V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, who is accused, filed this appeal against the judgment dated 11-9-1995 in CC No. 39 of 1993 on the file of Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and also convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (l) (d) of the Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE appellant-accused was working as Mandal Development Officer (MDO), vararamchandrapuram Mandal, Khammam district. PW1, S. Ramanadham, is the complainant and while he was working as village Development Officer of the said mandal, he sent an application on 3-2-1990, 10-9-1990 and 13-9-1990 for his transfer from Vararamchandrapuram Mandal to yellandu as affirmed by PW2, P. Babu Rao, who was working as Superintendent in the Office of Zilla Praja Parishad, khammam, at the relevant time. PW1 was transferred with immediate effect from vararamachandrapuram Mandal to Yellandu by the District Development Officer vide order dated 24-9-1990, which was marked as Ex. P2. By the said order. PW1 was posted as Village Development Officer, mandal Praja Parishad, Yellandu, which post was kept vacant. The Mandal Development officer (accused), Vararamachandrapuram mandal, and the Mandal Development officer, Yellandu, were requested to immediately intimate the date of relief and joining of the said Village Development officer. Pursuant to the said transfer order, PW1 filed an application Ex. P3 on 5-10-1990 before MDO, Vararamchandrapuram mandal, requesting him to issue relieving orders. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the PW1 complainant that on receiving the said application, the appellant-accused demanded to pay Rs. 500/- as bribe for relieving him, otherwise he will not be relieved. PW1 pleaded that his wife s health is not good and that there are no good medical facilities in Vararamachandrapuram and therefore, he may be relieved immediately. But, the accused-appellant firmly told PW1 that he would be relieved only if he pays a bribe of Rs. 500/- as bribe for relieving him, otherwise he will not be relieved. PW1 pleaded that his wife s health is not good and that there are no good medical facilities in Vararamachandrapuram and therefore, he may be relieved immediately. But, the accused-appellant firmly told PW1 that he would be relieved only if he pays a bribe of Rs. 500/-, otherwise, he will not be relieved. PW1 did not give bribe to the accused Officer. Instead, PW1 lodged Ex. Pl complaint on 23-10-1990 to PW6, DSP (ACB), Warangal. The said complaint was registered in Crime No. 3/acb-WRL/90 and ex. P-11 FIR was sent to the Court. On the basis of the said FIR, PW6 took up investigation. ( 4 ) DURING the course of investigation, PW6 asked PW1 to meet him at about 6a. m. on 24-10-1990 at Police Club, bhadrachalam with the proposed bribe amount of Rs. 500/ -. Accordingly, PW1 went to the said place and in the meantime, pw6 secured the presence of two mediators, pw4 and one Samuel and PW1 was introduced to them. The proposed bribe amount i. e. , five currency notes each of rs. 100/- denomination was brought by PW1 and the first mediators report was drafted in the presence of four officers namely PW4 and others and the numbers of the said currency were noted and the said currency was tainted with phenolphthalein powder. PW6 DSP instructed PWl to pay the tainted currency to MDO (accused in case he demands and accepts the bribe amount and then give a signal by wiping his face with handkerchief. The first mediators report is marked as Ex. P7. Thus, the trap party have reached the outskirts of Vararamachandrapuram village at about 11. 15 a. m. in a jeep which was stopped at a distance of half-a-kilometer from the Mandal Development Office. As per the instructions of PW6, the complainant pwl got down from the jeep and proceeded towards the Mandal Development Office while the mediators and the ACB officials followed him at a distance. At about 11. 40 a. m. , the complainant went into the Office of MDO-Vararamachandrapuram mandal and immediately came out and informed that the MDO had gone into the village and then the complainant was instructed to wait at the said office and the trap party members in their respective positions were observing in the vicinity of the office of MDO. 40 a. m. , the complainant went into the Office of MDO-Vararamachandrapuram mandal and immediately came out and informed that the MDO had gone into the village and then the complainant was instructed to wait at the said office and the trap party members in their respective positions were observing in the vicinity of the office of MDO. At about 12 noon, c. Kishan Rao, Mandal Development Officer, vararamachandrapuram Mandal, arrived in a jeep bearing No. APU-1675 and went into the office. After some time, the complainant also went inside and at about 12. 10 p. m. , he gave a pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with handkerchief indicating that c. Kishan Rao had demanded and accepted bribe from him. . On receipt of the said signal, the mediators and ACB officials rushed into the office room of the MDO, who was sitting alone in his room. Thereafter, PW6 disclosed his identity and introduced the mediators and ACB Inspector and then asked the accused whether he had just demanded And accepted bribe amount from PWl. The accused-appellant stated that he did not demand any bribe, but PW1 offered him Rs. 500/- for issuing relieving orders immediately. On the instructions of pw6, the Head Constable prepared sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and the solution was colourless. Then, PW6 asked the accused-appellant to rinse his right hand fingers in one glass tumbler and the left hand fingers in another tumbler. While so, the solution in which the fingers of his right hand were rinsed turned pink and there was no change in respect of left hand fingers. Thereafter, the accused was asked to produce the tainted currency, which he had accepted from pw1 and the same was removed from the right side front pocket of the trouser. On verification, the numbers on the tainted currency