Judgment :- Appellant is the accused in Special C.C.3/1992 on the file of Additional District Judge / Special Judge, Nagercoil. By the Judgment dated 07.03.1997, the learned Special Judge convicted the Appellant / accused under Sections 7 and 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Gist of charges framed against the accused and the findings / sentence of the trial court is as under:- Charge Gist of the Charge Finding & Sentence 1 U/s.7 of P.C.Act – Demanded and accepted gratifica-tion from M.I.Abel. Found guilty U/s.7 of P.C. Act. No sentence. 2 U/s.13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of P.C.Act - Thangappan Pillai abusing his official position as public servant committed criminal misconduct by accepting gratifi-cation other than legal remuneration. Found guilty u/s.13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. One year S.I. and fine of Rs.1000/=, in default to undergo 2 months S.I. 3. Case of the Prosecution could briefly be stated thus:- Accused Thangappan Pillai was working as Village Administrative Officer at Neendakarai Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk. P.W.1 was employed in Bilai Steel Plant as Store Keeper and after retirement came back to Neendakarai and settled. His father Issac owned 24 cents in Survey No.22/1. Out of which, he has settled 12-1/2 cents of land in favour of P.W.1. Father of P.W.1 had also settled 11-1/2 cents in the name of his brother. The land in Survey No.22/1 (Patta No.288) was in the Joint Patta. To transfer the patta in his name, P.W.1 has given the Application in July 1991. For about three months, the patta was not transferred. 4. The Office of accused / Village Administrative Officer is in Erumbukadu. On 22.10.1991 - 10.30 AM, P.W.1 went to the office of the accused at Erumbukadu. The accused informed him that he had received the Application and that it might take sometime for effecting change of patta. Accused demanded Rs.300/= for effecting change of patta. P.W.1 pleaded with him expressing his inability. Then the accused demanded Rs.150/=. He asked P.W.1 to come on the next day with Rs.150/=. P.W.1 was unwilling to pay the money. 5. Lodging of complaint: On 23.10.1991 P.W.1 took Rs.150/= and went to the Office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption in Nagercoil. His Statement - Ex.P-1 was recorded by P.W.17 - Inspector of Police. Then the accused demanded Rs.150/=. He asked P.W.1 to come on the next day with Rs.150/=. P.W.1 was unwilling to pay the money. 5. Lodging of complaint: On 23.10.1991 P.W.1 took Rs.150/= and went to the Office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption in Nagercoil. His Statement - Ex.P-1 was recorded by P.W.17 - Inspector of Police. On the basis of Ex.P-1, a case was registered in Crime No.7/1991 of V & AC, Nagercoil under Ex.P-34 - First Information Report by P.W.17 - Inspector of Police. 6. Pre-trap happenings in the Office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption. After recording the complaint, P.W.17 - Inspector of Police requisitioned the service of official witnesses P.W.2 - Dhakshinamoorthy attached to Fisheries Department and another person - Perumal. He showed the Complaint to them. Then P.W.1 handed over to P.W.17, 2 Numbers of 20 Rupee Notes and 11 Numbers of 10 Rupee Notes (M.O.1 series). Then he prepared Ex.P.2 - Entrustment Mahazar. P.W.17 conducted Phenolphthalein test and explained it to the witnesses. He asked P.W.2 to accompany P.W.1 and if the accused received money from him asked him to show the signal by folding the left hand shirt sleeve. P.W.1, his wife and P.W.2 proceeded in the auto driven by P.W.3 - Subramania Pillai to the office of the accused at 4.45 PM. P.W.17 along with his police party followed them. But the office was closed and therefore they came back to Vigilance Office. The smeared money was not seized back from P.W.1. P.W.1 went back to his house along with the money smeared with Phenolphthalein. 7. Trap and happenings on 24.10.1991: P.W.17 asked them to come on the next day at 10'0 clock. Next day, P.W.1 along with his wife proceeded to Vigilance Office i.e.on 24.10.1991. Similar instructions were given by P.W.17. Then P.W.1, his wife and P.W.2 proceeded to the accused office in the auto driven by P.W.3 - Subramania Pillai at about 10.30 AM. P.W.17 along with his police party followed them. 8. On 24.10.1991 - 10.30 AM, P.W.1 went to the office of the accused. The accused was present and accused enquired P.W.1 whether he had brought the money. P.W.1 gave M.O.1 series to the accused, who kept it on the table after counting. He enquired about P.W.2. P.W.1 told him that he is his relation. 