Judgment : Per K. N. BASHA, J. 1. The sole accused, R. Swaminathan, preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Special Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Villupuram, Division, Villupuram, in Spl. Case No. 1 of 2000 dated 29.11.2000 convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 7,13 (1) (2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, and also sentencing him to ….. years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, two months simple imprisonment. 2. The appellant died pending trial and his legal heirs impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 20.11.2007. 3. The appellant faced the trial under the following backdrop: (i) The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Kallakurichi, and demanded a sum of Rs.2,100/- (sic) as illegal gratification for the purpose of issuing the ‘No objection Certificate‘ to P.W.2 who has applied for Motor Pumpset Electricity Service connection to his agricultural land. It is the further version of the prosecution that in pursuance of the demand made by the accused, he has also received the said amount of Rs.2,100/- form P.W.2 on 16.3.1999 at 5.20 as illegal gratification for furnishing the certificate as stated above to P.W.2 enabling him to get the motor pump electricity service connection to his agricultural land and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. (ii) The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 filed Exs. P1 to P24 besides marking M.Os. 1 to 5. (iii) P.W.2 met the accused on 8.3.1999 in his residence for the purpose of getting electricity service connection for his land, as only the Village Administrative Officer is entitled to give that certificate in respect of the property owned by P.W.2. The accused at that time said to have demanded Rs.7,000/- for issuing such certificate and P.W.2 requested him to reduce the amount. Again he went to meet the accused along with his cousin brother - P.W.3 on Friday evening. The accused at that time said to have demanded Rs.7,000/- for issuing such certificate and P.W.2 requested him to reduce the amount. Again he went to meet the accused along with his cousin brother - P.W.3 on Friday evening. The accused reiterated the demand and asked him to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- and on his request agreed to reduce the amount to Rs.2,100/-. The accused also informed him that in the event of paying such amount, he would fill up the Forms and issue the certificate. The accused also asked him to produce the xerox copy of the sale deed of the land owned by him and accordingly P.W.2 handed over those documents on that Saturday. After receiving the documents, the accused instructed him to bring the amount on Tuesday. The Form-Ex.P.2 was kept by the accused. The Chitta Form was marked as Ex.P3 Adangal as Ex.P4 Register Form-Ex.P5 the Xerox copy of sale deed are Ex.P6 and P7, Tax receipt was marked as Ex.P8, once again on Monday, P.W.2 met the accused near the Taluk Office and once again the accused demanded, however P.W.2 was not inclined to pay that amount. (iv) Thereafter P.W.2 went to the Vigilance Office at Cuddalore on 16.3.1999 and gave the complaint to P.W.6-Inspetor of Police, which was recorded by P.W.9 under Ex.P.9 P.W.8 registered the case in Crime No.4/AC/99/CL under Section 7 of the Act. Ex.P22 is the F.I.R. (v) P.W.8, the Inspector of Police thereafter summoned two witnesses namely P.W.4 and another to the Vigilance Office. P.W.4 was working as Junior Assistant in the Office of the Joint Director of Agriculture. Another witness is one Ramamurthy who was working in the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board as Assistant P.W.8 introduced P.W.4 and another to P.W.2 explained the case and thereafter demonstrated the phenolphthalein test to P.W.4 and another and as well a s to P.W.2. He prepared the mahazar Ex.P.2 in respect of the proceedings took place in the Vigilance Office, which was signed by P.Ws. 2, 4 and another. P.W.8 instructed P.W.2 to give the amount in the event of accused demanding the amount and thereafter instructed him to give a signal by tying his towel on his head. (vi) The raiding party under Ex.P8 left the Vigilance office at 3.15 p.m. on 16.3.1999 to Kallakurichi. 2, 4 and another. P.W.8 instructed P.W.2 to give the amount in the event of accused demanding the amount and thereafter instructed him to give a signal by tying his towel on his head. (vi) The raiding party under Ex.P8 left the Vigilance office at 3.15 p.m. on 16.3.1999 to Kallakurichi. They stopped their vehicle at Kacharapalayam Road junction and instructed P.Ws.2 and 4 to go to the room where the accused was staying. Thereafter P.Ws. 2 and 4 went to the office of the accused and the raiding party were waiting 100 ft. away from the office of the accused. (vii) P.Ws.2 and 4 went inside the office of the accused and at that time, the accused was found writing in his table. The accused asked P.W.2 about P.W.4 and P.W.2 informed him that P.W.4 is his relative. Thereafter the accused asked P.W.2, the amount as demanded by him and P.W.2 took the amount and handed over the same