JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Bikaner in Criminal Original Case No. 69/97 (4/92) dated 30.4.1999.At the time when this Court granted leave to -Appeal against the order of acquittal on 29.10.1999, the case was ordered to be hears expeditiously.The accused-respondent was tried for offences u/ss. 7 & 13(1)(D) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The facts gives rise to the prosecution of the accused-respondent are that the respondent-Patwari was Incharge of Revenue Circle 84 RBB Tehsil Raisinghnagar District Sri Ganganagar. The complainant-Gurmukh Singh son of Mahendra Singh by caste Raisikh, resident of 85 R.B. appeared before the Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau (S.B.) Ganganagar Post on 20.3.1991 and submitted an application Ex.P/13 to the Incharge of the Chowki Hazari Lal, Inspector. In his application he narrated that he is holder of temporary cultivation lease in Chak 85 RB for 10 bighas 5 biswas. He was also holder of another land measuring 12.5 bighas in Lakha Tiba which is also a temporary cultivation lease. He wanted that his temporary cultivation lease may be converted into a permanent lease. He filled in a form, for the same which has been produced on the record as Ex.P/7. This form was presented before the S.D.M. Raisinghnagar. he in turn marked the application to the Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar and gave it to the complainant 'dasti'. An endorsement was made in the name of Patwari by the Tehsildar. 2. On 18.3.1991 on being approached the Patwari (the respondent) said that if the complainant wants to have a report, he has to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as bribe. On being pleaded that he does not have this much of amount, the Patwari replied that if he wants to get his work done then on 20.3.1991 he has to come to his house with a sum of Rs. 500/-. 3. The complainant in his application has further written that he was not willing to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as bribe to the respondent-Patwari. He wants to get the Patwari trapped. It was stated by the complainant that neither there was any animosity with the Patwari nor there was any money transaction pending in between him and the Patwari. 4. 500/- as bribe to the respondent-Patwari. He wants to get the Patwari trapped. It was stated by the complainant that neither there was any animosity with the Patwari nor there was any money transaction pending in between him and the Patwari. 4. After receiving the report the Incharge of Chowki Inspector Hazari Lal started preparation for the trap. He called two Government employees and sought their assistance in the trap proceedings. The officials who were called assured their willingness. A sum of Rs. 500/- was given by the complainant which consisted of 4 notes of 100 denomination and 2 notes of 50 denomination. They were stained with Phenolphthalein and put.up in the left hand side pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The complainant was instructed not to touch the money, before the accused makes a demand and on being demanded, he should give it to the accused and give signal to the trap party. 5. The witnesses were directed to remain close to the complainant and the accused. They were also instructed to hear the conversation and see the transaction. The use of Phenolphthalein powder was explained to the witnesses and the party proceeded to the spot. The complainant proceeded to the house of the accused, Hansraj H.C. and Laxman Singh followed him and thereafter the Investigating Officer and the witnesses followed. On receiving the signal the Inspector alongwith the raid party reached at the spot. On being indicated by the complainant the Inspector introduced himself and talked to the accused. At that time accused informed him that he is Krishna Ram son of Ladu Ram by caste Chhipa resident of village Pharsewala, Tehsil Padampur District Sri Ganganagar at present Revenue Patwari at 84 R.B.B. Tehsil Raisinghnagar. The other persons present were Hari Ram Meena Naib Tehsildar and Lal Chand S/o Surja Ram Jat Patwari Revenue Circle Jhontawali, Tehsil Raisinghnagar. 6. After introduction part was over, the Patwari was asked about the amount of bribe. The accused admitted that Gurmukh Singh had given a sum of Rs. 500/- for a report in relation to allotment. After some hesitation the accused said that he had taken this sum as a loan from the complainant. Then the complainant was asked and he informed that the Patwari had taken bribe of Rs. 500/- and placed in the upper left side pocket of the bushirt. 500/- for a report in relation to allotment. After some hesitation the accused said that he had taken this sum as a loan from the complainant. Then the complainant was asked and he informed that the Patwari had taken bribe of Rs. 500/- and placed in the upper left side pocket of the bushirt. Both the hands of the accused were got washed by sodium carbonate solution and the colour turned pink. On being asked about the bribe money the money was produced by the accused from the upper left side pocket of his bushirt. The notes were counted they were the same notes which were given to the complainant after noting down the numbers in the Chowki. The cash was seized. The pocket of the respondent-accused was also got washed. The water used in washing also turned pink. All articles were then sealed and sent for examination. After completion of all the formalities a charge-sheet was presented against the accused-respondent. 7. At the trial the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. 19 exhibits were produced as documents and 1 to 12 articles were presented. The accused presented one witness in defence namely DW-1 Ramchandra and got 2 documents exhibited as document Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2. 