8. On 24.10.1991 - 10.30 AM, P.W.1 went to the office of the accused. The accused was present and accused enquired P.W.1 whether he had brought the money. P.W.1 gave M.O.1 series to the accused, who kept it on the table after counting. He enquired about P.W.2. P.W.1 told him that he is his relation. P.W.1 also told that he cannot come to the office often and only P.W.2 will come to meet him. The accused stated he would give the patta in ten days and informed P.W.1 that it is enough if P.W.2 alone comes. P.W.4 Manickavasagam Pillai is the Office Assistant; P.W.5 Thangappan is the Village Assistant in the office of Village Administrative Officer / Accused. On 24.10.1991 when P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the office, P.W.4 was with them. On the direction of the accused, P.W.4 brought Ex.P.3 - File containing Application of P.W.1. At that time, P.W.4 saw the money on the table of the accused. 9. P.W.1 came out and showed the pre-arranged signal. P.W.17 on seeing the signal given by P.W.1 rushed to the office of the accused along with P.W.2. He introduced himself and P.W.2 to the accused. Accused started shivering. Then Phenolphthalein test was conducted and when the accused dipped his both hands, the Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink. Then he enquired about the money. Accused handed over M.O.1 series from the table to P.W.17. He compared the numbers with the numbers now in Ex.P.2 - Entrustment Mahazar and they tallied. He preserved Sodium Carbonate solution in two bottles - M.Os.2 and 3. Accused produced Ex.P.3 - File relating to patta by P.W.1. Then he prepared Seizure Mahazar - Ex.P-6 and arrested the accused at 12.15 PM. He prepared Observation Mahazar - Ex.P-7 and sketch Ex.P-35. One week account was checked up. It was found an amount of Rs.1679/= was collected. But only Rs.1295/= was available with the accused. Lesser amount of Rs.384/= was collected from the accused. As per the direction of the officials, P.W.4 paid that amount of Rs.384/= into the treasury. 10. He proceeded to the house of the accused and made a search. Ex.P-36 is the Search List. No articles were seized. P.W.18 - Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-corruption took up investigation from P.W.17 on 25.10.1991 and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 on the same day. He examined P.Ws.4, 17 and 26. 10. He proceeded to the house of the accused and made a search. Ex.P-36 is the Search List. No articles were seized. P.W.18 - Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-corruption took up investigation from P.W.17 on 25.10.1991 and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 on the same day. He examined P.Ws.4, 17 and 26. P.W.16 - District Collector, Kanyakumari, accorded sanction to prosecute the accused and Ex.P-33 is the Sanction Order. After completing the investigation, final report was filed. 11. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial court, Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 18. Exs.P-1 to P-39 are marked. M.Os.1 to 3 are produced. The accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstance and evidence under Section 313 of Crl.P.C. Defence is one of total denial and that a false case is foisted against the accused. 12. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Special Judge found that the trap proceedings are properly done. It was found that the demand of bribe amount by the accused is well proved by the evidence of P.W.1 and strengthened by the evidence of P.W.4. On the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and Ex.P-21 - Chemical Report, the trial court found that the receipt of gratification money by the accused is well proved raising the presumption under Section 20 of Act 49 of 1988. In its view, the accused had not let in any convincing evidence rebutting the presumption. On those findings, the learned Special Judge convicted the Appellant / accused and sentenced him to undergo the imprisonment as aforesaid in Para (2). 13. Aggrieved over the conviction, the Appellant / accused had preferred this Appeal. Assailing the findings of the trial court, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Gopinath has contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated the various points urged onbehalf of the Appellant / accused. 13. Aggrieved over the conviction, the Appellant / accused had preferred this Appeal. Assailing the findings of the trial court, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Gopinath has contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated the various points urged onbehalf of the Appellant / accused. Assailing the conviction and findings, interalia the following contentions are raised by the accused; (i) that accused / Village Administrative Officer has no power to issue a separate patta from the joint patta and that prior to issuance of separate patta, the Taluk Surveyor has to measure the property and draw a plan and improbability of the accused in demanding the bribe amount for issuance of separate patta when he has no power; (ii) when the trap did not fructify on 23.10.1991, P.W.17 - Investigating Officer ought to have seized the smeared money and ought to have taken care that nobody tampers the cash smeared with Phenolphthalein which has become the case property immediately on registration of the First Information Report; no fresh Entrustment Mahazar was prepared on the morning of 24.10.1991; (iii) money recovered from the table of the accused. Improbability that P.W.1 would have paid the money in the presence of employees in the office. In all probability that M.O.1 series money was kept on the table without the knowledge of the accused; (iv) several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as to how the money was paid to the accused and other events; It is the further contention that the defence version that a false case is foisted against the accused, since P.W.1 was not treated properly earlier when he visited the office of Village Administrative Officer and P.W.1 developed ill-will towards the accused was not properly appreciated by the trial court. 