JUDGMENT: Veeraraghavan, who was working as Junior Engineer in the Electricity Board, was convicted for the offences under Secs.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having demanded and received Rs.400 for registering the application of one Boopathy Naidu in the readiness register on 17.12.1991 at his residence by ante-dating the entry as 12.12.1991. Challenging the same, he has filed this appeal. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction are summarised as follows: "(a) Nandagopal (P.W.2) is a Noon Meal Organiser in Sirugamore Panchayat Board. His father Boopathy Naidu (P.W.4) was owning 7 acres of land in Survey No.165/ 2A2. A well is situate in the land. For getting electricity service connection for the motor pump set to be installed in the well, P.W.4 sent an application to the Electricity Board. Ex.P-15 is the application. Veeraraghavan, the appellant was the Junior Engineer of the Thirumukkoodal jurisdiction where the land is situate. In October, 1991, both the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer/ accused came and inspected the land and the well. (b) On 23.10.1991, P.W.4 received Ex.P-2 notice. He was asked to collect chitta, adangal, patta, kist receipts and also to purchase a motor pump set and to keep them ready on or before 30.10.1991. Accordingly, P.W.2 Nandagopal collected all the documents and handed over the same to the accused on 29.10.1991. He requested time to get the patta copy from Tahsildar through requisition Ex.P-4. On 3.12.1991 he got the patta and handed over the same to the accused. Since the time was expired, on 10.12.1991 on the request made by P.W.2, the time was extended up to 12.12.1991. On that day, i.e., on 10.12.1991, the accused demanded Rs.500 as bribe from P.W.2 to register the application and to process the same to get the service connection for the pump set. P.W.2 told him that he was unable to collect the said amount. However, he was asked to come and meet on 13.12.1991 at the Walajabad bus stand. But, on that day, the accused was not present at the bus stand. Therefore, on 16.12.1991, P.W.2 went and met the accused in his office. (c) When the accused demanded the money, P.W.2 requested for reducing the amount. The accused said that unless Rs.400 is given to him, he would not register the same and the time limit extended upto 12.12.1991 also had expired. Therefore, on 16.12.1991, P.W.2 went and met the accused in his office. (c) When the accused demanded the money, P.W.2 requested for reducing the amount. The accused said that unless Rs.400 is given to him, he would not register the same and the time limit extended upto 12.12.1991 also had expired. Then, P.W.2 was asked to come along with his father with the money either in the evening or in the next day morning to his house. (d) Since P.W.2 did not incline to give money as bribe, on 16.12.1991 at 4.30 p.m., he went to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (P.W.9) and gave a complaint (Ex.P-5). It was directed to be registered by P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance. After registration, P.W.9 Deputy Superintendent of Police asked P.W.2 to come on 17.12.1991 early morning to his office. Then, at the request of P.W.9, P.W.3 Vishwanath, Tahsildar and one Balan, an Engineer in the Public Works Department came to the Vigilance Office to act as a trap witnesses. P.W.2 was introduced to them. They were allowed to read the complaint. Then as directed, P.W.2 handed over the currency notes of Rs.400 (M.O.1 series). (e) Thereafter, phenolphthalein test was conducted. The significance of the test was explained to the witnesses. Then P.W.2 was directed to give the amount to the accused on demand and after receipt of the amount, he should give the pre-arranged signal. P.W.3 Viswanath was asked to accompany P.W.2 to watch the conversation and receipt of the amount. For all these things, Ex.P-7 mahazar was prepared. (f) Thereafter, at 7.20 a.m., the police officials and other witnesses went to Walajabad. Near the house, the vehicle in which the officials travelled, was stopped. P.W.2 Nanthagopal, P.W.3 Tahsildar and P.W.4 Boopathy Naidu, the father of P.W.2 alone were asked to go to the house of the accused. The accused saw them and he asked them to take their seat. He asked P.W.2 whether he brought the money. Then, the accused brought Ex.P-8 register and obtained the signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P-9. After this was over, P.W.2 requested the accused to arrange for the service connection to the pump set quickly. Then, the accused asked P.W.2 to give the money. P.W.2 took out the money of Rs.400 from his pocket and handed over the same to the accused. Then, the accused brought Ex.P-8 register and obtained the signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P-9. After this was over, P.W.2 requested the accused to arrange for the service connection to the pump set quickly. Then, the accused asked P.W.2 to give the money. P.W.2 took out the money of Rs.400 from his pocket and handed over the same to the accused. He received the amount in the right hand and kept under the newspaper in the wall almirah. (g) At that time, P.W.2 came outside and gave the pre-arranged