Judgment : Per K. N. BASHA, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused, who has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, in Special Case No. 1 of 1995, dated 14.9.1998 convict the appellant for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act, 1988) and Section 224 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo two years R.I. and imposing a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo six months R.I. for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, sentencing him to undergo two years R.I and imposing a fine of Rs.2000/-in default to undergo six months R.I. for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, and sentencing him to undergo six months R.I. and imposing a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo 15 days R.I. for the offence under Section 224 I.P.C. The learned Trial Judge ordered sentences to run concurrently. 2. The accused faced the trial under the following backdrop. (a)At the time of occurrence, the accused was working as Head Constable attached to Poonamallee Police Station. P.W.2 was owning two lorries bearing registration Nos. TAH 9799 and TN 09 D 5009, which were used fro giving on hire. On 24.3.1994, one of his lorries bearing registration No. TAH 9799 met with an accident, in which a small by died. The said lorry was driven by his driver P.W.12. On receipt of the information about the accident P.W.2 went to the scene of occurrence along with is fried P.W.4 At that time, the accused Head Constable was preparing a rough sketch. P.W.2 introduced himself that he was the owner of the lorry. The lorry driver P.W. 12 was not present at the scene. The accused instructed P.W.2 to bring the lorry to the police station and his lorry was driven by his friend P.W.4 to the Poonamallee Police Station. The accused, thereafter, instructed P.W.2 to bring the reconsolidating to lorry and driving licence of the driver. At 9.00 p.m. on that day, P.W.12 driver went to the house of P.W.2 and stated that as he frightened, he ran away from the scene. (b)On the next day at 7.00 p.m. P.W.12 brought driving licence. The accused, thereafter, instructed P.W.2 to bring the reconsolidating to lorry and driving licence of the driver. At 9.00 p.m. on that day, P.W.12 driver went to the house of P.W.2 and stated that as he frightened, he ran away from the scene. (b)On the next day at 7.00 p.m. P.W.12 brought driving licence. Thereafter P.W.2 along with his driver P.W.12 and his friend P.W.4 went to the Poonamallee Police Station at 9.00 a.m. and handed over the records including the driving licence of the driver. By giving a chit, the accused asked P.W.2 to go to Motor vehicles Inspectors office at Meenambakkam for an examination of the vehicle. P.Ws. 2 and 4 took the lorry to Meenambakkam Motor Vehicle. Inspectors‘ Office. After examining the lorry, the Motor Vehicles Inspector gave a report, which was handed over by P.W.2 to the accused at the police station. When P.W.2 asked the accused to take the lorry, the accused instructed P.W.2, the lorry will be returned only after an eye-check-up of the driver of the lorry and asked him to come on 24.6.2006 (c)P.W.2 went along with his friend P.W.4 on 26.3.1994 at 3.00 p.m. to the police station and met the accused. The accused informed P.W.2 that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was present in the police station and asked him to come after some time. At 9.00 p.m. the D.S.P. left the police station and thereafter, P.W.2 went inside the police station and asked the accused to release the lorry. At that time, the accused demanded Rs.2000/- for releasing the lorry and the driver. On request, the accused ultimately reduced to Rs.500/- P.W.2 informed the accused that he would give the amount on 28.3.1994 and accepting the same, the accused allowed him to take the lorry from the police station. P.W.2 and his friend P.W.4 executed a bond for the release of the driver. (d)As P.W.2 was not inclined to give such amount as bribe, on 28.3.1994, he informed his friend P.W.4 about the demand made by the accused and asked him to write a report. P.W.5 prepared a report which was signed by P.W.2. P.W.2 gave the report Ex.P.2 to P.W.20 Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Wing Kanchepuram. On receipt of the report, Ex.P.2 at 3.00 p.m. on 28.3.1994, P.W.20 registered a case in Cr. P.W.5 prepared a report which was signed by P.W.2. P.W.2 gave the report Ex.P.2 to P.W.20 Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Wing Kanchepuram. On receipt of the report, Ex.P.2 at 3.00 p.m. on 28.3.1994, P.W.20 registered a case in Cr. No. 1/AC/94/CH under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, Ex.P.20 is the F.I.R. (e)P.W.20 took up the investigation in this