14. Countering the arguments, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that P.W.1 and his wife meeting the accused on 22.10.1991 is well proved by the evidence of P.W.4. Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.6, 4 and 12, the learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Prosecution has well proved that the Application was pending with the accused since the Patta File (Ex.P-3) is proved to have been received by the accused. Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.6, 4 and 12, the learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Prosecution has well proved that the Application was pending with the accused since the Patta File (Ex.P-3) is proved to have been received by the accused. It is further submitted that from the evidence of P.W.12 - Thanga Nadar (retired Tahsildar), it is made clear that the accused has to make the recommendation for effecting change of patta and that the accused cannot contend that the file was not pending with him or that he has no power for issuing the patta. Drawing the attention of the court to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and recovery of the tainted notes (M.O.1 series), the learned Government Advocate submitted that once the recovery of tainted amount is proved, the presumption under Section 20 of Act 49 of 1988 arises and that the accused had not adduced any satisfactory explanation rebutting the presumption. It is further submitted that the conviction is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence and findings are well in conformity with the evidence and that there is no reason warranting interference. 15. Upon careful analysis of the evidence, judgment of the trial court, available materials on record and submissions of both sides, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal:- (1) Whether the demand and receipt of bribe amount by the accused is proved by the Prosecution ? (2) Whether the accused has adduced reasonable explanation rebutting the presumption under Section 20 of Act 49 of 1988? (3) Whether the conviction of the accused under Ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act suffers from any infirmity warranting interference ? 16. From the available materials and the evidence of P.Ws.13 and 14 - Survey Inspector and Additional Village Administrative Officer respectively, we may firstly state the common facts, which led P.W.1 to give the Application for transfer of patta. Father of P.W.1 namely, Issac is the Pattadhar of patta No.288. As per the Chitta, the patta jointly stands in the name of P.W.1 - M.I.Abel and his brother M.I.Albret Issac. One Evangeline Jones, wife of Jacob Arulraj purchased 11-1/2 cents from P.W.1's brother, viz., M.I.Albert Issac. The chitta carries an endorsement of purchase. Entries in the Chitta for patta No.288 (Ex.P-14) read thus:- STR 6308/89-90 Accused had collected Rs.2/= as kist for patta No.288 from P.W.1. One Evangeline Jones, wife of Jacob Arulraj purchased 11-1/2 cents from P.W.1's brother, viz., M.I.Albert Issac. The chitta carries an endorsement of purchase. Entries in the Chitta for patta No.288 (Ex.P-14) read thus:- STR 6308/89-90 Accused had collected Rs.2/= as kist for patta No.288 from P.W.1. Thus there is no denying that P.W.1 is the joint pattadhar of Survey No.288. 17. For effecting change of patta, P.W.3 sent Ex.P.3 - Application (16.07.1991). In Ex.P-3, P.W.1 has stated that his father Issac had executed - Document No.5614/1979 of Neendakarai Village settling 12-1/2 cents in his favour. Along with Ex.P.3 - Application, P.W.1 also sent copy of the which is in Malayalam and also its Tamil version (Not the Translated version). He has also enclosed Death Certificate of his father Issac showing his date of death as 24.08.1990. 18. P.W.12 - the then Tahsildar received Ex.P.3 - Application for transfer of patta. He also speaks to the receipt of the Application in the Tahsildar's office and entry in the T.R.Register and assigning the number - TR 2563/91 dated 19.07.1991. From the evidence of P.W.12, it is clear that P.W.1 Abel, who sought for change of patta, is entitled to the same as per Order 27(2) of Board Standing Orders. 