to the accused. The accused after counting the amount, put them in his brown colour rexin bag. The accused informed P.W.2 that he would prepare the Form in ten minutes time and asked him to come after ten minutes. Thereafter P.Ws.2 and 4 came out and P.W.2 gave the pre-arranged signal. Immediately the raiding party under the head of P.W.8 rushed to the office of the accused. P.Ws.2 and 4 identified the accused. P.W.8 introduced himself and others to the accused. The accused was shivering at that time. Thereafter P.W.8 conducted phenolphthalein test, which proved positive as the solution turned pink after the accused dipped his fingers. The solutions were kept in a bottle-M.O.s3 and 4. Thereafter, P.W.8, asked the accused where he had kept the amount received from P.W.2 and the accused took the brown colour rexin bag-M.O.2 and handed over to same to P.W.8. P.W.8 in turn gave it to P.W.4 and asked him to open the bag. P.W.4 opened the bag-M.O.2 and took currency notes namely twenty one numbers of Rs.100/- currency notes, marked as M.O.1 series. M.O.2 rexin bag was also subjected to phenolphthalein test and the same also proved positive. The trap proceedings have been prepared under the Mahazar-Ex.P.13. P.W.8 thereafter questioned the accused regarding the Form given by P.W.2. The accused produced Ex.sP2 to P5 and Ex.P8. P.W.8 recovered the same under Ex.P.13. M.O.2 rexin bag was also subjected to phenolphthalein test and the same also proved positive. The trap proceedings have been prepared under the Mahazar-Ex.P.13. P.W.8 thereafter questioned the accused regarding the Form given by P.W.2. The accused produced Ex.sP2 to P5 and Ex.P8. P.W.8 recovered the same under Ex.P.13. The xerox copy of the sale deeds Exs.P6 and P7 were also recovered under Ex.P13 and obtained acknowledgment from the accused. As the accused stated that M.O.1 series namely currency notes containing twenty one numbers of Rs.100/-currency notes were received only towards tax, P.W.8 asked him to produce the documents by giving half-an-hour time. But the accused was not able to produce any document. (viii) Ex.P14-Rough Sketch was prepared by P.W.8. He sent the material objects and other materials to the Court. P.W.8 also requested the Court to send the material objects for chemical examination and after receiving the chemical examination report -Ex.P18 and Ex.p23 the further investigation was taken over by P.W.9. (ix) P.W.9 verified the investigation done by P.W.8 and examined P.W.4 and other witnesses. He recovered Ex.P11 produced by P.W.2. On 27.3.1999, he has written a letter to the Tahsildar. On 30.3.1999, he examined P.Ws.5 and others, thereafter he sent the materials collected by him for obtaining sanction and on perusal of the documents and materials available on record, P.W.1 accorded sanction under Ex.P1 to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused. Thereafter P.W.9-Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has denied each and every incriminating circumstances put to him as false and contrary to the facts. It is stated by him in his written statement that he has instructed P.W. 2 to bring only the tax amount of Rs.2,100/-and on the date of trap P.W.2 has placed that amount in front of him and while he got up to take the receipt book for preparation of the receipt, the raiding party entered inside his room along with P.W.2. Thereafter, he took that amount of Rs.2,100/-placed in front of him and while he attempted to return that amount to P.W.2 he ran away from that place and he was caught by the raiding party. He has stated that he has not received any bribe amount. Thereafter, he took that amount of Rs.2,100/-placed in front of him and while he attempted to return that amount to P.W.2 he ran away from that place and he was caught by the raiding party. He has stated that he has not received any bribe amount. It is further stated by him that due to previous enmity between himself and P.W.2 as P.W.2 demanded him to change the patta in his name in respect of his father-in-laws property and as he has refused, P.W.2 foisted the false case against him. 5. Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. It is contended that the prosecution has not proved the main ingredient of the alleged demand of bribe as there is contradiction between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 in respect of the date on which the accused demanded the bribe. It is further contended that the accused already prepared the applications in respect of P.W.2s request and kept ready on 13.3.1999 itself and as such the question of demanding bribe not at all arises. The learned counsel would contend that the complaint is a motivated one as the accused declined to oblige the request of P.W.2 for transferring the patta in favour of his wife. It is contended by the learned counsel that the accused received the amount of Rs.2,100/- only toward tax and not as an illegal gratification and such explanation of the accused is also probabilised by the admission of P.W.2 in his cross-examination that he has not paid the tax in respect of the transfer of patta of the property of his father-in-law. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the evidence of 5, the Tahsildar, who has stated in his cross-examination that it is the duty of the Village Administrative Officer to collect the tax arrears and as such the accused is entitled to receive the tax amount. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the evidence of 5, the Tahsildar, who has stated in his cross-examination that it is the duty of the Village Administrative Officer to collect the tax arrears and as such the accused is entitled to receive the tax amount. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.8, the Inspector of Police, that at the time of trap the accused stated that he has received the amount only towards tax and he has come forward with such defence at the earliest point of time and as such he has given reasonable and probable explanation for the recovery of the amount form him and thereby rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Mohd. Sadiq v. State of Rajasthan 1999 Cri. L.J. 4043 and (ii) T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) Crl. L.J. 804: (2006) 1 MLJ - Crl. 63 (SC) 6. Per contra, Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence through the evidence of P.Ws. 2,3, 4 and 8 apart from other witness. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved the demand of bribe made by the accused as P.W.2 has stated that the accused demanded the bribe amount on 8.3.1999 while he submitted the application for issue of certificate for obtaining the electricity motor pump service connection for his agricultural land, again the accused demanded the bribe amount while P.W.2 went along with his brother, P.W.3, to the accused on 12.3.1999 and again he demanded the bribe on the next day, i. e. on 13.3.1999 while P.W.2 went and gave the xerox of the document and the form, Ex.P.2 and lastly even on the trap day, i. e. 16.3.1999 he has demanded the bribe which was also corroborated by P.W.4, the trap witness and therefore, the prosecution has proved the demand of illegal gratification made by the accused. It is contended that the receipt of the bribe amount by the accused is also proved by the prosecution as the phenolphthalein test proved positive and there is no probable explanation from the accused for the receipt of the amount. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. It is contended that the receipt of the bribe amount by the accused is also proved by the prosecution as the phenolphthalein test proved positive and there is no probable explanation from the accused for the receipt of the amount. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would further contend that though it is claimed by the accused that he has received only the tax amount, there is absolutely no supporting material to probabilise his defence that he has collected only the tax amount. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case in all aspects. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scrutinised the entire materials available on record including the impugned judgment of conviction. 8. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.8. It is the prosecution version that the accused demanded illegal gratification from P.W.2 for the purpose of issuing certificate for obtaining electricity motor pumpset service connection from the electricity board. Though the learned counsel for the appellant took enormous pain to contend that the accused never demanded bribe, the fact remains that there are overwhelming materials available on record to establish that the accused has demanded illegal gratification form P.W.2. It is seen that P.W.2 has categorically stated that even at the first instance when he met the accused on 8.3.1999 for the purpose of obtaining certificate, the accused demanded the bribe amount of Rs.7,000/-. Thereafter P.W.2 informed his brother P.W.3 and both of them met the accused on 12.3.1999 and once again the accused demanded the bribe amount and on the request of P.W.2 the accused reduced it to Rs.3,300/-again on the request of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the accused agreed to reduce the amount to Rs.2,100/- and instructed P.W.2 to bring the documents regarding the property owned by him. Again P.Ws. 2 met the accused on that day, i. e. on 13.3.1999 with the relevant documents including the form Ex.P.2 and even on the date, the accused demanded the illegal gratification. Lastly even at the time of trap, i. e. on 16.3.1999 the accused demanded the bribe amount and thereafter, P.W.2 handed over the amount which was counted by the accused and the accused put the amount into a rexin bag. Lastly even at the time of trap, i. e. on 16.3.1999 the accused demanded the bribe amount and thereafter, P.W.2 handed over the amount which was counted by the accused and the accused put the amount into a rexin bag. This version of P.W.2 is also corroborated by P.W.4, the trap witness, who has accompanied with P.W.2 at the time of trap. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is consistent and categorical version through the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 to the effect that the accused repeatedly demanded the bribe amount and ultimately demanded the bribe amount even at the time of trap and received the same form P.W.2. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the demand made by the accused. 9. Now let me consider the aspect of the receipt of the amount of Rs.2,100/-by the accused. As far as the trap is concerned, this Court is left with the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.8, the Inspector of Police, who has conducted the trap. As already stated, there is a categoric version form P.W.2 and P.W.3 that earlier to the date of trap the accused demanded the bribe amount and in pursuance of such demands once again the accused demanded the bribe amount at the time of trap on 16.3.1999 and P.W.2 has categorically stated that when he entered into the rooms of the accused, the accused questioned about P.W.4, who has accompanied with him and P.W.2 informed him that he is his relative and thereafter the accused demanded the bribe amount and P.W.2 handed over the amount to the accused and the accused received the amount and counted the notes and thereafter put it into the rexin bag and informed him that he would prepare the form and asked him to come after five minutes. This version is clearly corroborated by P.W.4, the trap witness, who has accompanied with P.W.2 at the time of trap. There is absolutely no contradiction between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 in respect of the demand and receipt of the amount by the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant took enormous pain again to contend that the accused received the said amount of Rs.2,100/-only towards the tax and not as a bribe amount. There is absolutely no contradiction between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 in respect of the demand and receipt of the amount by the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant took enormous pain again to contend that the accused received the said amount of Rs.2,100/-only towards the tax and not as a bribe amount. But unfortunately, this Court is able to see overwhelming materials implicating the accused to the effect that the accused has demanded only the bribe amount and received the same from P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.4. P.W.8, after receiving the pre-arranged signal has rushed to the room of the accused and the accused was found shivering and thereafter, after introducing himself to the accused conducted phenolphthalein test and the test proved positive as the solution turned pink after the accused dipped his fingers and thereafter, the accused produced a chocolate colour rexin bag, M.O.2, P.W.8, requested P.W.4 to open that bag and P.W.4 opened and found Rs.2,100/-in Rs. 100/- denomination. P.W.8 also subjected the rexin bag, M.O.2 which was also proved positive. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the receipt of the amount by the accused from P.W.2. 10. Now, yet another question to be considered by this Court is whether the explanation given by the accused is a probable and reasonable one for the receipt of the amount. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused received only the tax amount and not the bribe amount. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the accused has come forward with such defence at the earliest point of time, i. e. at the time of trap as P.W.8 admitted in his cross-examination that the accused stated to him that he has received only the tax amount but the perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.8 shows that only after the arrest the accused stated to him that he has received only the tax amount. It is seen that the trap was conducted at 5.30 p.m. P.Ws. 2 and 4 went inside the office of the accused at 5.30 p.m. P.Ws. 2 and 4 went inside the office of the accused at 5.30 p.m. and within five minutes they came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. It is seen that the trap was conducted at 5.30 p.m. P.Ws. 2 and 4 went inside the office of the accused at 5.30 p.m. P.Ws. 2 and 4 went inside the office of the accused at 5.30 p.m. and within five minutes they came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. The accused has not come forward with any explanation till he was taken to the vigilance and anticorruption office and P.W.8 arrested him and only at the time of arrest by P.W.8 he has stated that he has received only the tax amount. P.W.8 has also stated that the accused has not produced any documents or any other materials in support of his explanation. The fact remains that even before the Court, the accused has not produced any document or any materials to show that he has only received the tax amount from P.W.2. Though the accused made a vain attempt that there were tax arrears, the fact remains that he was not able to probabilities such defence theory as the defence has put only suggestion to that effect which was denied by all the witnesses. 11. P.