case and summoned two official witnesses, namely, P.W.4 and another. P.W.3 was working in the Office of the Deputy Director, Handloom Department at Kancheepuram. P.W.20 introduced P.W.3 and another official witness to P.W.2 and also gave the report Ex.P.2 to the said official witnesses to lead and they came to know the case by enquiring P.W.2. P.W.20 thereafter, demonstrated the phenolphthalein test to P.W.2, P.W.3 and another official witness, after receiving Rs.500/-form P.W.2 in the denomination of ten fifty rupee notes. A mahazar under Ex.P.4 was prepared in respect of the proceedings held at the office of P.W.20, which was signed by P.Ws. 2, 3 and others. At 6.00 p.m. P.W.20 left along with the raiding party including P.Ws.2 and 3 to Poonamallee police station and reached near the Poonamalle police station at 7.30 p.m. and stopped the vehicle even before the police station and instructed P.Ws. 2 and 3 to go and meet the accused inside the police station. Further P.W.20 instructed P.W.2 to hand over money only in the event of the accused demanding the same. (f)P.W.2 and 3 went inside the police station at 8.00 p.m. and met the accused P.W.2 asked the accused to return all the records, however, the accused told P.W.2 that as the Inspector returned from leave, he handed over the records to the Inspector and asked P.W.2 to come on the next day at 10.00 a.m. But when P.W.2 demanded R.C. Book and insurance certificate to pay motor vehicle tax, the accused asked the money as demanded by him. When P.W.2 about to take the money from his shirt pocket, the accused asked P.W.2 to wait and after finishing his writing work, he called P.Ws.2 and 3 for taking tea outside. Thereafter the accused P.Ws. 2 and 3 came out of the police station for taking tea. When P.W.2 about to take the money from his shirt pocket, the accused asked P.W.2 to wait and after finishing his writing work, he called P.Ws.2 and 3 for taking tea outside. Thereafter the accused P.Ws. 2 and 3 came out of the police station for taking tea. (g)While they were taking tea in K.R.G. Canteen opposite to the police station near Sundar Theatre, the accused asked P.W.2 about P.W.3 and P.W.2 told that P.W.3 was his friend and he was working in Hindustan Motor Company at Tiruvallur and the accused also asked P.W.2 how did he come to the police station with his friend and P.W.2 told that they came by auto. After taking tea, when P.W.2 told the accused that the is leaving, the accused demanded the amount. P.W.2 took the amount, namely fifty rupee notes ten (M.O.3 series), from his shirt pocket and handed over it to the accused, who in turn took his blue colour handkerchief (M.O.8) from his pant pocket and received the amount in his handkerchief and put the handkerchief with the amount in his handkerchief and put the handkerchief with the amount in his pant pocket. Thereafter when P.W.2 asked about the records, the accused informed him that he had already handed over the records from the Inspector. Thereafter while the accused was proceeding towards the police station, at about 8.15 p.m. P.W.2 gave the pre-arranged signal by lighting a cigarette. P.W.3 was closely following the accused. On seeing the pre-arranged signal, when P.W.20 Inspector of Police rushed to the spot along with has raiding party, on seeing them, the accused started to run. However, he was caught hold of by P.W.20 and has party and the accused was made to sit in front of the house of P.W.2, who is an advocate. Thereafter P.W.2 identified the accused, Then, P.W.20 asked P.W.2 to come to Kancheepuram on the next day. (h)P.W.20 thereafter conducted phenolphthalein test and the accused dipped his fingers into the solution, the solution turned into pink colour. When P.W.20 asked about the bribe amount, the accused stated that he has not received any bribe. After repeated questioning the accused took out the currency notes from has shirt pocket and pant pocket as well, which were totalling Rs.1350/-. (h)P.W.20 thereafter conducted phenolphthalein test and the accused dipped his fingers into the solution, the solution turned into pink colour. When P.W.20 asked about the bribe amount, the accused stated that he has not received any bribe. After repeated questioning the accused took out the currency notes from has shirt pocket and pant pocket as well, which were totalling Rs.1350/-. As the said amount was not related to bribe amount, P.W.20 proceeded to enquire further and lastly the accused admitted the receipt of the amount from P.W.2. The accused informed P.W.20 that he has given the said amount to P.W.2, who is running a bunk shop. P.W.20 summoned P.W.7 thought the constables and thereafter, conducted phenolphthalein test by asking P.W.7 to dip his fingers in the solution and the