Judgment : Per K. N. BASHA, J. 1. The appellant, who is a sole accused, has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by learned IV Addl. Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai, made in C.C. No. 58 of 1995 by the judgment dated 09.04.1999, convicting him under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing him to three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 471 r/w 466 IPC and sentencing him to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) P.W. 3, Le Minh Hung, is the younger brother of P.W.2, Vellasamy. Their father Sinthamani was working as an Accountant in a private firm at Saigon, South Vietnam. Both of them were born at Saigon, where their father was working. P.W.2 and his brother P.W.3 were granted Indian Citizenship by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. The same was recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu. (b) The parents of P.Ws. 2 and 3 subsequently moved to USA and they had settled there. P.W.3, the younger brother of P.W.2, had applied for a passport to join his parents in U.S.A. Therefore, P.W.2 approached the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, on 8.8.1994 to know the stage of the passport application made by P.W.3. He was informed that the application has been referred to the Home Department of the State Government for clearance. (c) On 9.8.1994, P.W.2 met the accused Ramakrishnan at his office at Secretariat, Chennai, and he learn from him that the letter (Ex.P.15) has since been received from the Regional Passport Officer. The accused then directed P.W.2 to submit his representation in the Thapal Section in the Home Department. (d) On 10.8.1994, P.W.2, met the accused at the Secretariat with Ex. P.3, representation, dated 10.8.1994, enclosing the xerox copy of his brother, P.W.3s identity certificate, issued by the Government of India. The accused asked him to submit the same to Thapal Section. The accused also told him on 10.8.1994 that he was proceeding on leave for one week and after that he would put up the file. P.3, representation, dated 10.8.1994, enclosing the xerox copy of his brother, P.W.3s identity certificate, issued by the Government of India. The accused asked him to submit the same to Thapal Section. The accused also told him on 10.8.1994 that he was proceeding on leave for one week and after that he would put up the file. (e) On 22.8.1994, P.W.2 went to the Secretariat to meet the accused, but the accused was not available and he was told that the accused would be there on the next day. On 23.8.1994, P.W.2 went to the Secretariat again and he was told that the accused had extended his leave and would be attending the office on 29.8.1994. (f) On 29.8.1994 in the morning, P.W. 2 went to the Secretariat and met the accused who told him that he would attend his papers and clear it soon. The accused then asked P.W. 2 to come to his residence at No.14, 7th Main Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai, on 31.8.1994 before 8.00 a.m. P.W. 2 went to his residence on 31.8.1994 in the morning and the accused told him that he had taken all steps to clear the application/representation and questioned him as to what next. The accused also told him that he would have cleared it a week before, but his superiors wanted to know whether the party is interested or not, as issue of clearance certificate is a complicated matter. (g) On 2.9.1994, P.W. 2 went to the Secretariat and met the accused who told him that the clearance certificate is ready and he had to get over certain difficulties. He told P.W. 2 that he should pay Rs. 1,000/- to him for handling over the clearance certificate. While P.W. 2 expressed his inability, the accused was adamant. The accused then told him that he should pay the amount on 5.9.1994 at his residence and only then he would deliver the clearance certificate to P.W. 2. P.W. 2 agreed with the accused for payment of the said amount. (e) P.W. 2 was not willing to pay the amount. Therefore he went to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption), Chennai, on 3.9.1994 at about 12.30 p.m. and lodged a report, Ex.P.4. He also enclosed Ex.P.5, Gate Pass issued to him on 22.8.1994 at the Secretariat. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiru. Nallama Naidu (P.W.12) directed Thiru. Therefore he went to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption), Chennai, on 3.9.1994 at about 12.30 p.m. and lodged a report, Ex.P.4. He also enclosed Ex.P.5, Gate Pass issued to him on 22.8.1994 at the Secretariat. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiru. Nallama Naidu (P.W.12) directed Thiru. Jegannathan (P.W.11) to take action on the complaint. P.W.12 introduced P.W.2 to P.W.11, who received the complaint form P.W.2 and after perusing it, asked P.W.2 to wait. P.W.11 then registered his complaint and gave an acknowledgment. (i) At 2.00 p.m. on the same day i. e. on 3.9.1994, P.W.4 Thiru. Jayaraman, Senior Sales Officer, TANSI and one Thiru. Radhakrishnan, Assistant, TNEB Secretariat Branch, came to the Vigilance Office and met Vigilance Inspector Jegannathan, P.W.11. P.W.11 instructed P.W.2 and P.Ws. 4 and 5 to come to the Vigilance Office at 5.30 a.m. on 5.9.1994. P.W.2 went there at 5.30 a.m. on 5.9.1994 and P.Ws.4 and 5 had also reached the office. P.W.11 introduced them to P.W.2 and also