19. P.W.6 was then working as the Junior Assistant in Agastheeswaram Taluk Office - A4 Branch, which is incharge of effecting change of patta. P.W.6 received Ex.P.3 - Application with endorsement of the Tahsildar. She has registered the same in the Register - Ex.P.8 and assigned the number 18029. She has also assigned the transfer of Patta No.TR 2563/91 as per Ex.P-10. Since the property is within the limits of Neendakarai of Agastheeswaram Village, Ex.P.3 - Application and the File was sent to the office of the accused who was then the Village Administrative Officer, Neendakarai through P.W.5. In page No.23 of Ex.P.11 - Tapal Despatch Register, accused had signed acknowledging the receipt of Ex.P.3 - File in his office. 20. P.W.5 is the Village Assistant in the Office of Village Administrative Officer, Neendakarai. P.W.5 is attending the work of bringing tapal from the Taluk Office to the Village Office and taking delivery. From his evidence, it is made clear that normally he would take the despatch letters from Agastheeswaram Taluk Office. 20. P.W.5 is the Village Assistant in the Office of Village Administrative Officer, Neendakarai. P.W.5 is attending the work of bringing tapal from the Taluk Office to the Village Office and taking delivery. From his evidence, it is made clear that normally he would take the despatch letters from Agastheeswaram Taluk Office. From the consistent evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and the signature of the accused in Ex.P-11 (page No.23 of the Register), it is proved that Ex.P.3 - File was received by the accused. Receipt of Ex.P.3 - File by the accused in July 1991 is thus well proved by the Prosecution and that the File was pending with the accused for further action. 21. Normally when the Application is received by the Tahsildar for effecting change of patta, it would also be forwarded to Taluk Surveyor for inspection. P.W.13 was then working as the Survey Inspector. For effecting sub division of the property in Survey No.G.5.22/2 (Patta No.288), P.W.13 had received the Application. The purchaser Evangaline Jones did not appear. Ex.P-22 is the relevant Register maintained in the Survey Office effecting sub division and grant of joint patta would be only after the recommendation of the concerned Village Administrative Officer. 22. For necessary action and for making recommendation and seeking his report, Ex.P-3 File was sent to the office of the accused. From the following evidence of P.W.12 - Tahsildar, it is made clear that the accused has to make the recommendation for grant of patta. The accused had received Ex.P-3 Application and the File through P.W.5 even on 19.07.1991. But his recommendation report was not sent till 24.10.1991. 23. P.W.12 - Tahsildar has clearly spoken about the Board Standing Or.31 Rule 5(1), which lays down that it is incumbent upon the Village Administrative Officer to send the report for effecting change of patta. P.W.1 was in the enjoyment of part of Survey No.G.22/2 as Joint Pattadhar. Hence, P.W.1 was entitled for effecting change of patta. But no action was taken by the accused. Since no report was received from the accused, no further action could be taken in the office of the Tahsildar. 24. P.W.1 was in the enjoyment of part of Survey No.G.22/2 as Joint Pattadhar. Hence, P.W.1 was entitled for effecting change of patta. But no action was taken by the accused. Since no report was received from the accused, no further action could be taken in the office of the Tahsildar. 24. In the cross examination, certain answers were elicited from P.W.12 that Village Administrative Officer has no power to issue a separate patta from the joint patta and that only Surveyor has to effect the sub division and draw a plan and recommend for issue of patta. In his cross examination, P.W.12 has stated On the strength of these answers, it is contended that when Village Administrative Officer has no power for issuing separate patta, it is highly improbable that the accused would have demanded bribe amount for effecting change of patta. This contention has no force. Though Village Administrative Officer has no power to issue separate patta, as per Board Standing Order 31 Rule 5(1), the Village Administrative Officer has to send his recommendation report for change of patta. 25. P.W.4 was the then Additional Village Administrative Officer of Neendakarai. According to him, P.W.1 Abel was the joint pattadhar for patta No.288 and that recommendation report ought to have been sent by the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.10 - Revenue Inspector has also spoken about the Board Standing Order, as per which the Village Administrative Officer has to make the recommendation report for effecting change of patta. For better appreciation of this point, we may refer to Board Standing Order 31 Rule 5(1). (vide Ex.P-18) Thus it is clear that a duty is cast upon the Village Administrative Officer to send recommendation report for effecting change of patta. As per Board Standing Or.31 R5(1) his report of recommendation is the first step for effecting transfer of patta. In the light of the above Rule, no amount of arguments could be advanced that Village Administrative Officer has no role to play in effecting change of patta. 