JUDGMENT Per K.N. Basha, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in Special CC No.226 of 1989 by judgment dated 15.3.1999 convicting him for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each count. 2. The accused in this case, who was a Village Administrative Officer, faced the trial on the charge that on 4.1.1989 at about 11 a.m., he had demanded a sum of Rs.200/- at his office in Vellalapatti from one Annamalai (PW1) as a gratification for the purpose of issuing two certificates for transporting jaggery from his field to Salem market and thereafter accepted the said amount on 5.1.1989 at about 1.30 p.m., at his office in Vallalapatti as a gratification abusing his official position. He prepared a false receipt No.407408 to show that a sum of Rs.200/- was received from the said Annamalai (PW1) towards arrears of stamp duty payable by one Ettiya Gounder (PW11) with an intention to save himself from legal punishment by a Court of law for acceptance of gratification and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act read with Section 218 of the IPC. 3. The perusal of the records shows that initially the accused was charged only for the offence under Section 7 of the Act read with Section 218 of the IPC and only after taking the entire evidence and after examination of PWs1 to 11, on 28.8.1996, the learned trial Judge framed a charge against the accused for the offence under Sections 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act. 4. The accused faced trial under the follow -ing backdrop: (a) The accused was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Vellalapatti. PW1 approached him in his office at about 11 a.m. on 4.1.1989 to transport jaggery from his field to Salem. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as a bribe for the issuance of certificates demanded by PW1. 4. The accused faced trial under the follow -ing backdrop: (a) The accused was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Vellalapatti. PW1 approached him in his office at about 11 a.m. on 4.1.1989 to transport jaggery from his field to Salem. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as a bribe for the issuance of certificates demanded by PW1. As PW1 promised to pay the said amount on the next day after disposing of jaggery, the accused chose to issue necessary certificates, viz.,Ex P1and Ex P2 dated 5.1.1989 on 4.1.1989 itself for the purpose of transit of jaggery. The accused warned him that if PW1 did not bring the amount, he would not give certificates for transit of jaggery again. As PW1 was not inclined to give any bribe to the accused, he had chosen to give a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, who, in turn, forwarded the complaint Ex P3 including Ex P1 and Ex P2 - the certificates issued by the accused to PW13 - the Inspector of Police. PW13 registered the case in No.2/AC/89 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prepared the first information report under ExP16. Thereafter, PW13 instructed PW1 to come on the next day morning. (b) On 5.1.1989, PW1 went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at about 9.30 a.m. PW13 summoned two witnesses, viz., PW3 and PW5, who were working in the Agricultural Engineering Department and Public Works Department respectively. Thereafter PW13, by using the phenolphthalein powder and after receiving the amount of Rs.200/- from PW1, demonstrated the phenol-phthalein Test. ExP 5 mahazar was prepared by PW13 in respect of the proceedings before the trap. The currency notes produced by PW1 totalling to Rs.200/ written by PW3 were also filed under ExP 7. The currency notes in the denomination of Rs.20/- numbering 9 and in the denomination of Rs.10/- numbering 2 were marked as MOs 1 to 3 in this case. The bottle containing the pinkish turbid liquid prepared during the demonstration labelled as S1 was marked as MO4 and the paper packets labelled as ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively containing the samples of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate were marked as MO 5 and MO6. The bottle containing the pinkish turbid liquid prepared during the demonstration labelled as S1 was marked as MO4 and the paper packets labelled as ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively containing the samples of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate were marked as MO 5 and MO6. (c) Thereafter, PW13 instructed PW1 to go to the office of the accused and after handing over the amount, to give a signal by touching his head after the receipt of bribe by the accused. After reaching the office of the accused at 1.00 p.m., PW13 asked PW1 to go inside for the purpose of giving bribe on demand made by the accused. PW13 also requested PW3 to accompany PW1 to witness the occurrence. (d) Thereafter, PWs 1 and 3 went inside the office of the accused and the accused asked PW1 about the person accompanying, viz., PW3, to which, PW1 replied that he was his relative. The accused enquired PW1 whether he had brought the money for the issuance of certificates. PW1 stated that he had brought the money and handed over an amount of Rs.200/- to the accused and the accused counted and put that amount into