8. The trial Court after trial came to the conclusion that except the complainant there was no witness who had seen the accused demanding the money. There was no witness who could say that he had seen the accused accepting the amount. According to the trial Court the testimony of the only witness Gurmukh Singh regarding the demand of money is full of contradictions. The trial Court has observed that there is variance in the testimony of witnesses as to what actually happened at the time when the accused accepted the money. It was observed by the trial Court that in this back-ground it was not free from doubt, according to the trial Court, to accept the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding recovery of money from the accused. 9. The learned trial Court addressed itself whether the money related to the proceedings in relation to the allotment. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the time for making application had expired. The application was made by the complainant after the time had expired. The application was accepted after the date when the applications were submitted. 9. The learned trial Court addressed itself whether the money related to the proceedings in relation to the allotment. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the time for making application had expired. The application was made by the complainant after the time had expired. The application was accepted after the date when the applications were submitted. In this background the application itself was not maintainable. 10. The defence version was that there was some dispute regarding a tree cut from the field of Gorai and it was in this back-ground that an attempt was made to fasten the criminal charge on the head of the respondent. The trial Court has held that neither the recovery nor the demand/payment has been established and, therefore, no case was made out against the accused-respondent. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor assailing the findings of the learned trial Court submitted that the learned trial Court has judged the prosecution case without keeping in mind the prime factors which are required to be considered by Anti Corruption Judges while deciding the anti-corruption case. As and when a recovery is effected from the accused, then u/s. 20 of the Act, there is presumption available. There is absolutely no whisper that the learned judge was conscious of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. Unless the statutory presumption which is available u/s. 20 of the Act is rebutted, the Court was required to presume the culpability of the accused-respondent. 12. In the instant case, the money was recovered from the accused. The notes were the same which were marked by the Investigating Officer. Thus, there was no doubt about the fact of receiving the amount by the accused. The amount received was not a legal remuneration of the accused as alleged by the complainant it was illegal gratification. Thus, the learned trial Court should have addressed itself to the provisions of Section 20 of the Act on the question of presumption which could be drawn u/s. 20 of the Act. Having not addressed itself on this question, the judgment of the learned trial Court is vitiated. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has further urged that the learned trial Court has misdirected itself by concluding that there was no evidence regarding demand. In relation to demand there could only be one witness i.e. the complainant himself. The demands are not made in presence of public at large. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has further urged that the learned trial Court has misdirected itself by concluding that there was no evidence regarding demand. In relation to demand there could only be one witness i.e. the complainant himself. The demands are not made in presence of public at large. The statement of the complainant was supported by the contemporaneous document i.e. the application moved to the Investigating Officer Ex.P/13. Being corroborated by the contemporaneous evidence when the money is recovered from the accused, the fact of demand of money stands proved. 14. The learned trial Court has wrongly assumed that the application for allotment was moved after time, therefore, there was no occasion for any demand being made. 15. It is true that the application was moved after the time given in the notification issued by the S.D.M. had expired. But then the S.D.M. has received the application being conscious of the expiry of the limit given in the notification. When the S.D.M. himself marked the application for report that amounts waiver of the time limit in the first place. Secondly may be that the application was time barred but then such report was also required to be made by the officials of the revenue department. If the application was accepted then for making a report the department officials could make a demand. That being the position there was overwhelming possibility of demand being raised. A demand was capable of being raised, therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court on this point also are not sustainable. 16. The reaction of the accused at the time when the Investigating Officer approached him gives a positive indication of his culpability. His first reaction was an admission that he has taken the money as bribe. Subsequently he has taken a stand that it was a loan from the complainant. At the trial the accused has developed an entirely different theory that it was an amount payable by Ram Chandra. Ram Chandra has given the amount to the complainant for being paid to the accused. Ram Chandra has been examined as DW-1. There is nothing in the statement of Ram Chandra to indicate as to why Ram Chandra chooses the present complainant to pass on the money to the accused. According to Ram Chandra there had been no other transaction between him and the accused. Ram Chandra has been examined as DW-1. There is nothing in the statement of Ram Chandra to indicate as to why Ram Chandra chooses the present complainant to pass on the money to the accused. According to Ram Chandra there had been no other transaction between him and the accused. In these circumstances, the defence story that the money was carried by the complainant from Ram Chandra was obviously an after thought. This was not the actual happening. To raise a defence this story has been created by the accused. Had this been the fact, this would have been narrated by the accused before the Investigating Officer immediately. having not done so the accused has forfeited his right to put forward such a story which is not otherwise to be believed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has erred in accepting the story of the defence. 