solution turned into pink colour. While P.W.7 was questioned about the amount, he stated that the accused handed over the amount and asked him to count and after counting, he returned the amount to the accused. P.W.20 again enquired the accused about the amount. The accused told him that he threw away the amount with the handkerchief while he was chased by P.W.20 and others. Thereafter P.W.20 searched for the amount along with other witnesses and found the handkerchief in the midst of plantain trees inside the compound of the house of P.W.6. Thereafter he recovered the handkerchief (M.O.8) along with the currency notes (M.O.3) series. (i)Thereafter P.W.20 subjected the currency notes (M.O.3 series) and handkerchief (M.O.8) as well to phenolphthalein test which also proved positive by turning the colour of the solution into pink. Thereafter he has sealed the bottles containing solutions (M.Os. 4 to 7 and 9) and also sealed M.O.3 series and M.O.8. P.W.20 also recovered the amount produced by the accused, namely, Rs.135/-and prepared a mahazar Ex.P.6 in respect of the above said trap proceedings. (j)When P.W. 20 asked about the records relating to the lorry of P.W.2, the accused told that he kept those documents in the police station. Therefore, the accused was taken to the Poonammallee police station and the accused produced the file in Cr.No. 384 of 1994 relating to a case registered under Section 279 and 304 (A) I.P.C. in respecting of the accident in which the lorry of P.W.2 involved. Therefore, the accused was taken to the Poonammallee police station and the accused produced the file in Cr.No. 384 of 1994 relating to a case registered under Section 279 and 304 (A) I.P.C. in respecting of the accident in which the lorry of P.W.2 involved. The accused also informed P.W.20 that he has handed over Insurance Certificate (M.O.1) R.C. Book and driving licence to the Inspector of Police P.W.19. Thereafter P.W.20 recovered those documents from P.W.19. P.W.20 also recovered General Dairy (Ex.P.10), Para Transfer Book (Ex.P.11), Prisoners Inspection Register (Ex.P.12) and prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P.21). P.W.20, thereafter searched the house of the accused and no incriminating documents or materials, were recovered from he house of the accused. Thereafter, he brought the accused to the Vigilance Office at 3.30 a.m. on 29.3.1994 and released him on bail at 4.30 a.m. He has sent the recovered materials through Form - 95 to the Court with a requisition (Ex.P.15) for chemical examination. (k)Thereafter P.W.2, took up the case from P.W.20 for further investigating and verified the materials already collected by P.W.20 and examined the witnessed and recorded their statements. He has prepared a final report and sent the same to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai. After receiving the sanction order under Ex.P.1 and after examining P.W.1 Assistant Commissioner of Police, who has accorded sanction to initiate criminal prosecution against the accused, and completing the investigation, he field the charge sheet against the accused on 9.1.1995. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined P.Ws. 1 to 21, filed Exs. P.1 to P.22 besides marking M.Os. 1 to 9. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr. P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied each and every circumstances as false and contrary to the facts. He has not chosen to examine any witness but he has marked Ex.D1, which is an acknowledgment for getting back the lorry from the Police station. 5. V. Padmanaban, learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear, cogent and consistent evidence and put forward the following contentions. (a)The prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe amount by the accused and there is no consistent version form P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. 5. V. Padmanaban, learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear, cogent and consistent evidence and put forward the following contentions. (a)The prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe amount by the accused and there is no consistent version form P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. (b)Though P.W. 2 claimed that he went and met the accused on 24.3.1994 the accused admittedly has not demanded any amount and only asked P.W.2 to produce the relevant records in respect of the lorry including the driving licence. Thereafter P.W.2 went along with P.W.4, his friend, on 25.3.1994 at 9.00 a.m. and met the accused at the Police station and even at that time admittedly there was no demand made by the accused. Lastly prior to the trap, it is claimed by P.W.2 that he went along with P.W.4 on 26.3.1994 and only at that