his shirt pocket.This is at 1.15 p.m. Thereafter PW1 came out of the office of the accused and gave the pre-arranged signal by touching his head to the Inspector, PW13. PW13, on receipt of the signal from PW1 went inside the office of the accused along with PW5, another trap witness, and PW3 at 1.45 p.m. At that time PW13 found that the accused was sitting in his chair and PW -13 thereafter introduced himself and other witnesses to the accused. PW13 asked the accused to remain in his seat. He prepared the Sodium Carbonate Solution in two separate glass tumblers and thereafter asked the accused to dip his fingers of two hands into the solution containing in the tumblers and both the solutions turned pink. PW13 marked the right hand dipped Sodium Carbonate Solution as “S-2” and the left hand dipped solution as “S-3” which were marked as MOs 7 and 8. Thereafter PW13 asked the accused about the amount received by him from PW1 and the accused did not answer and thereafter the accused took nine 20 rupee notes and one 10 rupee note totaling to Rs.190/- from his shirt pocket. Thereafter PW13 asked the accused about the amount received by him from PW1 and the accused did not answer and thereafter the accused took nine 20 rupee notes and one 10 rupee note totaling to Rs.190/- from his shirt pocket. PW13 questioned the balance amount of Rs.10/- and for that the accused informed PW13 that he has given that amount to his Village Menial, PW10 for the purchase of “Vadai” and he also identified PW10 who was standing nearby in the same office.PW13 once again prepared the Sodium Carbonate Solution and subjected the shirt pocket of the accused for the phenolphthalein Test which is also proved positive. Thereafter PW13 put that Sodium Carbonate Solution into a separate bottle and sealed the same marking as “S-4” and and sealed the same marking as “S-4” and the same is MO11. MO12 is the shirt of the accused. PW13 also conducted the Phenolphthalein Test in respect of PW10 for receiving the amount of Rs.10/- from the accused and that test also proved positive. He has also put that solutions separately in two bottles under “S-5” and “S-6” marked as MOs 9 and 10. When PW13 questioned PW10 in respect of the amount handed over to him by the accused, PW10 took out that amount of Rs. 10/- from his left side pocket of the shirt. PW 13 recovered that amount and which is tallied with the numbers noted in the Mahazar, ExP 5. PW13 thereafter subjected the shirt of PW10 for Phenolphthalein Test which also proved positive and he put that solution in a separate bottle under “S-7” which is marked as MO11. The shirt of PW10 is marked as MO14. MOs1 to 3, the amounts were recovered by PW13. (e) Thereafter, PW13, on verification of the records of the office of the accused, found a sum of Rs.2,813/- which tallied with the records maintained by the accused. PW13 arrested the accused at about 2.30 p.m and prepared a mahazar under Ex P8 in the presence of PWs 3 and 5. He then drew a rough sketch under Ex P17 in respect of the scene of occurrence.He sent the information and report to the Court. Thereafter, PW13 searched the house of the accused on the same day at about 3 pm and no incriminating materials were recovered from the house of the accused. The search list was filed as Ex P9. He then drew a rough sketch under Ex P17 in respect of the scene of occurrence.He sent the information and report to the Court. Thereafter, PW13 searched the house of the accused on the same day at about 3 pm and no incriminating materials were recovered from the house of the accused. The search list was filed as Ex P9. Thereafter, the accused was brought to the station and released subsequently. PW13 thereafter examined PWs3 and 5 and recorded their statements. (f) On 6.1.1989, PW13 sent the material objects to the Court. He examined PW1 and recorded his statement. On 15.1.1989, PW13 examined one Venkatesan and Subramaniam and recorded their statements. On 18.1.1989, he sent the requisition for sending the material objects for chemical analysis. PW7 - the Head Clerk of the Court speaks about the requisition, Ex P12, given by PW13 and the copy of the covering letter, Ex P13, sent along with the material objects for chemical analysis and the report, Ex P14, was received by PW13. On 19.1.1989, PW13 examined PW6 and recorded his statement. PW 6 - the Revenue Inspector stated that the receipt should be prepared on payment of money. On 20.1.1989 and 25.4.1989, PW1 and one Kanagarathinam were examined by PW13 and their statements were recorded. Subsequently, he examined PW4, PW8, PW10 and PW11 and recorded their statements. On 18.5.1989, PW13 submitted his report to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at Chennai. (g) PW2 - the Sub Collector of Salem, who was authorized to appoint or remove the Village Administrative Officer, received a letter from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption dated 26.6.1989 requesting to accord sanction to prosecute the accused. PW2, after going through the records and report of the Director and after applying his mind, issued the sanction order under Ex P6. Thereafter, one Mr.Murugasamy - the Inspector of Police, obtained the Sanction Order, ExP6 from PW 2, Sub-Collector, and filed the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section13(2) of the Act read with Section 218 of the IPC. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined PWs 1 to 13, filed Exs P1 to P17 and marked MOs 1 to 14. 6. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined PWs 1 to 13, filed Exs P1 to P17 and marked MOs 1 to 14. 6. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the CrlPC in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence of the prosecution, he denied his complicity and stated that he did not receive any amount as bribe. The accused further filed a detailed and elaborate written statement and in that, he had stated that he received a sum of Rs.200/- from PW1 only towards the payment of the deficit stamp duty for the sale deed as PW1 purchased the property from PW11. The accused also came forward with the further statement that the complaint itself is a motivated one since he is responsible for filing a case against one Kanagarathinam - a close relative of PW1. The accused also examined the defence witnesses, DWs 1 and 2 and filed Exs D1 to D5. 7. Mr. M.Sathyanarayanan, learned counsel for the appellant took me through the entire evidence available on record meticulously and made the following submissions: (1) The complaint itself is a motivated one, since PW1, as the Village Administrative Officer, was responsible for filing a case against one Kanagarathinam, who was admittedly very closely related to PW1. Further, the said Kanagarathinam was present throughout with PW1 at the time of giving the report as well as at the time of trap as stated by PWs 1, 3 and 8; (2) The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand by adducing acceptable evidence and the evidence of PW1 in respect of the demand is not corroborated by any other witness produced by the prosecution; (3) The trap witness, PW3 said to have accompanied PW 1, has been treated as hostile by the prosecution after the cross- examination on the ground that PW3 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that one Kanagarathinam, a close relative of PW1 was present with PW1 right from the Vigilance Office to the office of the accused and at the time of trap and PW3 also further stated in his cross-examination that the accused after receiving the amount of Rs.200/- informed PW1 that he would give receipt for the same and for that PW 1 stated to him that he would come and collect the receipt after sending him out. The other trap witness PW5 even as per the prosecution case, was standing only along with the raiding party and was not present at the time of demand and payment of alleged bribe amount of Rs.200/- and he has been examined to speak about the recovery of the money from the accused; (4) The accused in this case has admitted the receipt of Rs.200/- from PW1 and he has given an explanation that he has received such amount only towards the amount due for the deficit stamp duty for the sale deed in respect of the property purchased by PW1 from PW11. The explanation of the accused is reasonable and probable and such explanation is also supported by the materials available on record viz., Ex P11 series containing three receipts and one among them is for a sum of Rs.200/- dated 4.1.1989. Ex P15, the proceedings of the Sub-Collector, dated 8.12.1987, clearly shows that a sum of Rs.1242/- is due towards deficit stamp duty in respect of the property sold by PW11 to PW1. PW11 was also not able to produce PW1. PW11 was also not able to produce any receipt to substantiate his version that he has paid the entire amount due of Rs.1242/-; (5) The accused also rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the Act by eliciting answers during the course of cross-examination from the prosecution witnesses and also placing reliance on the documents, viz., the exhibits available on record and also by preponderance of probabilities. 8.Per contra, Mr.V.Arul, learned Government Advocate (Crimnial Side) contended that the prosecution proved its case by cogent and convincing evidence. Learned Government Advocate (Criminial Side) further contended that there is absolutely no animosity on the part of PW1 or other official witnesses to foist a false case against the accused. A reading of Ex P3 the complaint in this case as well as the evidence of PW1, coupled with the evidence of PW11, makes it crystal clear that PW1 has nothing to do with the payment of the deficit stamp duty in respect of the property purchased by him and it is only PW 11, who is responsible for the payment of the deficit stamp duty. PW 11 also categorically stated that he only paid the amount to the accused and the entire amount was also settled and absolutely no amount is due towards the deficit stamp duty in respect of the property purchased by PW1. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also submits that even in respect of the demand, the prosecution has proved its case through the evidence of PWs1 and 3. The evidence of PW1 is quite natural in all aspects. The explanation offered by the accused was not reasonable and probable and such explanation was not substantiated by any materials available on record. It is also submitted by the learned Government Advocate that admittedly, only Rs.190/- was recovered as produced by the accused, who in turn, gave a reply explanation stating that the balance amount of Rs.10/- was given to his Menial for the purpose of purchasing ‘vadai’. The said amount of Rs.10/- was also recovered from the Village Menial and the phenolphthalein test conducted in respect of the shirt of PW10 also proved positive. Learned Government Advocate ultimately contends that the prosecution proved its case in all aspects by adducing acceptable evidence. 9. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by both sides. 10. It is well settled that in a Corruption case the first and foremost ingredient to be proved by the prosecution is the demand of bribe by the accused. In this case, PW1 has stated that the demand of an amount of Rs.200/- was made by the accused on 4.1.1989 while he met him in the office of the accused for the purpose of getting the certificate for the transport of jaggery. It is also submitted by PW1 that the accused issued two certificates, Exs P1 and P 2 on 4.1.1989 itself by mentioning the date as 5.1.1989. It is the case of PW1 that the accused informed him if he has not paid the amount the accused would not give certificate for further transport of jaggery. The issue of Exs P1 and 2 itself clearly shows that the accused could not have demanded a sum of Rs.200/- for issuing the certificates since the accused admittedly issued the certificates, Exs P1 and 2 on 4.1.1989 itself mentioning the date as 5.1.1989. The issue of Exs P1 and 2 itself clearly shows that the accused could not have demanded a sum of Rs.200/- for issuing the certificates since the accused admittedly issued the certificates, Exs P1 and 2 on 4.1.1989 itself mentioning the date as 5.1.1989. Even assuming the accused demanded the said amount of Rs.200/- on 4.1.1989, the prosecution case is left with the version of PW1 alone as the same is not corroborated by any other witness. The second demand made by the accused is on the date of trap viz., on 5.1.1989. The prosecution in order to corroborate the version of PW1 regarding the demand and payment of a sum of Rs.200/- to the accused, chosen to place reliance on the evidence of the trap witness, PW3, who is said to have accompanied PW1 to the office of the accused on the date of trap. But PW3 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that after receiving the amount of Rs.200/- from PW1, the accused informed him that he would give receipt for the same and PW1 informed the accused that he would come and receive the same after sending PW3. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the accused could not have demanded any amount as bribe and the version of the accused that he has received the amount of Rs.200/- only towards deficit stamp duty for the purchase of land by PW1 from PW11. In respect of the explanation offered by the accused, I would deal the same later. It is also relevant to be noted that after such a statement given by PW3 in the cross-examination, the prosecution sought to treat PW3 as hostile. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 3217 that, “Incidentally, it is now well-settled that in the event of a portion of evidence not being consistent with the statements given under 161 and the witness stands declared hostile that does not, however, mean and imply total rejection of the evidence. The portion which stands in favour of the prosecution or the accused may be accepted but the same shall be subjected to close scrutiny.” It is therefore clear that the evidence of PW 3 cannot be treated as washed off the record altogether. The portion which stands in favour of the prosecution or the accused may be accepted but the same shall be subjected to close scrutiny.” It is therefore clear that the evidence of PW 3 cannot be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for this Court to consider by subjecting the evidence of PW3 to close scrutiny and after such close scrutiny if any portion which stands in favour of the prosecution or the accused may be accepted. The trap witness PW3, who is a Government Servant, has categorically stated in his cross-examination in respect of the crucial aspect of the receipt of a sum of Rs.200/- as well as the accused informing PW1 that he would give the receipt for the same. This version of PW3 also corroborated by materials available on record viz., Ex P11 series, three receipts dated 4.1.1989 and one of the receipt is for an amount of Rs.200/-. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the demand of bribe amount said to have made by the accused. 12. The Apex Court has held in T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 that, “Mere proof of receipt of money by the accused, in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification, not sufficient to establish the guilt of accused.” 