the school pw. l.had agreed to pay Rs. 2000/-and that towards it Rs. 601/-had been received that day. pws. 2 and 3 are attestors in it. pw. 4 was the Headmaster of the school. pws. 5 and 6 are respectively brother-in-law and uncle of pw. 1. They all spoke to the receipt of money by the appellant from pw. 1. pws. 7 and 8 are persons from whom pw.1 raised Rs. 600/ 4. For sustaining the convictions against the appellant the prosecution has to show that Rs. 601 was received by him either for himself or any other person as a motive or reward for appointing pw.1 as a teacher. The charge is that as a motive for appointing pw,1 as a teacher the appellant obtained Rs. 601/ for himself from pw. 1. Ext. 601 was received by him either for himself or any other person as a motive or reward for appointing pw.1 as a teacher. The charge is that as a motive for appointing pw,1 as a teacher the appellant obtained Rs. 601/ for himself from pw. 1. Ext. P2 is specific that the amount was received for the initial expenses connected with the starting of the school. In fact the evidence of pw. 11 who was also a Headmaster in the school shows that the construction of the school building had not been completed, that at that time classes were being conducted in temporary sheds and that the appellant used to receive contributions for construction of the school building. Ext. P1. shows that although several persons had applied for the post in pursuance to the advertisement for it and many had been called for interview Pw.1 alone appeared for interview. There is a committee for the management of the school. Members of it told pw. 5 that they would secure the post for pw. 1. The evidence of Pw. 5 shows that none of them had asked for payment of money to secure the post. The evidence of pw. 5 was to the effect that the appellant had gone to his house and told him that he was desirous of getting a Harijan as teacher in the school. It was then that pw. 5 got down pw. 1 and the latter applied for the post. In such a situation it was quite unlikely that the appellant would have demanded bribe or pw.1 would have promised him any amount for appointment as a teacher but it was quite likely that seeing the pitiable condition of the school intended for Harijans he would have made a liberal contribution towards construction of the school building. pw. 5 who was present when Ext. P2 was executed and the money was paid deposed that he did not know whether it was as a motive for the appointment that the money was paid. If at the time of appointment pw.1 made a voluntary contribution towards the initial expenses for the starting of the school there was nothing wrong in the appellant receiving it. It Was only after he was relieved from the school and more than three years after the payment that pw.1 complained about it. If at the time of appointment pw.1 made a voluntary contribution towards the initial expenses for the starting of the school there was nothing wrong in the appellant receiving it. It Was only after he was relieved from the school and more than three years after the payment that pw.1 complained about it. The money was received in the presence of several persons and after execution of a document. There was no attempt at secrecy. The trial judge himself has stated in his judgment: " it could be seen from Ext. P2 that the amount is...received for the initial expenses of the school. pws. 1,2, 3,4,5 and the accused might not have thought that the amount was received as a sort of bribe." It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the amount was received by the appellant as a motive or reward for appointing pw.1 as a teacher and not as a voluntary contribution towards the initial expenses connected with the starting of the school. The appellant is not guilty of having received the amount by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as manager of the school. Hence this appeal is allowed, bis convictions and sentences are set aside and be is acquitted.