Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, passed in in S.C.No.5 of 1999, dated 25.5.2000.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentence imposed under Section 7 of the said Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/= and under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the said Act to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years, besides fine of Rs.5000/= in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - (a) The complainant Kaliyaperumal, a regular auction bidder participated in an auction for plucking cashew fruits from Uilliyakudi Block of Udayarpalayam Range on 16.2.1995 and he was the successful bidder in the public auction. On such declaration the complainant remitted a portion of the bid amount immediately and the rest of the amount on 8.3.1995. But he entered into agreement with the Forest Authorities only on 5.4.1995 and from then onwards, till 30.6.1995 he was permitted to enter the forest to pluck the cashew fruits by virtue of the agreement. (b) Although the complainant claimed that he had remitted the payment on 8.3.1995, the accused, Forest Range Officer did not issue the receipt for having remitted the security deposit and that only after persistent requests from the complainant, the accused issued the receipt on 5.4.1995 for Rs.10,820/=. When the complainant went to the office of the Forest Department in on 14.6.1995 for getting the auction form to participate in some other public auction, the accused insisted for illegal gratification for earlier auction amounting to Rs.10,820/= i.e., 5% of the total auction value. The accused also threatened that if the 5% auction amount is not paid as illegal gratification, he will suitably instruct his higher officials to cancel the contract and for forfeiture of the Security Deposit paid by the complainant and also for recovery order over and above the security deposit amount and will also see to it that he does not participate in future contract by removing his name from the list of contractors of the Forest Department. Offended by such statement of the accused, the complainant rushed to home, took the money of Rs.10,820/=, proceeded to Trichy on the same day and reached the office of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption at 5.30 pm., and preferred a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, V & AC which resulted in registration of a case under Section 7 of the Act against the accused. (c) After following the usual procedure, the trap was laid on 15.6.1995 at 7.30 a.m., and thereby, the accused was caught red handed on the next day. The accused was subjected to Phenolphthalein - Sodium Carbonate Solution Test which proved positive. The alleged illegal gratification money was also seized from him. M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.3, viz., cash of Rs.10,820/=, and Solution (R+L) respectively were sent for chemical analysis. After getting opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding M.Os 1 to 3, charge sheet was laid under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (d) Before the learned Special Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os 1 to 3 were marked. On behalf of the accused, one Bose was examined as a defence witness and Exs.D.1 to D.3 were produced. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing as against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same as false. (e) On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur came to the conclusion that the offences alleged against the accused under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are proved and inflicted the punishments as stated earlier. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 3. As regards the trap and seizure of alleged bribe money from the accused there is no dispute. However, the case of the appellant is that the complainant is known to him for over years prior to the auction in question and being familiar to him the complainant wanted to arrange a loan to pay the Security Deposit, as otherwise he would not enjoy the fruits of the auction. However, the case of the appellant is that the complainant is known to him for over years prior to the auction in question and being familiar to him the complainant wanted to arrange a loan to pay the Security Deposit, as otherwise he would not enjoy the fruits of the auction. At that time, the appellant applied for loan of Rs.15,000/= to meet his personal requirements, with the Cooperative Society and took the loan on 31.3.1995. Since the complainant was in need of money, as requested by him he remitted the sum of Rs.10,820/= on 5.4.1995 as security deposit on behalf of the complainant in respect of the tender. Thereafter the contract was entered between the Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Ltd., and the complainant. Since the said amount was not repaid by the complainant the appellant threatened the complainant that he would not permit him to remove the cashew fruits from the forest unless he repays the money. On 15.6.1995, on which date the alleged trap was laid by the prosecution, the complainant repaid the sum of Rs.10,820/- to the appellant, but he was prosecuted for the alleged offence of receiving illegal gratification. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. On the other hand, the appellant has disproved the prosecution case by offering probable explanation for receipt of the money. 