13. Before proceeding further to consider the other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is better to consider the submission viz., that PW1 has come forward with the motivated complaint against the accused. In my considered view that such plea cannot be brushed aside lightly in view of the materials available on record to probabilise the defence theory of the motive of PW1 to foist a false case against the accused. PW1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that one Kanagarathinam is his uncle’s son and on the basis of the report given by the accused, a case was registered by the police against the said Kanagarathinam alleging that he has attacked the Village Menial.PW8 also stated that PW1 is related to the said Kanagarathinam and the accused has given a complaint against Kanagarathinam in respect of the attack on the Village Menial. It is also of the attack on the Village Menial. It is also of the attack on the Village Menial. It is also relevant to be noted that PW10 had also stated that the accused was responsible for giving the report against the said Kanagarathinam who is closely related to PW1. PW3 also stated that the said Kanagarathinam was present with PW 1 throughout, right from PW1 reaching the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Office up to the trap proceedings at the office of the accused. PW13, the Investigating Officer in this case, has stated that he has examined the said Kanagarathinam and recorded his statement. But the prosecution has not chosen to examine the said Kanagarathinam. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative except to draw adverse inference against the prosecution case for the non-examination of the said Kanagarathinam, as stated above. Therefore, for the above said reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the defence theory of PW1 foisting a false case against the accused at the instance of Kanagarathinam is strengthened and probabilised by the materials available on record, as stated above. 14. Now this Court is left with the consideration of the explanation given by the accused that the accused received an amount of Rs.200/- from PW1 only towards the payment of deficit stamp duty for the execution of the sale deed for the purchase of the property by PW1 from PW11 and not as bribe amount. It is for this Court to consider whether the explanation offered by the accused is probable and reasonable? In order to test the explanation offered by the accused the following materials available on record is to be considered: (i) PW3 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that after receipt of the amount of Rs.200/- from PW1, the accused requested PW1 to wait for giving receipt for the same but PW1 informed the accused that he would come and receive the receipt after sending PW3. This specific version of PW3 in the cross-examination cannot be brushed aside. (ii) Ex P15, the proceedings of the Sub-Collector, PW12, dated 8.12.1987, clearly shows that a sum of Rs.1242/- is due towards deficit stamp duty in respect of the sale deed executed by PW11 for the sale of his property in favour of PW1. PW12, the Sub-Collector, has categorically stated that an amount of Rs.1242/- is due towards the deficit stamp duty and the Tahsildar was directed to collect that amount. PW12, the Sub-Collector, has categorically stated that an amount of Rs.1242/- is due towards the deficit stamp duty and the Tahsildar was directed to collect that amount. It is also admitted by PW12, Sub-Collector that the Tahsildar used to collect such amount through the Village Administrative Officer. (iii) PW8, who is the successor of the accused as VAO has also categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the accused already issued receipts for the payment of deficit stamp duty to PW11 under Ex D5. The account is shown as ExD 4 and the receipt is marked as Ex D 5. It is also admitted by PW8 that Ex D4 was signed by the accused. (iv) The materials available on record clearly shows that PW11 has not cleared the dues of Rs.1242/- towards the deficit stamp duty, as PW11 has not produced the receipt to show that he had paid the entire amount of Rs.1242/-. It is also relevant to be noted that PW 11 has further stated in his cross-examination that he has paid only a sum of Rs.500/- as the first instalment and thereafter, he has paid another sum of Rs.500/- towards the second instalment. It was also stated that he paid the balance of Rs.242/-. But, PW11 miserably failed to produce any receipt to substantiate his version. On this aspect, it is relevant to consider the evidence of PW13 - the Investigating Officer in this case. PW13 has categorically stated that PW11 stated to him during his examination that a few months earlier, he received a message that there was some amount due towards deficit stamp duty and thereafter, he requested PW1 to pay that amount. But, PW1 refused to pay that amount. It was also categorically stated by PW13 that PW11 stated to him during his examination that he has paid only Rs.500/- on 26.12.1988 to the Village Administrative Officer. It is also relevant to be noted that there is a receipt for a sum of Rs.500/- marked as Ex D5. Therefore, it is crystal clear that as per the records, only a receipt of Rs.500/- is available for the payment of deficit stamp duty and there is absolutely no material to show that entire amount towards the deficit stamp duty is paid. Therefore, it is crystal clear that as per the records, only a receipt of Rs.500/- is available for the payment of