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination that he has refused to pay his share of tax in respect of his father-in-laws property and he has further stated that he was not aware about any arrears pending in respect of that property. P.W.5 the Tahsildar merely stated about the procedure to the effect that the Village Administrative officer has to collect the tax arrears but the fact remains the defence is not able to produce any document or able to place any reliance on the materials available on record to show that there were tax arrears and the same was demanded by the accused to be paid. On the other hand, P.W.5, the Tahsildar, categorically stated in his cross-examination that the accused had already collected the tax amount of Rs.3,000/- in respect of the property of the father-in-law of the accused, namely, Rayar Udaiyar. 12. It is also pertinent to be noted that even the defence has not come forward with consistent version of giving explanation for the receipt of the amount of Rs.2,100/-form P.W.2. 12. It is also pertinent to be noted that even the defence has not come forward with consistent version of giving explanation for the receipt of the amount of Rs.2,100/-form P.W.2. As already stated, the accused has stated in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement that P.W.2 came inside his room on 16.3.1999 and placed the said amount of Rs.2,100/-which was already demanded by him towards tax and while he was about to prepare the receipt and while he attempted to return the said amount of Rs.2,100/- to P.W.2, P.W.2 ran away from his room and thereafter he caught by the raiding party headed by P.W.8. But the defence has not at all put that defence as suggestion in the cross-examination of the evidence of P.W.2. 13. The Hon‘ble Apex Court in Devender Kuamr Singla v. Baldev Krishna Singla , AIR 2004 SC 3084 : (2005) 9 SCC 150 has held as follows : “ 11. …. Merely because the accused stated that he had not received the shares or that the transaction took place on 27.7.1992 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that is really of no consequence. The statement under Section 313 is not evidence. It is only the accuseds stand or version by way of explanation, when incriminating materials appearing against him are brought to his notice. 12. Absence of any suggestion during cross-examination cannot be made up by a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At that stage, the prosecution does not get an opportunity to question the accused about his stand in the statement under Section 313”. The above principle of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the instant case. As already pointed out even in this case there is absolutely no suggestion put by the defence in respect of the defence taken by the accused in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 14. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in Mohd. Sadiq v. State of Rajasthan 1999 Cri. L.J. 4043 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In that case, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the accused had established that he recovered only land revenue arrears from the complaint. But in this case, as already stated, the accused has not at all probabalised his defence explanation by placing reliance on the materials available on record. 15. In that case, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the accused had established that he recovered only land revenue arrears from the complaint. But in this case, as already stated, the accused has not at all probabalised his defence explanation by placing reliance on the materials available on record. 15. Yet another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu 2000 Crl. L.J. 804 is also not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In that decision the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that the defence has proved that there were materials available on record to show that the complainant was in arrears of lease rent as admitted by one of the witnesses / P.W.6 and he accused has come forward with a reasonable and probable explanation that the amount recovered from him is only paid by the complainant towards lease rent arrears. The Hon‘ble Apex Court further held that the prosecution has also failed to prove the demand made by the accused and coupled with that infirmity, the materials available on record disclosed in that case that there were lease rent arrears and only the said arrears were paid by the accused. But as far as the instant case is concerned, as already pointed out, there were overwhelming materials available on record through the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and all the witnesses consistently stated about the demanded of bribe amount made by the accused on three occasions prior to the trap and again demanded at the time of trap. Therefore, for the reason stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the accused has not rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the Act of offering reasonable, plausible and probable explanation by placing reliance on the materials available on record or by preponderance of probabilities. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is constrained to dismiss the appeal and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.