gave Ex.P.4, report to them viz. P.Ws.4 and 5 for perusal. P.Ws.4 and 5 went through the complaint. Then P.W.11 asked P.W.2 whether he got the money Rs.1,000/-to be given to the accused as bribe amount for handing over the clearance certificate P.W.2 then gave Rs.1,000/- to P.W.11 in Rs.100/-denomination. P.W.11 gave the amount or P.Ws. 4 and 5 and asked them to count it. Thereafter, P.W.11 the Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, demonstrated the Phenolphthalein Test and also explained the significance of the Test to P.W.2 and other witnesses viz., P.Ws.4 and 5. He then returned the amount smeared with Phenolphthalein powder and asked P.W.2 to hand over the amount to the accused at his residence, if he made a demand of the same. P.W.11 also told them that if the accused accepted the money, he should give a signal by removing his watch. He took the amount and placed it in his pocket. P.W.11 instructed P.W.4 to accompany P.W.2 and to listen to the conversation between P.Ws.2 and the accused and in general to watch the other happenings. P.W.11 prepared to mahazar, Ex. P.6 at 6.45 a.m. about this which was signed by P.W.2 and attested by P.Ws. 4 and 5. (j) Thereafter, P.W.2 and P.Ws. 4 and 5 along with P.W.11 and other police officers left the Vigilance Office in a Van at 7.00 a.m. P.W.2. P.W.11 prepared to mahazar, Ex. P.6 at 6.45 a.m. about this which was signed by P.W.2 and attested by P.Ws. 4 and 5. (j) Thereafter, P.W.2 and P.Ws. 4 and 5 along with P.W.11 and other police officers left the Vigilance Office in a Van at 7.00 a.m. P.W.2. and 4 got down from the van near the house of the accused. P.W.4 went into the house of he accused along with P.W.2 at 7.30 a.m. P.W.11 and other police officers were waiting outside. The accused asked P.W.4 and P.W.2 to sit in a chair and the accused took a seat opposite to them. The accused asked P.W.2 whether he has got a sum of Rs.1,000/- to hand over the clearance certificate and P.W.2 told him that he brought the amount and asked him whether the certificate is ready. The accused answered him in affirmative and went into a room and brought a file relating to his brother P.W.3s clearance certificate and P.W.2 was shown the file. After this the accused asked P.W.2 to sign in the file for receiving both the original and the copy of the letter, Ex.P.8, addressed to the regional Passport Officer. P.W.2 signed the file and received the copy dated 5.9.1994. Then P.W.2 attempted to enter the date below his signature, the accused told him not to put the date. He tried to strike it, but it was left as it is. The endorsement made by P.W.2 is Ex.P.7. The accused then told him that the papers were ready long back and he did not know whether the party was interested or not and it would have been referred to Government of India. P.W.2 then gave Rs.1,000/-as demanded by the accused who on receiving the same counted it. At about 7.40 a.m. P.W.2 came out of the house and gave a signal by removing his watch. (k) On noticing the signal given by P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, went to the house of the accused. He also took P.Ws. 2 and 4 into the house of the accused, where P.W.2 identified the accused as the person who took the amount from him. Thereafter, P.W.2 was sent out by P.W.11. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, revealed his identity to the accused and the accused became nervous. He also took P.Ws. 2 and 4 into the house of the accused, where P.W.2 identified the accused as the person who took the amount from him. Thereafter, P.W.2 was sent out by P.W.11. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, revealed his identity to the accused and the accused became nervous. P.W.11 then prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glasses and asked the accused to dip the fingers of both his hands in the solution so prepared which turned pink. He then sealed the bottles after pouring the solutions in those bottles, M.Os.2 and 3. He affixed labels on the bottles which was signed by P.Ws. 4 and 11. (l) Thereafter, P.W.11 asked the accused to produce the amount. The accused produced the amount from a striped black pant. He found 10 numbers of 100 Rupees notes. He compared the number of the notes with the mahazar, Ex.P.6. P.W.11, then dipped the pant in the solution which turned Pink. The pant is marked as M.O.4. P.W.11 then prepared the mahazar for what took place after the trap in the house of the accused. The mahazar is Ex.P.9. The accused produced the order passed on the application for according citizenship to P.W.3 i. e. Ex.P.8 which is also received by P.W.2 and Ex.P.7 is the acknowledgment by P.W.2. The accused produced some more files for which P.W.11 prepared a mahazar, Ex.P.10, which was signed by P.Ws. 4 and 11. Thereafter, P.W.11 searched the house of the accused and prepared the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.20. He also prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.11. Thereafter he returned along with the accused and other raiding party to his office by 12.30 noon and arrested the accused and after examining the accused he released him on bail. P.W.11 sent the report to the Court and to the higher officials. He also sent the seized currency notes, M.O.1 series and other M.Os. 2 to 5 viz., two bottles of solution, pant of the accused and one more