26. The suggestion that Surveyors ought to have taken steps by effecting sub division has no force. For the sake of arguments, let us assume that only the Surveyor has to initiate the steps by effecting sub division; if that be so, the accused could have very well returned Ex.P.3 - Application and File stating that it is missent. 26. The suggestion that Surveyors ought to have taken steps by effecting sub division has no force. For the sake of arguments, let us assume that only the Surveyor has to initiate the steps by effecting sub division; if that be so, the accused could have very well returned Ex.P.3 - Application and File stating that it is missent. But Ex.P-3 Application and the File was kept in the office of the Village Administrative Officer / accused for nearly three months without any action. The defence that Surveyor ought to have effected sub division and that Village Administrative Officer has no power is clearly an afterthought. The delay in taking action on the application by the accused is clearly an incriminating circumstance against the accused strengthening the Prosecution case. 27. Despite the receipt of Ex.P.3 - Application and the file in July 1991 there was no response. Therefore, P.W.1 made enquiries about his Application. He was directed to contact office of Village Administrative Officer in Erumbukadu. P.W.1 is affected by paralytic attack and limping. Because of his difficulty in walking, normally he walks with walking stick; wherever he goes, he is normally accompanied by his wife to help and assist him. 28. 22.10.1991 - 10.30 AM: P.W.1 and his wife met the accused and enquired about his Application. The accused stated that his Application is received in the office. He demanded Rs.300/= for effecting change of patta. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the amount of Rs.300/= stating that he is retired and unable to pay that huge amount. Thereafter, the accused reduced the demand from Rs.300/= to Rs.150/=. P.W.1 agreed to pay the same. Thereafter the accused directed P.W.1 to meet him on the evening of 23.10.1991. P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the demand by the accused. 29. Evidence of trap witnesses must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. Keeping that caution inmind, the evidence of P.W.1 / bribe-giver has to be scrutinised very carefully. It is for the Court to consider and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide the question whether a conviction can be based upon it or not in those given circumstances. Keeping that caution inmind, the evidence of P.W.1 / bribe-giver has to be scrutinised very carefully. It is for the Court to consider and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide the question whether a conviction can be based upon it or not in those given circumstances. In its judgment, though the trial court has not indicated its mind that it kept that caution in the mind in assessing the evidence of P.W.1, the reading of entire judgment shows that the learned Judge had carefully analysed his evidence and fairly sought for corroboration for the evidence of P.W.1. 30. It is to be seen whether there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the the accused, the evidence of P.W.1 / Complainant is corroborated on material particulars passing the test of probability. P.W.10 - Revenue Inspector is well acquainted with the signature and initials of the accused. Ex.P-15 is the Attendance Register of the office of Village Administrative Officer during the relevant period. By referring to the initials and the signatures in the Attendance Register, P.W.10 has clearly stated about the attendance of the accused on 09.10.1991, 22.10.1991 and 24.10.1991. Further, on the above dates, the accused has also collected the kist and for collecting the same, issued kist receipts signing in the same (Ex.P-5 series). The presence of the accused in the office on 22.10.1991 is well proved by the evidence of P.W.10 and Ex.P-15 - Attendance Register and Ex.P-5 - kist receipts. 31. The meeting of P.W.1 with the accused on 22.10.1991 is also brought out by the evidence of P.W.4 - Office Assistant. In his evidence, P.W.4 has clearly stated that on 22.10.1991 P.W.1 came to the office along with a woman (wife of P.W.1) and talking to the accused. P.W.4 heard the accused asking P.W.1 to come on 23.10.1991. On 23.10.1991 the office of Village Administrative Officer was cloed at 4'0 clock itself. 32. Meeting of P.W.1 with the accused on 22.10.1991 is vaguely denied by the accused. In the light of the definite evidence of P.Ws.4 and 10 and Ex.P.15 - Attendance Register, denial of meeting P.W.1 has no force. Had there been no demand of money on 22.10.1991, there would not have been lodging of complaint - Ex.P-1 on 23.10.1991. 