signal. Then, P.W.9, witness Balan and police party all went inside and introduced themselves by showing their identity. Then, phenolphthalein test was conducted on the fingers of both the hands. The test conducted on the right hand fingers alone proved positive. Then, the accused was asked by P.W.9 as to whether he received the money. He accepted the same. Then, he took out the money, which was kept under the newspaper and gave them to P.W.9. On comparison with the mahazar Ex.P-7, the numbers contained in the currency notes were found tallied. Then, Ex.P-11 mahazar was prepared, signed by the witnesses and the accused. P.W.9 also searched the house. The search list is Ex.P-12. (h) Thereafter, P.W.12, another Deputy Superintendent of Police took up further investigation. After examining other witnesses and obtaining the sanction Ex.P-1 from P.W.1, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Secs.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (i) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12, filed Exs.P-1 to P-22 and marked M.Os.1 to 3. (j) While the accused was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., he gave a statement that he received the money of Rs.400 not as a bribe but to purchase the necessary materials to give the service connection, as they were not available in the Electricity Board godown. However, he has never adduced any evidence to prove the same. (k) The trial Court analysed the evidence available on record and concluded that the accused received the money of Rs.400 as bribe for registering the application in the readiness register on 17.12.1991 by ante-dating the entry as 12.12.1991. However, he has never adduced any evidence to prove the same. (k) The trial Court analysed the evidence available on record and concluded that the accused received the money of Rs.400 as bribe for registering the application in the readiness register on 17.12.1991 by ante-dating the entry as 12.12.1991. Consequently, he was convicted for the above offences and sentenced to undergo R.I., for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.250 for each count, in default to undergo S.I. for one month and directed the sentences to run concurrently." 3. Mr.V.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel while assailing the judgment impugned, would make the following submissions: "The evidence of P.W.2 would clearly prove that the defence version is more probable than that of the prosecution. It is the case of defence that the accused was given money of Rs.400 only for the purpose of purchasing materials and not as illegal gratification. The Court cannot convict the accused merely on the basis of the deposition of official witnesses whose testimony is tainted and interested in prosecution. When P.W.2, the author of the F.I.R. had turned hostile, it would be fatal to the prosecution and as such, the accused would be entitled to the acquittal." 4. The learned Government Advocate, in reply, would refute the above submissions and contend that the substantial portion of the evidence of P.W.2 would corroborate the evidence of official witnesses, namely, P.W.3 and P.W.9 and as such, the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has also pointed out that the defence theory has not been established by the accused even-though the preponderance of probability. 5. I have carefully considered the rival conventions and perused the records. 6. According to the prosecution on 10.12.1991, the appellant/ accused, Junior Engineer made a demand of a sum of Rs.500 from Nandagopal (P.W.2) for registering the application of his father (P.W.4) for electricity service connection for the motor pump set to his agricultural land in the readiness register. When P.W.2 again met him on 16.12.1991, the accused reiterated his demand of Rs.500 and then agreed to accept Rs.400 and directed P.W.2 to meet him at his residence at Walajabad with money and also bring his father P.W.4 to put his signature. When P.W.2 again met him on 16.12.1991, the accused reiterated his demand of Rs.500 and then agreed to accept Rs.400 and directed P.W.2 to meet him at his residence at Walajabad with money and also bring his father P.W.4 to put his signature. Accordingly, the bribe amount of Rs.400 was paid to the accused on 17.12.1991 by P.W.2 in the presence of the trap witness P.W.3 Tahsildar and therefore, trap money was recovered from him by P.W.9. 7. On the other hand, it is the case of the accused that P.W.2 gave the amount of Rs.400 only for the purpose of purchasing the materials which are essential for giving service connection to the motor pump set installed in the well situate in the land. Though this defence plea has not been substantiated by adducing defence evidence through oral and documentary, it is settled that the said plea can be taken into consideration, if the materials which are already available on record placed by the prosecution would establish such a plea. 8. In the light of the above plea, let us now see whether the prosecution has discharged its initial burden that the accused received the money not as a legal remuneration, but as a reward for showing favour to P.W.2 by registering the application given by the father of P.W.2. 