bottle of solution to the Court with requisition to send the same for chemical examination. (m) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation form P.W.11. He also sent the seized currency notes, M.O.1 series and other M.Os. 2 to 5 viz., two bottles of solution, pant of the accused and one more bottle of solution to the Court with requisition to send the same for chemical examination. (m) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation form P.W.11. Thereafter, he has examined the witnesses and also the accused and prepared the final report and sent the same to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and after obtaining the sanction form P.W.1, Deputy Secretary (Home) Department, filed the charge sheet against the accused on 14.9.1995 for the offences under Sections 4 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 471 read with Section 466 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, filed Exs. P.1 to P. 21 and marked M.Os. 1 to 4. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has come forward with the version of total denial and he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also further sated by the accused that on 5.9.1994, he was doing Pooja inside the room and at that time his mother came and informed that two new persons came in search of him and she had made them to wait in the hall. 10 minutes thereafter, after completing his pooja, the accused came to the front hall and at that time he was found only one new person and when he questioned him that person has shown the bed room and thereafter he went to the bed room and found P.W.2, who was talking through the telephone and the accused questioned P.W.2 as to why he has come to that room, for that P.W.2 informed that he has left the telephone and ran away from that room and thereafter he saw a bundle on the cot with some files. While he came down to the hall at that time the police party rushed inside and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.12 and the Inspector, P.W.11 came inside. While he came down to the hall at that time the police party rushed inside and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.12 and the Inspector, P.W.11 came inside. It is also further stated in that statement that P.W.2 informed the police that money was kept in the pant pocket and thereafter a police constable went inside the bed room and brought the black pant and he was threatened to take the amount form that pant by the police and thereafter, the accused took the amount from his packet and a sum of Rs.4650/-was found in the pant and he told them the money belongs to him and his wife. It is further stated by the accused that he once again asked by the police to take the amount from the other pant packet and therefore he has taken the amount of Rs.1,000/- (10 currency notes of Rs.100/-denomination) and afterwards the police conducted Phenolphthalein test. He has further stated that he has not demanded any amount of bribe on 2.9.1994 and he has only instructed the complainant to meet the higher officials. He has also stated that 3.9.1994 and 4.9.1994 are Saturday and Sunday, Government Holidays and on 5.9.1994 he has not asked P.W.2/Complainant to come to his house. It is also stated by the accused that the files said to have been found in his house is a planted one and also the amount said to have been recovered from the pant pocket also is a planted one and also the amount said to have been recovered from the pant pocket also is a planted one. Finally he has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. K.S. Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant took me through the entire evidence meticulously and made the following submissions : (i) The prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused demanded the bribe amount from P.W.2. Though P.W.2 claimed to have met the accused on 9.8.1994, 10.8.1994 and 29.8.1994 at his office admittedly there is no demand made by the accused. P.W.2 also further claimed that he has met the accused in his residence on 31.8.1994 and even on that day there is no allegation of demand against the accused. Though P.W.2 claimed to have met the accused on 9.8.1994, 10.8.1994 and 29.8.1994 at his office admittedly there is no demand made by the accused. P.W.2 also further claimed that he has met the accused in his residence on 31.8.1994 and even on that day there is no allegation of demand against the accused. But only P.W.2 claims that he again met the accused at his office on 2.9.1994 and only at that time the accused said to have made the demand of bribe. This version of P.W.2 is on the face of it unbelievable and artificial as the accused having not demanded any amount throughout during the earlier occasions. The version of P.W.2 that the accused suddenly demanded bribe on 2.9.1994 in his office itself is most unbelievable since it is admitted by P.W.2 that the accused was sitting in the hall in the office and he was surrounded by number of other staff members. It is also further admitted by P.W.2 that even Assistant Section Officers were also seated nearer to the accused seat. Therefore, the version of P.W.2 that the accused made the demand on 2.9.1994 in the presence of others is unbelievable. (ii) Even the demand alleged to have made by the accused on the date of trap on 5.9.1994 is also unbelievable. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that P.W.2 was accompanied by the trap witness, P.W.4, in order to watch the transaction between the accused and P.W.2. Though P.W.2 claimed that the accused asked for the amount and thereafter he has paid Rs.1000/- and the same was received and counted by the accused, the admission of P.W.4 in the cross-examination shows that there is absolutely no corroboration to the version of P.W.2. P.W.4 admitted in his cross-examination that both the accused and P.W.2 were talking separately in the adjacent room of the hall and he was not aware about the discussion between the accused and P.W.2. P.W.2 only thereafter came out of the room and informed him that he gave the money to the accused. Therefore P.W.4 has not corroborated the version of P.W.2 in respect of the demand and payment of the money to the accused. P.W.2 only thereafter came out of the room and informed him that he gave the money to the accused. Therefore P.W.4 has not corroborated the version of P.W.2 in respect of the demand and payment of the money to the accused. Therefore, the admitted conduct of the accused for not making the demand of bribe amount on 9.8.1994, 10.8.1994 and 29.8.1994 including in his residence and suddenly making the demand on 2.9.1994 in his office while he was surrounded by other staff members throws considerable doubt about the veracity of the version of P.W.2. It is also admitted by P.W.2 that though there are higher officials at the same office he has not opted to give any report to them which shows that the version of P.W.2 is unbelievable. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in T. Subramanian v. State of T. N. reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 401 to the preposition of law that mere proof of receipt of money by the accused in the absence of proof of demand not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. (iii) The defence theory of planting the currency notes into pant pocket of the accused by P.W.2 is probabilised by the following circumstances : (a) Admittedly, the accused was not wearing pant on the date of trap as per the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 11. According to them, on the date of occurrence, the accused was wearing a dhoti; (b) Admittedly, it is not stated by P.W.2 that the accused received the amount and put the same into his pant pocket; (c) P.W.4 stated in his cross that before the arrival of the accused from his pooja, P.W.2 and himself were waiting for 5 to 10 minutes as the accused was doing pooja inside. Therefore, there was enough time and opportunity for P.W.2 to plant the amount into the pant pocket. It is also suggested to P.W.2 that P.W.2 and P.W.4 were waiting in the house of the accused for 5 to 10 minutes and thereafter P.W.2 went to the nearby bed room and planted Rs.1,000/-into pant pocket which was found hanging there. The same suggestion was put to P.W.4 also. It is also suggested to P.W.2 that P.W.2 and P.W.4 were waiting in the house of the accused for 5 to 10 minutes and thereafter P.W.2 went to the nearby bed room and planted Rs.1,000/-into pant pocket which was found hanging there. The same suggestion was put to P.W.4 also. (d) It is also categorically stated by the accused while he was examined under Section Cr.P.C. that after 10 minutes, after completing pooja, he came out from the pooja room to the hall and found P.W.4 and when he questioned as to how he has come there P.W.4 shown the bed room and thereafter the accused went inside the bed room and found P.W.2 was standing near the telephone and when he questioned as to why he has come to that room, for that P.W.2 saying that he has placed and ran out from the bed room. It is also stated by the accused that at that time he found a bundle on the cot. It is also stated by the accused that the raiding party entered inside his house and thereafter P.W.2 informed the raiding party that the amount was kept in the pant pocket. Thereafter, he was threatened by the police/raiding party to take the amount form the pant pocket and the accused took the amount from his pant pocket. Therefore, it is clear that the hands of the accused must have stained with phenolphthalein powder only due to the above said circumstance. Therefore, the accused, in view of the above said materials and circumstances, has given a reasonable and probable explanation for the recovery of the amount from his pant pocket. (iv) It is well settled that the accused can prove his defence by giving reasonable and probable explanation and also by preponderance of probabilities. The learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the following divisions : (1) State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan and Another reported in VII (2000) SLT 266 for the proposition of law that the version of planting the amount by the prosecution witness is probabilised coupled with the fact that the prosecution version of demand of bribe and the circumstances under which the said demand was made is suspect. (2) T. Subramanian v. State of T. N. (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl) SC 63 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 401 for the proposition that the accused can prove his defence by giving reasonable and probable explanation and also by preponderance of probabilities. (3) Punjab Rao v. State