deficit stamp duty and there is absolutely no material to show that entire amount towards the deficit stamp duty is paid. It is also very clear from the legal position that the purchaser has to bear the stamp duty as contemplated under the Stamp Act as admittedly PW1 is the purchaser of the property from the vendor PW11. The prosecution has miserably failed to produce any receipt or any other document to show that the entire amount due towards the deficit stamp duty is cleared. (v) It is also relevant to note that Ex P11 series containing three receipts and one among them is for an amount of Rs.200/-, dated 4.1.1989, which probabilise the defence theory that the accused has prepared the receipt for the amount of Rs.200/- said to have been handed over by PW1 to the accused. (vi) The defence also put a specific suggestion to PW1 in respect of the explanation offered by the accused, as stated above, as well as to the other relevant witnesses. Apart from these suggestions, the accused also stated while he was questioned under Section 313 of the CrlP C that he has received an amount of Rs.200/- not as a bribe but only towards the deficit stamp duty for the purchase of property from PW11 by PW1. (vii) Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also placed reliance on the conduct of the accused that even out of Rs.200/- the accused produced only Rs.190/- and the balance amount of Rs.10/- was recovered from PW10, it was said to have been given by the accused for the purpose of purchasing ‘vadai’. Therefore, he submitted that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused and the explanation given by the accused cannot be accepted. I am not able to accept such contention of the learned Government Advocate since the accused himself has given an explanation for the deficit amount of Rs.10/- and even that deficit amount of Rs.10/- was recovered as per the explanation and statement given by PW10. It is more probable that the accused might have temporarily utilised that amount for the purpose of purchasing snacks and on that score, no adverse inference could be drawn against the accused. It is more probable that the accused might have temporarily utilised that amount for the purpose of purchasing snacks and on that score, no adverse inference could be drawn against the accused. (viii) The accused also has come forward with the explanation that he has received the amount of Rs.200/- not as bribe but only towards the deficit stamp duty at the earliest stage. PW13, the Investigating Officer, has categorically stated that he has examined the accused on 5.1.1989, 15.1.1989 and lastly on 29.3.1989 and recorded his statements on those days respectively. But PW13 has not produced those statements of the accused before the Court. It is also admitted by PW13 that the accused stated admitted by PW13 that the accused stated to him on 15.1.1989 that he has received an amount of Rs.200/- only towards the deficit stamp duty and he has recorded that statement also. But admittedly, he has not produced that statement to the Court. The defence case is that even on the very same day i.e., on 5.1.1989, the accused has given such a statement to the Investigating Officer, PW13, at the time of trap. There is also specific suggestion to that effect that were made to PW13. 15. It is also well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in a Corruption case in order to rebut the presumption contemplated under Section 4 in the old Act and under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the accused can offer reasonable and probable explanation and the accused need not prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt and on the other hand he can prove the same by preponderance of probabilities. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in Man Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1979 SC 1455 that it is sufficient if the accused offers probable explanation or defence and the strict standard of proof is not necessary. 17. The Apex Court has also held in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 10 SCC 371 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. 17. The Apex Court has also held in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 10 SCC 371 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”. 18. The Apex Court had also held in T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu that, “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 and held on facts, accused proved by preponderance of probabilities that the money was paid to him towards lease rent dues”. 19. Therefore, for the abovesaid reasons and in view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the considered view that the accused has rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by offering reasonable and probable explanation for the receipt of the amount of Rs.200/- from PW1 by eliciting answers from the witnesses, by placing reliance on the documents available on record and also by preponderance of probabilities. 20. For the foregoing reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellant is directed to be cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant is directed to be refunded to him.