time, the accused said to have demanded the bribe amount. But P.W.2 has come forward with such version, for the first time, only while adducing evidence in the Court and even he has not stated in his complaint (Ex.P.2) about his accompanying of P.W.4 to meet the accused on 26.3.1994. Thereafter the version of P.W.2 in respect of P.W.4 accompanying with him on 26.3.1994 is highly doubtful. (c)When the accompanying of P.W.4 with P.W.2 is doubtful, the version of P.W.2 that when he went and met the accused along with P.W.4, the accused, prior to the trap, demanded the bribe amount cannot be accepted in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Even there is no clear evidence from P.W.2 and P.W.3 with regard to the alleged demand and receipt of the bribe amount by the accused on 28.3.1994. (d)It is the further version of P.Ws. 2 and 4 that only after P.W.2 asked for the return of records, the accused told P.W.2 that he has handed over the records to the Inspector and asked P.W.2 to come on the next day at 10.00 a.m. to collect the records. But P.W.2 said to have insisted the accused to return the records, viz. R.C. Book and other documents as he waned to pay the tax, and only at that time, the accused said to have demanded Rs.500/-However, no amount was given by P.W.2 on that day. Thereafter i. e. on 28.3.1994 while P.Ws. But P.W.2 said to have insisted the accused to return the records, viz. R.C. Book and other documents as he waned to pay the tax, and only at that time, the accused said to have demanded Rs.500/-However, no amount was given by P.W.2 on that day. Thereafter i. e. on 28.3.1994 while P.Ws. 2 and 3 and the accused taking tea in the canteen opposite to the police station, the accused said to have demanded and received the amount form P.W.2. This version of P.W.2 and 3 raised serious doubt about the demand and receipt of the bribe amount by the accused. (e)Even in respect of recovery of the amount M.O.3 series amounting to Rs.500/- there are contradictory versions. The only version of P.W.2 that after seeing the raiding party the accused started to run and he was caught hold by P.W.20 and others in the same place, whereas P.W.3 and P.W.20 have stated that the accused started to run after seeing the raiding party and he has also jumped the compound wall of the house of P.W.2, who is an advocate and thereafter, P.W.20 chased and caught hold of him. (f)The prosecution version is that the accused denied the receipt of the demand amount even at the earliest point of time and on repeated questioning, he has produced currency notes amounting to Rs. 1350/- from his shirt and pant pockets and as the said amount has also nothing to do with the bribe amount, ultimately, it is claimed by the prosecution that on repeated questioning of the accused, the accused informed that while he was chased by P.W.20 he threw away the amount kept in the handkerchief and thereafter, P.W.20 along with other witnesses said to have searched and recovered the amount. This version is unbelievable and unacceptable as it is the categorical version of P.Ws. 1,3 and 20 that all along they were closely chasing the accused and at that time they have not stated anything that the accused has thrown away the handkerchief. Therefore, the possibility of plating the currency notes in the kerchief cannot be ruled out in this case. 1,3 and 20 that all along they were closely chasing the accused and at that time they have not stated anything that the accused has thrown away the handkerchief. Therefore, the possibility of plating the currency notes in the kerchief cannot be ruled out in this case. (g)The defence theory of planting currency notes in the kerchief is also probabalised in view of the admitted version of the prosecution that none of the witnesses, namely, P.W.2 and 3 and 20 stated that while the accused was chased, he threw away the kerchief and further even the kerchief (M.O.8) is not proved to be that of the accused by adducing acceptable evidence. (h)Though it is claimed by P.W.2 that for receiving the amount, the accused took out his handkerchief from his pant pocket and showed to P.W.2, who put the amount in the handkerchief with the amount into his pant pocket, the prosecution has failed to subject the pant pocket of the accused to phenolphthalein test, which creates considerable doubt about the prosecution case. (i)There is also no clear evidence with regard to phenolphthalein test. Though P.W.6, mahazar witness, has stated that in the solution prepared, the accused and P.W.7 were asked to dip their fingers, he has stated he is not remembering how many solutions have been prepared and therefore, the case of the prosecution that after the accused dipped his fingers into the solution, which turned into pink