9. In this connection, we have to anlayse the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.9. As per the complaint Ex.P-5, the amount of Rs.400 was demanded as bribe from P.W.2 on 10.12.1991 and 16.12.1991 and therefore, P.W.2 approached the Vigilance Office for giving a complaint. The contents of the complaint have been reiterated by P.W.2 in the chief-examination. He also would admit in the chief-examination that the complaint was read over in the presence of P.W.3 and another trap witness and P.W.2 told them that the contents of the complaint were correct. He would also admit that before receipt of money, the accused obtained signature of P.W.4 in Ex.P-8 readiness register. P.W.4’s signature has been marked as Ex.P-9. Admittedly, the time for registering the application in the readiness register was extended only upto 12.12.1991. This is not disputed by the appellant/ accused. 10. P.W.6, the Assistant Executive Engineer would also state that the time which was given up to 30.11.1991 under Ex.P-2 was extended upto 12.12.1991 through Ex.P-13. P.W.4’s signature has been marked as Ex.P-9. Admittedly, the time for registering the application in the readiness register was extended only upto 12.12.1991. This is not disputed by the appellant/ accused. 10. P.W.6, the Assistant Executive Engineer would also state that the time which was given up to 30.11.1991 under Ex.P-2 was extended upto 12.12.1991 through Ex.P-13. But, it is an admitted case that the signature was obtained by the accused only on 17.12.1991. However, Ex.P-9 shows that as if the same was put on 12.12.1991. That part, P.W.2 would admit that after P.W.4 put the signature, P.W.2 requested the accused to quickly arrange for the service connection. At that point of time, the accused stated: So saying, the accused asked, “Where is the money?”. Then, P.W.2 took out the money and handed over the same to the accused. The accused received it and put it under the newspaper kept in the wall almirah. But, only in the cross-examination, P.W.2 would state that he gave the amount to the accused for the purpose of purchasing materials. At that point of time, the learned Public Prosecutor requested the Court to treat him as hostile and accordingly, he was declared as a hostile witness. 11. This was never stated either in the complaint Ex.P-5 or in his statement recorded under Sec.161, Crl.P.C. by the investigating Officer. When he was cross-examined, P.W.2 would state that initially, he went and reported to the Vigilance Officer that the accused demanded the money only for the purpose of purchasing materials and only on the complaint of the Vigilance Officer, he gave a complaint as if the amount was demanded as bribe. 12. This is a clear after-thought. P.W.2 himself would admit in the cross-examination that while a statement was recorded from him by another Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.12), who took up further investigation, he never told him that he gave a complaint only on the compulsion of P.W.9 Deputy Superintendent of Police, the first investigating Officer. P.W.12 also would state that P.W.2 never stated that he was compelled to give a complaint stating that the amount was demanded by the accused as bribe. Therefore, the belated statement made by P.W.2, that too, in the cross-examination would clearly show that he was made to say so for helping the accused. 13. P.W.12 also would state that P.W.2 never stated that he was compelled to give a complaint stating that the amount was demanded by the accused as bribe. Therefore, the belated statement made by P.W.2, that too, in the cross-examination would clearly show that he was made to say so for helping the accused. 13. This is also further made clear by the fact that P.W.4, the father also turned hostile, since he did not incline to tell about the receipt of the money on 17.12.1991 by the accused. But, this portion of the statement would not be enough to hold that the entire evidence of P.W.2 has to be eschewed or rejected in toto. The main portion of the evidence relating to the demand and receipt of the money as bribe has been clearly corroborated by P.W.3 Tahsildar, who is the responsible officer. 14. The reading of the evidence of P.W.3 would make it obvious that after obtaining signature from P.W.4, P.W.2 asked the accused to take quick steps to give service connection to the motor pump set and the accused replied: Then, he demanded the money. P.W.3 would further state that when P.W.2, handed over the amount to the accused and asked him to count the amount, the accused replied: and then put it under the newspaper. 15. There is no dispute that P.W.4 was allowed to put the signature only on 17.12.1991, even though the time which was granted up to 12.12.1991 had already expired. Furthermore, there is no necessity for the accused to bring the registers to his house and ask P.Ws.2 and 4 to come to the house. 16. These things would show that the accused wanted to show favour to P.Ws.2 and 4 by registering their application for the service connection on 17.12.1991, that too, in his house only for the purpose of getting the illegal gratification of Rs.400. 17. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.9 would clearly show that the amount was recovered from the accused. That apart, in the light of the admission made by the accused that he received the money, there is no difficulty in accepting the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.9 that the amount was recovered from the accused. 18. 17. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.9 would clearly show that the amount was recovered from the accused. That apart, in the light of the admission made by the accused that he received the money, there is no difficulty in accepting the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.9 that the amount was recovered from the accused. 18. It is settled law that when the prosecution proves the acceptance of the amount by the accused which is not the legal remuneration, the presumption shall be raised under Sec.20 against the accused and then, the accused shall establish that the amount was not accepted by him as reward. However, the degree and character of the burden of proof which Sec.20 casts on an accused person to rebut the presumption cannot be equated with the degree and character of the proof resting on the prosecution. However, the mere plausibility of an explanation given by the accused in his statement under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. may not be enough, but the accused may rebut the presumption by showing a preponderance of probability by pointing out the materials available on record. 19. In the light of the above legal situation, we shall now consider whether the presumption has been rebutted by the accused at least through the preponderance of probability. 20. It is quite strange to see that in the questions put initially under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., he said that he never demanded any money from P.W.2. In question No.8, the evidence of P.W.2 was put to him stating that the accused demanded the money for purchasing materials and he answered that he has not stated so. In question No.14, the question was put regarding the receipt of money, the accused stated that he never received any money. 21. It is seen from the cross-examination of P.W.9 Deputy Superintendent of Police, the investigating Officer, that a suggestion was put by the accused that P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 never came inside his house and even then, they were compelled to give a false evidence as if they went inside the house of the accused and handed over the money. This suggestion has been denied. 22. But curiously in the answers given in the question Nos.34, 36 and 41, the accused stated that D.S.P. came and recovered the register and conducted the search under the search list. This is quite contra to the suggestion put to P.W.9. This suggestion has been denied. 22. But curiously in the answers given in the question Nos.34, 36 and 41, the accused stated that D.S.P. came and recovered the register and conducted the search under the search list. This is quite contra to the suggestion put to P.W.9. Only for the last question, he stated that he demanded the money not as a bribe. But, when he informed that some of the materials were not available in the godown, he said that those materials would be worth about Rs.200 or 300 and then, he demanded Rs.400. The reply of the accused is as follows: 23. This statement of the accused is not only artificial, but also was never suggested to any of the witnesses. According to P.W.6, the official, the materials would be brought to the well for giving service connection only after work order is passed. Though in the cross-examination, it has been elicited from P.W.6 that if the materials are not available in the godown, the party themselves would purchase the same, it was never suggested to P.W.6 that the officer accused also would get the amount for the purchase of materials. 24. Moreover, in this case, the application itself was registered only on 17.12.1991 and as such, there is no work order passed till then. Under those circumstances, there is no necessity for the accused to demand the amount. Consequently, it has to be held that the explanation given by the accused is not only not supported by any material but also is quite improbable. 25. If we look at the reply to the question No.44, it is clear that he was not able to give details as to what are all the materials not available in the godown and what would be their actual cost. He has stated in the reply that the cost would be about Rs.200 or 300. 26. When the pump set was purchased by P.W.2 himself, there is no necessity for P.W.2 to give the amount of Rs.400 to the accused even before the work order is passed and without getting the details of the materials and without verification whether those materials are available in the godown or not. Therefore, the defence plea has to be rejected as most artificial and unbelievable. Consequently, the prosecution case has to be accepted. 27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Therefore, the defence plea has to be rejected as most artificial and unbelievable. Consequently, the prosecution case has to be accepted. 27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court are confirmed. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.