17. The story of Ram Chandra that he repaid his debt through the accused is not correct. That being so, there is no explanation available on the record that the accused had accounted for the money recovered from him. The money having been recovered from the accused there is no escape from culpability of the accused. The only possible conclusion is. that he has demanded money and the money for illegal gratification is not a legal remuneration. 18. The learned Public Prosecutor has further asserted that the learned trial Court has blown out of proportion the defects, while considering the defects in sending the articles to the chemical analyst. The report of chemical analysis is only additional circumstance. In the instant case the notes were marked, numbers noted and same notes have been recovered from the accused and in this back-ground the chemical analysis report is not of great significance. 19. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the following decisions : 20. In Raghubirt Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1516 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under : "Even if the statutory presumption u/s. 4 is unavailable when the charge is u/s. 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2) Courts may presume what may in the ordinary course be the most probable inference. In Raghubirt Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1516 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under : "Even if the statutory presumption u/s. 4 is unavailable when the charge is u/s. 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2) Courts may presume what may in the ordinary course be the most probable inference. That an Assistant Station Master had in his hand a marked currency note made over to him by a passenger whose bedding had been detained by him for which no credible explanation was forthcoming, and he was caught red-handed with the note, is a case of res ipsa loquitur. The very thing speaks for itself in the circumstances." 21. In V.D. Jhingan v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1966 SC 1762 it was observed as under : "To raise the presumption u/s. 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has received "gratification other than legal remuneration". When it is shown that the accused has received a certain sum of money which was not his legal remuneration, the condition prescribed by the section is satisfied and the presumption must be raised. Further the mere receipt of "money" is sufficient to raise the presumption." 22. In the State of Rajasthan v. Mohammad Habib, reported in 1973 Cr.L.J. 703 it was observed as under : "When the sum received by the accused is not due to him as a legal remurernation it is open to him to show that though that money is not due to him as legal remuneration it is legally due to him in some other manner or that he has received it under a transaction or an arrangement which is lawful, but the burden will be on the accused in such a case, and it should be for him to show that the explanation is a true one." 23. In Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1979) 3 SCC 90 it was observed as under : "Conduct of the accused when questioned by Inspector immediately after taking bribe, if proved, held admissible." 24. In Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1979) 3 SCC 90 it was observed as under : "Conduct of the accused when questioned by Inspector immediately after taking bribe, if proved, held admissible." 24. In M. Sunderamoorthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu through Inspector of Police, reported in 1990 Cr.L.R. (SC) 299 , it was observed as under:- "PW-6 has stated at the time of the seizure the explanation offered by the appellant was that PW-1 had returned the loan and that he had given the money for the Dipawali. The case that has been developed in the course of the trial is not that of a loan transaction but payment of an advance of Rs. 125/- in the canteen when the appellant started to take food there. The case of Dipawali gift or return of a loan given to PW-1 has not been even suggested. It cannot, therefore, be said that there had been consistent explanation for the appellant. 25. In Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1964 SC 575 , it was observed as under : "Where any gratification (other than legal gratification) or any valuable thing is proved to have been received by an accused person the Court is required to draw a presumption that the person received that thing as a motive of reward such as is mentioned in Section 161, IPC. Therefore, the Court has no choice in the matter, once it is established that the accused person has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of course, it is open to that person to show that though that money was not due to him as legal remuneration it was legally due to him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. The burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised u/s. 114 of Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words 'unless the contrary is prove' which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds it existence to be so probable that reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is sup ported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted." 26. In The State of Assain v. Krishna Rao, reported in 1973 SCC (Cr.) 222 it was observed as under : "When once the prosecution evidence has proved the recovery of money from the possession of the accused person, then by virtue of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act the Courts are legally obliged to raise the presumption that the accused had accepted or obtained or agreed -to accept or attempted to obtain that money as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161, Indian Penal Code unless the contrary is proved. It is a presumption of law and it is obligatory on the Court to raise it in every case brought u/s. 4. The words "unless the contrary is proved" mean that the presumption raised by Section 4 has to be rebutted by proof and not by mere explanation which may be merely plausible. The required proof need not be such as is expected for sustaining a criminal conviction; it need only establish a high degree of probability." It was further observed in the aforesaid case : "Minor discrepancies with respect to the size or the height of the peepholes from where three different persons tried to peep and see what was happening at the place of occurrence or omission of the part of the prosecution to show how the accused persons came to the office of the complainant are wholly inconsequential. These are details which, unless the witnesses are tutored, must vary in minor particulars, and, in the normal course of things, are found generally to be stated differently by different observers. Such differences or variations are indications of the truth rather than of falsehood of the version given by the prosecution witnesses." 27. These are details which, unless the witnesses are tutored, must vary in minor particulars, and, in the normal course of things, are found generally to be stated differently by different observers. Such differences or variations are indications of the truth rather than of falsehood of the version given by the prosecution witnesses." 27. In Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat, reported in 1976 SCC (Cr.) 351 it was observed as under: "Once it is established that the public servant accepted a gratification which was not his legal remuneration, the burden shifts on him to prove that that money was not accepted as a motive or reward as is mentioned in Section 161, IPC." 28. In M. Narsinga.Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2000 AIR SCW 4427 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court in relation to presumption observed as under : "The expression 'may presume' and 'shall presume' are defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act. The presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known as 'factual presumptions' or 'discretionary presumptions' and those falling under the latter as 'legal presumptions' or compulsory presumptions.' When the expression 'shall be presumed' is employed in Section 20(1) of the Act it must have the same import of compulsion. When the sub-section deals with the legal presumption it is to be understood as in terrorum i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption u/s. 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act." 29. Learned counsel for the respondent per contra -has urged that the learned trial Court has correctly found that the recovery from the accused was not established to be the recovery of illegal gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act." 29. Learned counsel for the respondent per contra -has urged that the learned trial Court has correctly found that the recovery from the accused was not established to be the recovery of illegal gratification. In fact, the amount was one which was to be paid by Ram Chandra to him and the complainant carried it to be paid to the accused. The version given by the accused has not been properly understood and heard by all the witnesses and there is variance in the statements of the witnesses. The complainant has not given the true and correct version of the happenings because he had a bias against the accused-respondent as the complainant wants to settle the score in regard to recovery of a tree cut from the field of one Gorai. The Patwari had reported against the accused. In this back-ground no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the complainant for recovery and demand. The learned trial Court has rightly held that neither there was reliable evidence in regard to demand of money or recovery. Since the demand and recovery was not there, there was no question of any presumption being raised u/s. 20 of the Act. Presently, this Court is dealing with an appeal against acquittal unless any perversity or illegality is shown in the judgment, no interference should be made in such circumstances. Thus, it has been prayed on behalf of the accused that the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan may be dismissed. 30. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 31. In the instant case, the material on record clearly proved that when the pocket of the accused was searched phenolphthalein smeared currency notes of Rs. 500/- were found. There were the notes supplied by the complainant before the trap and marked by the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to 'ACB'). It was also proved by the said official of ACB that the complainant approached him and submitted that application Ex.P/7. It was alleged in the application that the accused-respondent has demanded Rs. 500/- from him. The currency notes were handed over by the complainant to the official of the ACB. It was also proved by the said official of ACB that the complainant approached him and submitted that application Ex.P/7. It was alleged in the application that the accused-respondent has demanded Rs. 500/- from him. The currency notes were handed over by the complainant to the official of the ACB. After smearing the notes with phenolphthalein powder, the same were put in the pocket of the complainant. 32. When the accused was caught red handed with those currency notes he admitted his guilt in the first instance and then he stated that he had taken a loan from the accused-respondent. The defence story developed at the trial is that such currency notes were sent by Ram Chandra through the complainant. It was to pay off a loan advanced by DW-1 Ram Chandra. This witness in his deposition before the Court has stated that except the money in question, no money transaction ever took place between him and the accused. 33. The above stated facts establish that a sum of Rs. 500/- was recovered from the accused. Two versions are coming forward about the money; one is the allegation of the complainant, the other is the defence version given by the accused. The defence version obviously is in contradiction with the first version given by the accused at the time of trap. Section 20 of the Act, in these circumstances, gives a power to the Court to draw an inference. 