tallied with those mentioned in the first mediators report. After securing another trouser from the residence of the accused, he handed over the trouser from which the tainted currency was received. The said trouser pocket was also subjected to test and when the right front side pocket was dipped into the sodium carbonate solution, the same turned into pink colour. Thus, the trouser was also recovered. After securing another trouser from the residence of the accused, he handed over the trouser from which the tainted currency was received. The said trouser pocket was also subjected to test and when the right front side pocket was dipped into the sodium carbonate solution, the same turned into pink colour. Thus, the trouser was also recovered. ( 5 ) WHEN PW6 questioned the accused as to how he came into possession of the tainted currency, then the accused stated that on 24-10-1990, when he returned to the office, PW1 entered the office room with his service book and a copy of transfer order and requested him to relieve him. But, the accused told PW1 that he has written to the Collector and the Chairman, Zilla praja Parishad for a substitute and after a substitute is provided, PW1 will be relieved. He further stated mat PW1 absented from duty for ten days and the documentation work is still pending and asked him to complete the same. Then, PW1 offered rs. 500/- as bribe and asked him to relieve immediately. The accused further stated that when he refused to accept the bribe amount, PW1 kept the money on his table and went away and the accused has removed the tainted currency and then kept the same in his front right side trouser pocket. PW6 also asked the accused whether pw1 gave any representation for relieving him on transfer to Yellandu Mandal. The accused replied that he received such representation on 5-10-1990. He further stated that as per oral instructions of the district Collector, Khammam, in the meeting held on 9-10-1990, no subordinate officer, who was working in agency area, was to be relieved on transfer unless a substitute is reported for duty and hence, the accused did not relieve PW1 and that he requested the district Collector to arrange posting of employees in the existing vacancies including the post of VDO. PW6 asked the accused to produce the complete correspondence relevant to the transfer of PW1 and later on it was seized. It is also recorded in the trap proceedings that PW1 went into the office room of MDO and as per the instruction, the tainted currency notes were given to mdo and PW1 also deposed to the above effect. The five tainted currency notes were marked as MOl; MOs. It is also recorded in the trap proceedings that PW1 went into the office room of MDO and as per the instruction, the tainted currency notes were given to mdo and PW1 also deposed to the above effect. The five tainted currency notes were marked as MOl; MOs. 2 and 3 are samples of sodium carbonate powder and phenolphthalein powder; MO4 is the pant of the accused; MOs. 5 and 6 are sealed bottles of the solution after dipping of the fingers of the accused; MO7 is the solution tested on trouser pocket. ( 6 ) TO prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. l to 7 and Exs. Pl to Pll were marked and also MOs. l to 8 were marked. On behalf of defence, the accused officer alone was examined as DW1 and exs. Dl to D4 were marked. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that the accused appellant being a public servant working as Mandal development officer of Vararamachandrapuram mandal, Khammam district, on 24-10-1990 in the office of Mandal Praja Parishad had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 500/- from PW1 S. Ramanatham as gratification other than legal remuneration as the motive or reward for doing an official act of issuing relieving orders of transfer of PW1 to yellandu Mandal and thus convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the aforesaid manner. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant advanced the following contentions: (1) In the instant case, there is no proof of demand or acceptance of the money paid by PW1 towards gratification other than the legal remuneration for doing an official act and mere recovery of the money from the appellant cannot be said that the appellant had demanded and accepted the gratification other than the legal remuneration. (2) There was no demand or acceptance of the gratification other than the legal remuneration for doing the official act by the appellant and the appellant has not committed any offence of criminal misconduct by receiving any money for his pecuniary advantage and the prosecution has not discharged its duty or the burden to show that the appellant had accepted the money and therefore, the question of legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise. (3) The money was not accepted by the appellant. (3) The money was not accepted by the appellant. On the other, PW1 himself offered the said amount for immediate issuance of the orders relieving him to join duty, at Yellandu. The appellant refused to take the amount, but PW1 kept the same on the table, at that time there was no power supply. Then, the power supply was restored and the money kept on the table was scattered due to fan air. He called his Attender, Aipathirao, and asked him to collect the notes which were kept by PW1 and to return the same to PW1. The Attender accordingly picked up the currency and gave it to the appellant and went away to call PW1 and for a while, he kept the currency in his trouser pocket and in the meanwhile, acb officials came there and enquired about the currency notes. Then, the appellant had taken out money from his trouser pocket and given the same to them stating that he neither demanded nor accepted the money. (4) PW1 is not a man of virtues and he is a notorious man with loose moral fibre and as per the criminal antecedents, his evidence should not be believed. ( 8 ) WITH regard to contentions 1, 2 and 3, it has to be stated that on the application of PW1, he was transferred from Vararamachandrapuram Mandal