colour, raised serious doubt. (j)The consistent version of the prosecution is also to the effect that the accused has not directly touched the currency notes as he took the currency notes through his handkerchief and put his handkerchief with the amount into his pant pocket and therefore, as per the version of the prosecution witnesses, there is no chance for the accused to touch the currency notes given by P.W.2, however, it is the case of the prosecution that the conducting of phenolphthalein test in respect of the accused proved positive. This version of the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution case. (k)Further, for the recovery of handkerchief (M.O.8) no mahazar has been prepared to prove that the handkerchief belongs to the accused, when the prosecution case is solely rests on it. Therefore, when there is no evidence to connect the accused with the said handkerchief, the case of the prosecution should not be accepted. 6. (k)Further, for the recovery of handkerchief (M.O.8) no mahazar has been prepared to prove that the handkerchief belongs to the accused, when the prosecution case is solely rests on it. Therefore, when there is no evidence to connect the accused with the said handkerchief, the case of the prosecution should not be accepted. 6. Per contra, J. Durai Raj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear, cogent and consistent evidence through P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 20. (a)It is submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the demand made by the accused through the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4. P.W.2 has categorically stated that the accused demanded bribe amount on 26.3.1994 and again at the time of trap on 29.3.1994 and the version of P.W.2 is also corroboration by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. (b)It is contended that there is no inconsistency between the evidence of P.W.2, 3 and 20 in respect of the recovery of the bribe amount from the accused. P.W.2 has categorically stated that on demand from the accused, he has handed over the amount which was received by the accused by showing his handkerchief and the amount was put on the handkerchief and thereafter, he has put the handkerchief with the amount into his pant pocket and ultimately, the said amount was recovered as the accused thrown away the amount along with the handkerchief near the compound wall of the house of P.W.6. (c)It is submitted that even the phenolphthalein test proved positive in respect of the currency notes (M.O.3 series) and in respect of handkerchief (M.O.8) and as the accused informed P.W.20 that he has handed over the amount to P.W.2, who was subjected to phenolphthalein test, which also proved positive. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) that the prosecution has established the demand of bribe made by the accused as well as the receipt of the amount by adducing clear, cogent and consistent evidence. 7. I have considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scrutinised the entire materials available on record including the impugned judgment of conviction. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 4 and 20 in order to substantiate its case. 8. 7. I have considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scrutinised the entire materials available on record including the impugned judgment of conviction. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 4 and 20 in order to substantiate its case. 8. It is seen that the accused was working as Head Constable attached to Poonamallee Police Station and he is said to have demanded bribe amount of Rs.500/-and received the said amount from P.W.2 for the purpose of returning the records, namely R.C. Book Insurance certificate of the lorry belonging to P.W.2 and the driving licence of the driver of the lorry. 9. At the outset, this Court is constrained to state that the entire prosecution case in respect of the demand of bribe as well as receipt of the bribe amount suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies and improbabilities. I. Demand of Bribe: 10. As far as the demand of bribe amount is concerned, it is the versions of P.W.2 that his lorry met with an accident on 24.3.1994 resulting in the death of a boy and thereafter he went to the scene and met the accused and the accused asked him to bring the lorry and some records to the police station. 11. It is also stated by P.W.2 that on the next day, he went along with his friend P.W.4 and met the accused and handed over the records relating to the lorry and at that time the accused asked him to take the vehicle to the Motor Vehicles Inspector for inspection and after obtaining the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector P.W.2 once again met the accused on 25.3.1994, who told him that he would release the lorry after the eye check-up of the driver and instructed him to come on 26.3.1994. 