34. From above stated facts the Court could legitimately draw a presumption that the accused received or accepted the said currency notes on his own volition. Of course, the said presumption is not an inviolable one, as the accused-respondent could rebut it either through cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. But if the accused-respondent 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 said amount. 35. There is no whisper in the decision about such providence in law. The trial Court has not addressed itself on this point. The trial Court has gone on the theory of demand and acceptance. When money is recovered, implication of Section 20 of the Act is an important aspect. Without dispelling the available presumption the Court should not have proceeded further. 36. The trial Court has not addressed itself on this point. The trial Court has gone on the theory of demand and acceptance. When money is recovered, implication of Section 20 of the Act is an important aspect. Without dispelling the available presumption the Court should not have proceeded further. 36. In the instant case, the endeavor of the accused to rebut the said presumption is too weak. The defence evidence is weak to stand judicial scrutiny. Except the present transaction no other transaction took place between DW-1 Ram Chandra and the accused. No reason is given why the complainant alone was chosen to return the money. The accused is neither related nor otherwise intimate to the witness DW-1. He cannot be said to be a confident to the accused on his own showing because he has alleged bias against the accused. It is, therefore, unreliable and the finding of the learned trial Court based on such unreliable evidence is not liable to be sustained. 37. In the aforesaid circumstances I am not in agreement with the finding of the learned trial Court that the prosecution has not proved that the accused-respondent has received gratification from the complainant. In such a situation, the learned trial Court is under a legal compulsion to draw the legal presumption that such gratification was accepted as a reward for doing the public duty. Therefore, the learned trial Court has committed illegality in not drawing the presumption against the accused and also in acquitting the accused. 38. The first and foremost question which becomes relevant in a trap case is the recovery of the money which is made the subject-matter of the trial. In the instant case, the complainant gave 4 notes of Rs. 100/- and 2 notes of Rs. 50/- denominations to the Investigating Officer who had noted down the numbers and stained the notes with phinolphthalein. Those notes were given to the complainant and the same were recovered from the accused. This part of the prosecution case is untainted. 39. The defence has not been able to demolish this part of the prosecution story. The accused in his immediate explanation has stated that he has accepted the amount as bribe. Those notes were given to the complainant and the same were recovered from the accused. This part of the prosecution case is untainted. 39. The defence has not been able to demolish this part of the prosecution story. The accused in his immediate explanation has stated that he has accepted the amount as bribe. After a small interval he has stated that he had taken a loan from the accused and at the trial a story has been developed that this was an amount advanced by the accused to Ram Chandra DW-1, which has been brought by the complainant to be given to the accused. The accused in his defence has not stated that the amount which was recovered from him was not given by the accused. Thus, the fact stands proved that a sum of Rs. 500/- was recovered from the accused when the trap party arrived. 40. In the back-ground when the money was recovered from the accused the case of the prosecution stood established that there was a demand. In the instant case, the complainant had stated in his written report to the Investigating Officer Ex.P/13 that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- but on his pleading he has agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 500/-. The complainant had given notes of different denominations totalling to Rs. 500/- to the investigating agency. The same notes were recovered from the accused. 41. The learned trial Court has said that apart from the complainant there is no evidence to the fact that the money was ever demanded from the complainant. The complainant has not claimed that the money was demanded in presence of any person. Thus, it is not the case where the prosecution has not produced some available evidence. The only evidence available with the prosecution was that of the complainant only. The trial Court has not addressed itself on the point as to what was the discrepancy in the testimony of the complainant regarding demand of money. A reading of the statement of the complainant shows that he remains consistent regarding the demand of money. No infirmity can be seen in the statement of the complainant regarding the demand made by the accused. Thus, the statement of the complainant is not shaken in the cross-examination. It is supported by contemporaneous document prepared since before the money was delivered to the accused. 42. No infirmity can be seen in the statement of the complainant regarding the demand made by the accused. Thus, the statement of the complainant is not shaken in the cross-examination. It is supported by contemporaneous document prepared since before the money was delivered to the accused. 42. The recovery of money in the above ground is to be judged, in relation to the explanation offered by the accused when at the time of trap the Investigating Officer asked his explanation. He first said that he has taken bribe. Then he said that he has taken loan. Both the explanations given by the accused had been abandoned by him at the trial. He has developed new story that the money was sent by Ram Chandra through the complainant. Ram Chandra DW-1 in his statement has stated that there was no transaction of money except the present one in between the accused and the witness. An isolated alleged transaction of money does not prove that there was any relationship between Ram Chandra DW-1 and the accused for trading in money. Further Ram Chandra DW-1 had given no reasons as to why he has selected the complainant to deliver the money to the accused. 