5. Admittedly there are certain probabilities and explanation offered for believing the case of the appellant. The first and foremost is that the claim of the complainant (PW.3) that he had remitted the balance bid amount along with security deposit on 8.3.1995 cannot be true as no prudent man would remain calm for the non issuance of receipts for his deposits without reporting the same to the superior officers. Moreover the the contract period is only for four months and in fact he has entered into an agreement only on 5.4.1995 thereby loosing almost a month's yield of cashew nuts. For this delay the case of the appellant is that he has applied for a loan in the cooperative society and received the amount on 31.3.1995 and later at the request of the complainant, the security deposit amount was paid to the complainant as a loan by the appellant as they were known to each other for more than four years prior to that. Exs.D.1 to 3 have been produced by the appellant for obtaining the said loan. Subsequently, when the complainant avoided repayment of the said sum, the appellant threatened for cancellation of the tender and also his disentitlement to participate in future contracts. The complainant having really felt that there is a possibility of taking action by the appellant by advising his superior officials, to avoid the same, he had resorted to prefer a complaint as if the demand of Rs.10,820/= as a demand of an illegal gratification. 6. Secondly, the demand of amount is a huge amount, though it is stated that it represents 5% of the total contract amount. Normally a round figure would be asked as illegal gratification and Rs.10,820/= being an odd sum would have been demanded by the appellant and that too in the presence of a third party who is an official witness brought by the complainant to the house of the appellant. Thus the appellant has offered a probable and reasonable explanation for the receipt of money. 7. To support the same, the decision in T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (1) SCC (Cri) 401 has been relied on. In the said decision this court observed that, "Mere receipt of money without any proof to show it was received as illegal gratification is not sufficient to establish the guilt and if the accused gives reasonable explanation corroborated with evidence he is entitled to acquittal. When two views are possible from the very same evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the money as illegal gratification." 8. In Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 1130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed 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 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." 9. Of course, the appellant has not offered his explanation at the time of his arrest by the trap team. 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." 9. Of course, the appellant has not offered his explanation at the time of his arrest by the trap team. It is also admitted by the Inspector of Police after he was arrested he was very nervous. During the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has not admitted the guilt. Only during trial as a defence such explanation has been offered on behalf of the appellant. But that does not mean that the preponderance of probability has to be brushed aside. 10. In G.V. Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported n 1988 SCC (Cri) 77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "no prudent man would take bribe in the presence of a stranger". 11. Thirdly, the conduct, character and antecedents of the complainant has also to be taken into consideration in the present case as the same require some mentioning. In his cross examination P.W.3, complainant deposed that he has not preferred a complaint before the Regional Manager for the failure to issue the receipts for his paying the security deposit. He has also stated that on the earlier occasion he has preferred a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption as against an Assistant Engineer for alleged demand of bribe and on his complaint a case was registered and the same is pending for trial in the same court. He has also admitted that a Police complaint in Cr.No.118 of 1999 on the file of the Kayarlabad Police Station for his attempt to murder one Nehru has also been registered against him. It is also admitted by him that another case for illegal appointment of salesmen when he was the President of the Vilangudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society is also pending against him. 12. It is also admitted by him that another case for illegal appointment of salesmen when he was the President of the Vilangudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society is also pending against him. 12. It is also the case of the appellant that Dharmalingam and Periyasamy, who are employed by the complainant have committed theft of cashew nut trees and two cases were pending in O.R.Nos:143 and 144 of 1994-1995 and they have been imposed with a fine of Rs.400/= and before filing the said cases against them, the complainant requested the appellant not to register any case against them, but the appellant did not heed to his request and that is why he is inimical towards him to foist this false case. In this regard though the complainant denied in his cross examination that they were his employees, but admitted that he does not remember whether he had paid the fine amount for them or not. It is also elicited from him during cross examination that he has acknowledged the receipt of "G" notice as a leaseholder. 13. In this respect it would be relevant to cite the decision in Union of India Vs. Purnanudu Biswas, reported in 206 (1) SCC (Crl) 520, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- "29. It has not been disputed that P.W.3 had been bearing a grudge against the respondent. It may be true, as has been submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, that previous enmity alone may not be the ground for rejecting the testimony; but each case has to be considered on its own merits and no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor." 14. For the reasons stated above, and the probabilities as discussed above, I am unable to completely disagree with the case of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amounts shall be refunded to him.