of Maharashtra 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1139 for the proposition that if the explanation offered by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is found to be reasonable, then it cannot be thrown away that he did not offer the said explanation at the earliest point of time. (v) The prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge of forgery of Ex.P.8 fabricated letter dated 30.8.1994 of the Home (Citizen) Department, Secretariat, Madras, addressed to the Regional Passport Authority to the effect that P.W.3, brother of P.W.2 is a citizen of India and there is no objection for issuing passport to him. The alleged forged document viz., Ex.P.8 was not sent for Hand-Writing Expert opinion and the prosecution has not given any proper explanation for not sending Ex.P.8. P.W.7, Typist, working at the Secretariat has categorically stated that the initial found in Ex.P.8 is her initial. Therefore it cannot be stated that Ex.P.8 is a forged or created document. (vi) The alleged seizure of Exs. P.7 and P.8 and other seizure of office files relating to P.W.3, brother of P.W.2, from the house of the accused cannot be held against him, in view of the fact that planting of the office file on the cot inside the bed room of the accused by P.W.2 cannot be ruled out. The case of the defence that P.W.2 only planted the money into the pant pocket and files inside the house of the accused is probabilised and there are many materials and circumstances in the statement of the accused recorded under 313 Cr.P.C. supporting the defence and more particularly in view of the admission of P.W.8, Section Officer, that there is a possibility of removing the files by the visitors as they used to keep the files on the table. (vii) There is motive for P.W.2 to implicate the accused falsely on the ground that P.W.2 frequently troubled the accused for every time and as a result the accused scolded, shouted and throw him away from the office, as per the categorical admission of P.W.8, the Section Officer. (vii) There is motive for P.W.2 to implicate the accused falsely on the ground that P.W.2 frequently troubled the accused for every time and as a result the accused scolded, shouted and throw him away from the office, as per the categorical admission of P.W.8, the Section Officer. Therefore, it is unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.2. 6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that though the alleged demand said to have made by the accused earlier to the trap was spoken by P.W.2 and the same is not corroborated by another witness, on that ground alone the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be disbelieved. It is also submitted by the learned Government Advocate that in respect of the demand made by the accused on the date of trap, P.W.4 stated in his chief examination that the accused demanded the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-and thereafter P.W.2 asked about the clearance certificate in respect of his brothers citizenship and thereafter he has brought the filed relating to P.W.3 and received the bribe amount and therefore the prosecution proved the allegation of demand made by the accused on the date of trap. It is also contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the Phenolphthalein Test proved positive and the bribe amount also recovered from the pant pocket of the accused, as per the admission of the accused and therefore the prosecution proved both the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused. The learned Government Advocate also placed reliance on the seizure of Exs. P.7 and P.8 from the house of the accused and submitted that the above said seizure from the house of the accused is one of the clinching materials implicating the accused in this case and the above said documents proved the offence of forgery committed by the accused in this case. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate that not sending the documents, Exs. P.7 and P.8, along with sample hand-writing of the accused for hand-writing expert is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate that not sending the documents, Exs. P.7 and P.8, along with sample hand-writing of the accused for hand-writing expert is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate that the signatures in the documents were compared with the signatures of the officials said to have signed those documents and therefore there is no need for sending the above said documents for handwriting expert. It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate that there is absolutely no motive for the police officials to implicate the accused falsely in this case. 7. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side. 8. The entire perusal of records including the evidence adduced by the prosecution coupled with the documents marked as Exhibits in this case shows that the prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.2, the de-facto complainant, in order to prove the demand as well as receipt of bribe amount by the accused and P.W.4, the trap witness, who is said to have accompanied P.W.2 for the purpose of watching the transaction between the accused. The undisputed fact remains in this case that after the Phenolphthalein Test proved positive and the accused took the raiding party inside the bed room and produced Rs.1,000/- taken from his pant pocket which was found hanging inside the bed room. 9. At the outset, it is to be stated that it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India that mere proof of receipt of he money by an accused in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification will not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused in a corruption case. Recently, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India has held in T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 401 that “Mere proof of receipt of money by accused, in absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification, not sufficient to establish guilt of accused -If accused offers reasonable and probable explanation based on evidence that the money was accepted by him, other than as an illegal gratification, accused would be entitled to acquittal”. 10. 10. The Apex Court has also held in State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan & Anr. reported in VII (2000) SLT 266 that “the version of planting the amount by the prosecution witness is probalised coupled with the fact that the prosecution version of demand of bribe and the circumstances under which the said demand was made is suspect”. 11. Therefore the first and foremost ingredient to constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is to prove the receipt of money as illegal gratification is the proof of demand made by the accused. Once the prosecution failed to prove the above said ingredient, in my considered view, the entire prosecution case falls into the ground. 12. As rightly pointed out by K.S. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the appellant the admitted version of P.W.2 that the accused has not made any demand during his earlier meting with the accused on 9.8.1994, 10.8.1994, 29.8.1994 at the office of the accused and on 31.8.1994 at the residence of the accused. But is claimed by P.W.2 that the accused made the demand of bribe for the first time only on 2.9.1994 when he met him at his office. It is relevant to consider that the accused has not made any demand at all during three occasions while P.W.2 met him in his office and on 31.8.1994, when P.W.2 met him at his residence. It is also pertinent to note that even the accused has not made the demand while P.W.2 claimed to have met him at his house. The above said admitted claim of P.W.2 is that the accused made the demand for the first time on 2.9.1994 during his meeting and that too in the office. P.W.2 also categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was sitting in the hall in his office and he has surrounded by the seats of other staff members and further the another Assistant Section Officer, Section Officer and other Section Officer and other Section staff also were sitting in the same hall. Therefore, it is highly doubtful and improbable that the accused made the demand in the presence of other staff numbers. Therefore, it is highly doubtful and improbable that the accused made the demand in the presence of other staff numbers. If at all the accused had an intention to demand money form P.W.2 he would have very well made such demand while he was alone at his residence on 31.8.1994 when P.W.2 claimed to have met him on that day at his residence. The conduct of P.W.2 is also artificial and unbelievable as he has not reported the matter to the higher officials in spite of the fact that he is well aware that higher officials were also present in the very same building. Therefore, this piece of admitted version of P.W.2 throws considerable doubt about the veracity of his version. It is further relevant to consider that there is absolutely no corroboration for the claim of P.W.2 that the accused made the demand on 2.9.1994 when he was sitting in his office. In order to prove the allegation of demand made by the accused on the date of trap, viz. 5.9.1994, P.W.11, Inspector, requested P.W.4 to accompany P.W.2 to watch the versions and transaction between the accused and P.W.2. But P.W.4 has categorically stated in his cross that soon after entering the house of the accused, they were waiting for 5 to 10 minutes and the accused came to the hall after finishing his pooja and thereafter both the accused and P.W.2 went inside a room and he has not witnessed the conversation and the transaction took place between the accused and P.W.2 and thereafter P.W.2 came out of the room and informed that he has given the amount to the accused. Therefore, the version of P.W.4 is very clear, that he has not witnessed the conversation and transaction that took place between P.W.2 and the accused which makes it crystal clear that there is no corroboration for the alleged demand made by the accused even on the date of trap. Though the prosecution has treated P.W.4 as hostile, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India that the evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be washed off altogether and any portion of the evidence of such witness is either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defence may be relied. 13. 