43. The accused had taken a stand that there was dispute regarding a tree and the complainant had a grudge against the accused. Therefore, relations of the accused and complainant were not cordial. In this back-ground can it be legitimately accepted that the accused would accept the amount from the complainant sent by Ram Chandra DW-1. Ram Chandra DW-1 has not deposed that why he has reposed trust in the complainant. In this back-ground it cannot be accepted that the complainant can be expected to deliver the money to the accused on behalf of DW-1 Ram Chandra. 44. The sequence of events lead to an irresistible conclusion that the defence story is false. In the aforesaid circumstances when the implication of Section 20 of the Act is seen, then the moment the money was recovered from the accused, the burden of disproving the same shifted to the accused. The stand of the defence as has been discussed hereinabove is too weak and feeble to give it a thrust which is sufficient enough to dispel the prosecution story. Burden of the accused u/s. 20 of the Act cannot be said to have been discharged. 45. The stand of the defence as has been discussed hereinabove is too weak and feeble to give it a thrust which is sufficient enough to dispel the prosecution story. Burden of the accused u/s. 20 of the Act cannot be said to have been discharged. 45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) has observed that the only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act. In the instant case the direct evidence of the complainant if judged in the back-ground of the legal presumption available against the accused u/s. 20 of the Act is not liable to be rejected. The burden shifted on the accused has not been discharged by the accused. In this back-ground it cannot be said that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case. 46. The accused has been found in possession of the money. The money was the same which was marked by the Investigating Officer. All these circumstances are sufficient enough to conclude the fact that the money was recovered from the accused which was not the legitimate due. The accused has failed to discharge the presumption which was available to the Court. The Court has failed to address itself on that aspect of the matter and has acquitted the accused on such considerations which were mundane. The presumption was to be addressed as the first corollary after the recovery of money. Having not done so the Court below has erred and its judgment is vitiated. 47. Another finding recorded by the learned Judge that the application for allotment could not have been moved because the time for moving the application has ended is a circumstance which goes against the finding arrived at by the learned Judge. It is in such odd circumstances that the Government official can make illegal demands. Delay in making the application was an opportunity to raise an illegal demand. 48. The application was received by the S.D.M. It was marked to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar marked it to the Patwari. The question of delayed application is, therefore, not of great significance. It is in such odd circumstances that the Government official can make illegal demands. Delay in making the application was an opportunity to raise an illegal demand. 48. The application was received by the S.D.M. It was marked to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar marked it to the Patwari. The question of delayed application is, therefore, not of great significance. The discrepancies in the statement of the complainant have been blown out of proportion by the trial Court. In view of the presumption available u/s. 20 of the Act, the Court could not have rejected the prosecution case out right and, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is not liable to be sustained. 49. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court feels that the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused is not liable to be sustained and, therefore, the same is set aside. The accused was found in possession of the notes. The money was marked by the Trap Officer. On being given by the complainant, the presumption u/s. 20 of the Act arises. The defence has not been able to rebut it. In absence of proper defence the accused is liable to be held guilty of accepting illegal gratification. The charge u/ss. 7 & 13(1)(D) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act stands proved against the accused. Since this Court is converting the acquittal of the accused into conviction, it is deemed appropriate that an opportunity of hearing be afforded to the accused to address the Court on the question of sentence. 50. Let the case be taken up for hearing on the question of sentence to be awarded to the accused after vacation. HON'BLE BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 673/1999 12.1.2001. Hon'ble Bhagwati Prasad, J. Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, Public Prosecutor Mr. H.S. Kharlia & Mr. S.S. Dhillon, for the respondent Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondent on the question of sentence. 51. Looking to the fact that the case is of the year 1991, almost a decade has passed and the accused has accepted a small amount of money, I consider it proper to sentence the accused-respondent u/s. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment, he shall further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. 500/-. In default of payment, he shall further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. The trial Court should take appropriate steps to ensure compliance of this order judgment of the trial Court dated 6.9.2000 convicting and sentencing the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence charged with. The appellant is in jail and he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******