32. Meeting of P.W.1 with the accused on 22.10.1991 is vaguely denied by the accused. In the light of the definite evidence of P.Ws.4 and 10 and Ex.P.15 - Attendance Register, denial of meeting P.W.1 has no force. Had there been no demand of money on 22.10.1991, there would not have been lodging of complaint - Ex.P-1 on 23.10.1991. The averments in Ex.P-1 about meeting the accused on 22.10.1991 and the demand made by him is also clearly stated in Ex.P-1 strengthening the version of P.W.1. 33. After demonstration of Phenolphthalein test in the Office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption, Entrustment Mahazar - Ex.P-2 was prepared. As per the instructions on the evening of 23.10.1991 - 4.30 PM, P.W.1 accompanied by the official witnesses P.W.2 - Dakshinamoorthy followed by the police party and another official witness Perumal went to the office of the accused. The Police party remained outside maintaining distance. P.W.1 and his wife and the official witness went in P.W.3's auto (Auto No.TCK 751) at about 4.30 PM. They found the office locked up. P.W.1, his wife and the official witness - P.W.2 Dakshinamoorthy came back to the office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption. Since the trap did not fructify on 23.10.1991, P.W.17 - Investigating Officer asked Auto driver PW.3 to come on the next day morning 10.00 AM. That P.W.1 and his wife accompanied by the official witness P.W.2 went to the office of the accused on the evening of 23.10.1991 is well proved by the evidence of P.W.13. 34. P.W.3 - Auto driver has made entries in his diary about the dates - 23.10.1991 and 24.10.1991. Evidence of P.W.3 - Auto Driver is assailed on the ground that there is no particular reason for P.W.3 to remember the dates and make entries in his diary. His evidence is further attacked on the ground that his evidence is not supported by any contemporaneous document like trip sheet. Evidence of P.W.3 - Auto Driver cannot be discarded on the ground that no trip sheet is produced for the relevant dates. The learned Government Advocate has stated that in normal practice, the auto drivers are not in the habit of writing the trip sheet. Presently we are not concerned with practice of Trip Sheet but only about the Diary entries. The evidence of P.W.3 that he made entries about the dates in the diary is quite acceptable. The learned Government Advocate has stated that in normal practice, the auto drivers are not in the habit of writing the trip sheet. Presently we are not concerned with practice of Trip Sheet but only about the Diary entries. The evidence of P.W.3 that he made entries about the dates in the diary is quite acceptable. In the instant case, he was faced with a strange experience of taking the hirer from the Office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption and bringing them back to the same office. Expecting the possibility of being called as witness, P.W.3 had every reason to make entries in the diary for his better remembrance. Evidence of P.W.3 that he made entries in the diary about the dates 23.10.1991 and 24.10.1991 was rightly accepted by the trial court as convincing. There is no reason to take a different view. 35. Since the trap did not fructify on the evening of 23.10.1991, P.Ws.1 and 2 came back to the Office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption in the same auto. On 23.10.1991, P.W.17 - Inspector of Police did not seize back M.O.1 series - currency notes smeared with Phenolphthalein, though P.W.17 admits them to be the case property after registration of the case. In his cross examination, P.W.17 has also admitted that once the First Information Report is registered and the currency notes are smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, it is his responsibility to see that nobody tampers the amount. The relevant answers of P.W.17 reads 36. Again on the next day - 24.10.1991, a fresh Entrustment Mahazar was not prepared; nor P.w.17 again counted M.O.1 currency notes. On the basis of those answers elicited from P.W.17 - Investigating Officer, the whole trap proceedings is assailed contending that on the night of 23.10.1991 P.W.1 was allowed to go with the cash and that it is a serious lapse on the part of P.W.17 - Investigating Officer in not preparing any fresh Entrustment Mahazar on the next day - 24.10.1991. Of course the Investigating Agency could have been better had it adopted the precautionary measures in seizing the cash or in preparing fresh Entrustment Mahazar on the morning of 24.10.1991. But P.W.17 has explained the reason for not doing so. Of course the Investigating Agency could have been better had it adopted the precautionary measures in seizing the cash or in preparing fresh Entrustment Mahazar on the morning of 24.10.1991. But P.W.17 has explained the reason for not doing so. According to P.W.17, that M.O.1 series - currency notes smeared with Phenolphthalein powder were not further dealt with that they may be spoiled if notes are dealt with again and that is the reason for not disturbing the notes and allowing P.W.1 to go with the amount. The explanation of P.W.17 is quite acceptable. 