to yellandu. On his request and as per the transfer order, the post at Yellandu was also kept vacant and the resultant vacancy at Vararamachandrapuram Mandal was to be filled separately and the MDO, vararamachandrapuram Mandal was requested to immediately relieve PW1 and intimate the same to the District development Officer, ZPP, Khammam. The explanation of the appellant-accused that there were oral instructions by the Collector not to relieve the transferee is not proved except the fact that he has addressed a letter to fill up the vacancies including that of the post of Village Development Officer held by PW1. Ex. P6 letter of the District collector, Khammam, dated 15-1-1991 clarifies that as per the minutes of the meeting held on 7-11-1990, the Collector has not given any instructions of holding employees under transfer for their substitutes. The appellant has not made any attempt to produce or summon any correspondence that there were such instruction of the collector in the MDOs meeting said to have been held on 9-10-1990. The appellant has not made any attempt to produce or summon any correspondence that there were such instruction of the collector in the MDOs meeting said to have been held on 9-10-1990. In the absence of such instructions said to have been issued by the District Collector, the statement of the appellant-accused that the District collector asked him not to relieve the transferred officials cannot be believed. PW1 is transferred on his own request and therefore, he was not entitled to T. A. or joining time as the transfer was made on his request. PW1 stated that his wife was not in good health and therefore he wanted to relieve immediately so as to get better medical treatment at Yellandu. The attempt of the appellant that PW1 approached him on 4-10-1990 is rightly disbelieved by the trial Court as the endorsement made by the appellant clearly shows that PW1 approached him on 5-10-1990 to relieve him. The further explanation of the accused that PW1 after submitting the application to relieve him, absented himself from duty is also not supported by the evidence. On the other hand, the accused himself stated that he called PW1 on 5-10-1990 stating that he received the transfer order, but he will not be relieved till the substitute is posted. As the accused demanded an amount of rs. 500/- as bribe for doing the official act of relieving PW1 and PW1 was not inclined to pay the said amount, he lodged Ex. P1 complaint to DSP, ACB-Warangal, against the accused on 23-10-1990 and accordingly fir was issued and trap was laid as per exs. P7 and P8 and the appellant admitted that PW1 paid the money even though he has not demanded the same. Further, the said amount was recovered from the right side trouser pocket. No doubt, it is stated by PW1 that as per the earlier demand, he has offered Rs. 500/- to C. Kishan Rao to relieve him and the accused received the tainted currency with his right hand and kept the same in the right side front pocket of his trouser. Further, after handing over the currency, PW1 came out of the office and gave a pre-arrange signal to the trap party members, who recovered the tainted money from the appellant. Thus, it is clear that the appellant-accused received the money paid by PW1. Further, after handing over the currency, PW1 came out of the office and gave a pre-arrange signal to the trap party members, who recovered the tainted money from the appellant. Thus, it is clear that the appellant-accused received the money paid by PW1. Learned Counsel for the appellant however submits that mere receipt of the amount cannot be said to be acceptance of the money and therefore, the legal presumption under Section 20 of the act does not apply. ( 9 ) THE further question that arises for consideration is whether the receipt of money can be said as acceptance attracting legal presumption as contemplated under section 20 of the Act. Under Section 20 of the Act, if it is proved that the accused person has accepted or attempted to obtain for himself any gratification (other than the legal remuneration) from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that he has accepted or obtained the gratification as the motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. As per section 7 of the Act, a public servant, who accepts or obtains from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing an official act in exercise of his official function shall be punished. In the instant case, though the accused stated that he has not demanded or accepted the money, the fact remains that he has obtained money and the said money was admittedly kept by himself in his trouser pocket, which has been recovered as per Exs. P7 and P8 trap proceedings. Therefore, it should be presumed that the accused obtained the tainted money which is a gratification other than the legal remuneration and the accused has not rebutted the said legal presumption. The appellant though developed the story of forcibly keeping of the money on the table by PW1 and the scattering of the money due to the fan air after power restoration and the collection of the money by the Attender, aipathyrao, he has not made any attempt to examine the said Attender and the accused has not corroborated his oral evidence. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, the version of PW1 that the accused has accepted the bribe amount and the same was kept in the right side trouser pocket, which was recovered, is corroborated by the other evidence on record. If there was no earlier demand, the question of receiving or obtaining the amount by the accused does not arise. The money is admittedly received and the receipt of money is corroborated by other evidence and it clearly amounts to acceptance of the gratification other than legal remuneration. The version of PW1 that the money has been received by the accused with his right hand and kept in the right side trouser pocket has been proved by the recovery of the money and also by testing the fingers of the right hand and when the left hand fingers were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, they did not turn pink. This circumstance also shows that the accused has voluntarily received with right hand without any protest or hesitation. Thus, there is no substance in the explanation of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused has not received any gratification other than legal remuneration and there is no substance in the contentions 1 to 3 raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 11 ) THE Supreme Court in C. K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt. of India, AIR 1997 SC 551 , while dealing with presumption under Section 29 (1) held that when the accused had accepted the money from the complainant as gratification, it should be presumed that the accused had accepted or obtained the money from the complainant as gratification other than legal remuneration. Of course, the said presumption is rebuttable. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary accept means to take or receive with a consenting mind . Obviously, such a consent can be established not only by leading evidence of prior agreement but also from the circumstances surrounding the transaction itself without proof of such prior agreement. Even if the illegal gratification is voluntarily offered and the public servant takes or receives such gratification for doing an official act, it would certainly amount to acceptance within meaning of Section 20 of the Act (equivalent of Section 161 of IPC ). Therefore, it cannot be said as an abstract proposition of law that without prior demand, there cannot be acceptance . Therefore, it cannot be said as an abstract proposition of law that without prior demand, there cannot be acceptance . In the instant case, it cannot be said that PW1 voluntarily offered the money, which has been received by the accused. The accused received the money as illegal gratification for doing official act of relieving PW1 Village Development officer from Vararamachandrapuram mandal. ( 12 ) IN another case, the Supreme Court in Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.), air 1980 SC 873 , held that once the finding is arrived that the accused has obtained the money from the complainant, the presumption under Section 4 (1) corresponding to Section 20 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act is immediately attracted unless it is rebutted by the accused Officer. In the instant case, the presumption is not rebutted by any acceptable evidence and therefore, the trial Court held that the guilt of the appellant- accused is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 13 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor placing reliance on the decision in Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 806 , contended that though the accused made an attempt to explain possession of the tainted amount in his pocket immediately at the time of trap, the said version has been developed at the time of deposing his oral evidence that without his demand, the said amount was offered by the complainant which was put on the table and due to the fan air, the amount was scattered and the same was collected by the Attender, aipathirao and the accused kept it in trouser pocket. But, the said defence was not proved by the accused with any justifiable evidence and further, the Attender. Aipathirao, is not at all examined. On the other hand, the cumulative evidence supporting the version of PW1 clearly proves the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant has received money voluntarily. ( 14 ) INSOFAR as the 4th contention is concerned, merely because PW1 was suspended in the year 1988 on some charges and there was a complaint. Ex. D2 by the then MDO, Srihari Rao and it was compromised, it cannot be said that PW1 is having a notorious character with loose moral fibre or with criminal antecedents. There is no enmity between PW1 and the accused officer and there was no misunderstanding whatsoever prior to the incident. Ex. Ex. D2 by the then MDO, Srihari Rao and it was compromised, it cannot be said that PW1 is having a notorious character with loose moral fibre or with criminal antecedents. There is no enmity between PW1 and the accused officer and there was no misunderstanding whatsoever prior to the incident. Ex. D2 complaint was made against PW1 in the year 1988. But, the fact remains that PW1 was transferred on his request and the same was communicated to the accused on 5-10-1990 and PW1 also filed an application for immediate relieving to join duty at Yellandu, but PW1 was not relieved on the ground that he has to pay Rs. 500/- as bribe to the accused and therefore, a complaint was lodged on 23-10-1990 and after making preliminary enquiry, the trap was arranged and was successful by the recovery of the tainted notes from the trouser pocket of the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is not safe to believe the evidence of PW1 particularly when it is corroborated by other evidence and circumstances. The evidence of the mediator PW4, who is Asst. Divisional engineer and an independent officer and pw6 clearly brings out the version of prosecution with regard to demand and acceptance of Rs. 500/- as bribe and the recovery of the same from the accused. The entire evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused has demanded and accepted the gratification other than legal remuneration and misconducted himself and thus liable to be convicted under sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (l) (d) of the Act. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to reduce the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment on each of the counts. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the convictions ordered by the trial Court under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (l) (d) of the Act are confirmed, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to one year on both the counts. Both sentences shall run concurrently. Fines imposed by the trial court are maintained. With the above reduction in sentence, the criminal appeal is dismissed.