13. It is also relevant to consider the categorical statement of P.W.8, Section Officer, in his cross that P.W.2 came to the office and met the accused for several times and the accused shouted him and warned him that he should not come again and meet him. This version of P.W.8 is probabilised by the version of P.W.2 that he has met the accused on several occasions viz., 9.8.1994, 10.8.1994 and 29.8.1994 at his office and on all those occasions including his meeting with the accused on his residence on 31.8.1994 admittedly there is no demand made by the accused. The accused also stated in his 313 statement that P.W.2 frequently came to his office and trouble him and he has informed several times that P.W.2 has to submit his paper only to the Tapal Section and asked P.W.2 not totrouble him frequently and shouted at him. Therefore, the specific admission of P.W.8 coupled with the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. shows that P.W.2 must have nurtured enmity towards the accused and the possibility of P.W.2 indulging in the act of vengeance against the accused cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is most unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of bribe said to have made by the accused and as such the entire prosecution case becomes highly doubtful. 14. Apart from the prosecution failing to prove the demand said to have made by the accused, the explanation offered by the accused that the money was planted in his pant pocket also seems to be reasonable and probable in view of the following circumstances : (a) Admittedly, the money was recovered as produced by the accused which was taken from the pant pocket hanging inside the bed room; (b) P.W.4 stated in his cross-examination that when he went inside the house of the accused along with P.W.2 the accused was doing pooja inside the bed room and they were waiting for 5 to 10 minutes in the hall. Therefore, time gap and opportunity was there for P.W.2 to plant the currency notes in the pant pocket which was found hanging inside the bed room ; (c) Admittedly, as pet the admission of the witnesses, P.Ws. Therefore, time gap and opportunity was there for P.W.2 to plant the currency notes in the pant pocket which was found hanging inside the bed room ; (c) Admittedly, as pet the admission of the witnesses, P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 11, the accused was wearing dhoti and angawasthiram on the date of trap; (d) It is also not claimed by P.W.2 that the accused after receiving the alleged bribe amount counted and put into his pant pocket; (e) It is stated by P.W.11 that both P.W.s 2 and 4 went inside the house of the accused at the time of trap at 7.20 a.m. and they came out at 7.40 a.m. and therefore the defence theory viz. that both P.Ws. 2 and 4 where waiting in the hall of the accused for 10 minutes is probabilised and there is every possibility and opportunity for P.W.2 to plant the currency notes into the pant pocket of the accused by going inside the bed room. Soon after getting the pre-arranged signal at 7.40 a.m. P.W.11, Inspector/Investigation Officer, immediately went inside the house of the accused and therefore there may not be sufficient time available for the accused to go into the bed room and put the currency notes into his pocket altogether which also probabilises the defence theory of planting the amount by P.W.2. (a)(f) The defence also put suggestions of planting to the respective prosecution witnesses. But the defence has not put any suggestions to the respective witnesses including P.W.11 that only at their instruction, the accused taken the amount form his pant pocket which was found hanging inside the bed room of his house. However, the accused has categorically stated in his 313 Cr.P.C. Statement that he was instructed and threatened by P.W.11, Investigating Officer, and other raiding party to take the amount from his pant pocket and only thereafter they asked him to dip the fingers into the tumbler containing phenolphthalein powder solution. It is quite possible that due to oversight the defense would have failed to put the suggestion t the respective counsel that only at the instance of P.W.11, the accused went inside his bed room and took the currency notes from his pant pocket and thereafter he was asked to dip his fingers into the tumbler containing phenolphthalein powder solution. 15. 15. It is also relevant to note the statutory presumption contemplated under Section 29(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which reads as follows: “(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration ) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate”. 16. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India has held in Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1976 SC 1497 : (1976) 3 SCC 46 : 1976 L.W. (Crl.) 52 S.N. that “that the burden that rests on an accused to displace the statutory presumption that is raised under Section 4(1) of the Act, is not onerous as that cast on the prosecution to prove its case. But such burden has to be discharged, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability”. It is also equally well settled that in order to rebut the presumption contemplated and raised under Section 20 (1) of the Act, the accused can offer a reasonable and probable explanation and the accused is not required to establish his defense by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probabilities. 17. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India has held in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC 486 : (2004) SCC (CRI.) 1130 that, “It is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether the explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability”. Therefore, by keeping the above said principles of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has to scan and scrutinise the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to find out whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. It is also held by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004) SCC (Cri) 1130: “It is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability. It is, of course, true as observed by the High Court that when the investigating officer seized the amount from the accused Patwari, he did not offer the explanation that it was in relation to a collection of loan, but that by itself would not be sufficient to throw away the explanation offered by the accused in his statement under Section 313 when such explanation could beheld to be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case..” Therefore I am of the considered view that the accused in this case, has come forward with a reasonable and probable explanation and rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 20 (1) of the Act by eliciting answers during the cross-examination from the witnesses by placing reliance on the circumstances available on record and also by establishing his theory of defence by preponderance of probability. 19. The contention put forward by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that files, Exs. P.7 and P.8 relating to the matter of P.W.3, brother of P.W.2, for the issued of No Objection Certificate to the passport office for the issue of passport is clinching circumstance against he accused. In order to prove the charges against him, it has to be considered on the basis of the materials available on record both oral and documentary. P.7 and P.8 relating to the matter of P.W.3, brother of P.W.2, for the issued of No Objection Certificate to the passport office for the issue of passport is clinching circumstance against he accused. In order to prove the charges against him, it has to be considered on the basis of the materials available on record both oral and documentary. It is categorically admitted by P.W.2 in his cross-examination that a number of files found in the hall on the tale of the staff and anyone can enter without any hindrance through the free passage. P.W.8, Section Officer, has also stated in his cross-examination that the staff numbers used to place the files mostly on the table and there is possibility of removing those files by the visitors cannot ruled out. It is also pertinent to note the specific admission of P.W.11, Investigating Officer, in this case that most of the seized files were already completed and closed one. It is also suggested top P.Ws.2 and 11 that only P.W.2 removed those files from the Department and thereafter only with the help of police, the same is shown to be recovered from the house of the accused. Therefore, merely because some files were recovered from the house of the accused on the date of trap by no stretch of imagination it could be concluded that the accused removed those files from the office with a view to help P.W.2 by demanding bribe amount. 20. The last but not least aspect has to be considered in this case is the charge of forgery alledging that the accused forged the document viz. Ex.P.8, the letter dated 30.8.1994 said to have been addressed from Under Secretary to Government to the Regional Passport Officer stating that there is no objection in issuing passport to P.W.3, brother of P.W.2. In respect of this charge, it is relevant to note that P.W.13, Inspector categorically admitted that the sample signatures and hand-writing of the accused were not obtained and sent to the hand-writing expert. In respect of this charge, it is relevant to note that P.W.13, Inspector categorically admitted that the sample signatures and hand-writing of the accused were not obtained and sent to the hand-writing expert. It is also categorically admitted by P.W.13 that even the Officers hand-writings were also not obtained and they have not sent both the hand-writing and signatures of the Officers and the accused to find out and come to the conclusion whether Ex.P.8 is a forged one or not and even assuming that Ex.P.8 is a forged one, the prosecution miserably failed to establish by adducing admissible evidence and other materials to show that the accused forged the said document viz., Ex.P.8 in this case. Therefore, even in respect this charge the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against the accused. 21. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is left with no other alternative except to allow this appeal and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant convicting him under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing him to three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 471 read with Section 466 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 22. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Judgment dated 9.4.1999 made in C.C. No.58 of 1995 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions and Special Judge is set aside. Bail bond executed, if any, shall stand cancelled. The fine amount paid, if any, shall ordered to be refunded to the appellant.