37. P.W.1 has clearly stated that Perumal had verified the currency notes numbers and P.W.2 has kept the cash back in his pocket. During the cross examination, the possibility of tampering currency notes in between is not established by the accused. No foundation is laid for such defence excepting to point out the omission on the part of Investigating Officer. Such omission on the part of Investigating Officer to further verify the cash cannot go to the advantage of the accused. This is all the more so, when it is not shown by the accused how he is prejudiced by allowing P.w.1 to go with the cash - M.O.1 series on the night of 23.10.1991. 38. Acceptance of bribe amount by the accused: On 24.10.1991 - 10.30 AM, P.W.1 and his wife accompanied by P.W.2 went to the office of the accused in Erumbukadu. The accused asked P.W.1 whether he brought the money and P.W.1 gave money Rs.150/= (M.O.1 series). The accused received with his right hand and counted and kept the same on his table. P.W.1 told the accused that he cannot frequently come to the office and that only P.W.2 would come to the office on his behalf to look into the matter. Accused promised P.W.1 to effect the change of patta within ten days. Receipt of money by the accused is well proved by the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 39. Assailing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned Senior counsel pointed out certain inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on certain aspects how they were seated and whether wife of P.W.1 was present or not when money was paid. Further P.W.2 has stated that he had not seen P.W.1 showing the pre-arranged signal. P.Ws.1 and 2 were exposed to a strange experience. Further P.W.2 has stated that he had not seen P.W.1 showing the pre-arranged signal. P.Ws.1 and 2 were exposed to a strange experience. Their mind would have been obsessed with the only point of handing over the bribe money and making the trap a success. That they are not in a position to answer certain questions is of no significance. The inconsistencies pointed out in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not so material to undermine the material particulars to their evidence and the reliability. 40. On showing the pre-arranged signal, P.W.17 and other police party went inside the office of the accused and seized Rs.150/= which tallied currency notes noted in the Mahazar. Numbers tallied with the currency notes in Ex.P-2 Mahazar clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused received the money. Recovery of money of Rs.150/= from the accused (which he gave from his table) is thus proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 17 - Investigating Officer and also the contemporaneous Mahazar - Ex.P.6. When the accused dipped his right hand and left hand in Sodium Carbonate solution, it turned pink, which were sealed as S1 and S2 (M.Os.2 and 3). Ex.P-21 is the Chemical Analysis Report, which proved positive for Phenolphthalein. During the chemical analysis of sample - S1 and S2, Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate were detected which conclusively establish the receipt of money by the accused. 41. From the evidence of P.W.12 - Tahsildar, it is clear that no amount is payable for change of patta. Amount of Rs.150/= paid is thus not legal remuneration or due payable to the Government. The Prosecution has proved that the accused has received the amount and that amount is not due and payable to the government. Therefore, the presumption under Section 20 of Act 49 of 1988 arises that the amount of gratification paid to the accused as a motive / reward for effecting the change of patta. 42. Once it is established that the accused has received the amount which was not due to him as legal remuneration or due payable to the Government, the presumption under Section 20 of Act 49 of 1988 arises. Of course it is open to the accused to show that the money was legally due to him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. Of course it is open to the accused to show that the money 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 is upon the accused to prove the same and the explanation by the accused has to satisfy:- (i) requirements of preponderance of probability; (ii)it should go further and rebut by proof that the explanation given is not merely plausible but also reasonable and acceptable; 43. It is not the case of the accused that the amount was paid to him pursuant to any transaction or arrangement between him and P.W.1. Absolutely no explanation is forthcoming from the accused for the receipt of money. The defence version is one of total denial. According to the accused, a false case is foisted against him out of ill-will. The defence version is that when P.W.1 came to the office of Village Administrative Officer, he was not given the seat and that he was not treated properly and hence P.W.1 has developed ill-will towards the accused. This explanation does not appear to be plausible and reasonable. P.W.1 is retired after working in Bilai Steel Plant and is aged 65 years. He is limping and infirm. Had there been no demand, he would not have taken the risk of going to the office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption and lodging the complaint and going through the lengthy process of investigation merely because of his resentment that he was not treated properly in the office of the accused. 44. This defence of the accused is not reasonable and probable. The accused only denies the receipt of Rs.150/= mainly on two grounds; (i) M.O.1 series was not recovered from the person of the accused; but was recovered from the table. It was kept on the table without his knowledge; (ii) in the office of Vigilance & Anti-corruption, a lady staff and other staff including P.W.4 - Office Assistant were working and in the presence of others, improbability of the accused receiving bribe amount and keeping it on the table. On the first limb of defence non recovery of the bribe amount from the person of the accused would not create dent in the trap. As said earlier, it is not the case of the accused that the amount of Rs.150/= is otherwise payable to him. On the first limb of defence non recovery of the bribe amount from the person of the accused would not create dent in the trap. As said earlier, it is not the case of the accused that the amount of Rs.150/= is otherwise payable to him. While so, this contention that M.O.1 cash was kept on the table without his knowledge has no force. 45. It is brought on evidence that apart from the accused, other persons are also working in the office. They were seated in the same room. Apart from the other staff members, P.W.4 - Office Assistant was also present at that time. Therefore, the main point urged by the accused that when all of them were seated in the same room in the tables and the chairs provided to them, there is no probability of the accused receiving the money in their presence. This contention also lacks in force. Normally, the villagers come to the office of the Village Administrative Officer and make payment towards kist, arrears of land tax and others. Therefore, it is not strange in taking the money in the presence of others. Considering the nature of activities of the Village Administrative Officer, the staff members may not have entertained any doubt on the amount paid by P.W.1 to the accused. This contention of improbability of receipt of amount by the accused in the presence of others was rightly negatived by the trial court. 46. In the light of proved facts and circumstances, the following are well established:- (i) Ex.P.3 - Application file was sent to the office of the accused even in July 1991; (ii) As per Board Standing Order Rule 31(5)(1), duty was cast upon the Village Administrative Officer to send his recommendation report for effecting change of patta; but the accused delayed in sending the report; (iii) On 22.10.1991, there was demand of money; (iv) that the accused received the amount on 24.10.1991 - 10.30 AM and the accused received that amount as gratification otherwise than legal remuneration. The accused had not satisfactorily rebutted the presumption that he had not accepted the amount as a motive or reward. No explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to the receipt of the money by him. 47. The trial court has rightly convicted the accused. The accused had not satisfactorily rebutted the presumption that he had not accepted the amount as a motive or reward. No explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to the receipt of the money by him. 47. The trial court has rightly convicted the accused. In the instant case the prosecution has placed sufficient material to show that the accused demanded money from the complainant and that the trap was laid and Investigating Officer was successful in establishing that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount to effect change of patta to the complainant. Therefore the Court below has rightly held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 48. Having gone through the judgment and perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P-21 and other evidence, this Court finds it difficult to come to a different conclusion. The reasonings and findings for convicting the accused are well in conformity with the evidence and materials on record. 49. For the conviction under Sec.13(2)r/w13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.1000/=. The sentence of imprisonment cannot be said to be disproportionate. This Appeal has no merits and is bound to fail. 50. Therefore, the judgment of Special Judge, Nagercoil in Special Case No.3/1992 (dated 07.03.1997) convicting the Appellant / accused under Ss.7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of imprisonment and quantum of fine is confirmed and this Appeal is dismissed. The trial court is directed to take immediate steps for securing the accused to commit him to prison for serving the remaining period of sentence.