12. The fact remains that the accused never demanded any bribe either on 24.3.1994 or on 25.3.1994. 12. The fact remains that the accused never demanded any bribe either on 24.3.1994 or on 25.3.1994. It is the further version of P.W.2 that on 26.3.1994 again he went to the Police station to meet the accused along with his friend P.W.4 and only at that time the accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.2000/- and obtain only reduced to Rs.500/-To test the credibility of P.W.2s version, It is pertinent to note that in the complaint (Ex.P.2) given by P.W.2, there is no whisper about the accompanying of P.W.4 while P.W.2 met the accused on 24.3.1994, 25.3.1994 and 26.3.1994. Therefore, P.W.2 has developed his version with a view to get corroboration for his evidence in respect of the demand said to have been made by the accused. If really, P.W.4 has accompanied with P.W.2 on three occasion, prior to the trap, as stated above, P.W.2 could not have omitted to mention that material particular in the complaint (Ex.P.2) 13. Therefore, this Court has not hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case relating to the alleged demand of bribe amount said to have been made by the accused prior to the trap by producing acceptable evidence. 14. Now, this Court is left with the evidence of trap witnesses to consider the prosecution case relating to the demand said to have been made during the trap on 29.3.1994. 15. This Court is having the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 who have been directed by P.W.20 to accompany P.W.2 with a view to watch the transaction between P.W.2 and the accused. 16. Sequence of events took places after the meeting of the accused at the police station is very crucial and it is to be scanned and tested with a view to test the credibility of the version of P.Ws. 2 and 3. It is the categorical version of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that as they went inside the police station they met the accused and P.W.2 requested the accused to return the records relating to the lorry. The accused informed P.W.2 that the Inspector has returned from leave and that he has handed over those records to the Inspector and therefore, he can receive the same at 10.00 a.m. on the next day. 17. The accused informed P.W.2 that the Inspector has returned from leave and that he has handed over those records to the Inspector and therefore, he can receive the same at 10.00 a.m. on the next day. 17. It is further claimed by P.W.2 that, thereafter, he has insisted the accused to return the R.C. Book, Insurance certificate and other documents as he has to pay the tax and only at that time, the accused said to have demanded Rs.500/-It is curious to note that it is claimed by P.W.2 that while he was about to take that the amount of Rs.500/-from has shirt pocket, the accused asked him to wait for some time and he was writing something. After the completion of his work, the accused called P.W.2 for taking tea outside. Even after reaching the canteen, which is opposite to the police station, the accused had not demanded by bribe amount. After taking tea P.W.2, informed the accused about his leaving, the accused demanded the amount. This is the version of P.W.2. 18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to be noted that till such time, the accused has not enquired about P.W.2, who was present along with P.W.2 in the police station and it is highly improbable for the accused to demand such bribe amount in the presence of a stranger, namely P.W.3. 19. According to the version of P.W.3, only after coming out of the police station for taking tea, the accused asked about P.W.3 and P.W.2 informed him that P.W.3 is his friend and is working in a private company at Tiruvallur. Even in this regard, there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.W.2 andP.W.3. While P.W.2 has stated that the accused asked about P.W.3 while taking tea, whereas P.W.3 has stated that the accused asked about him while coming out of the police station. Therefore, the version of the prosecution in respect of the alleged demand made by the accused is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. As already stated, the prosecution has not come forward with clear and categorical version and as such this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not at all discharged its initial burden of proving the first and foremost ingredient of demand said to have been made by the accused. As already stated, the prosecution has not come forward with clear and categorical version and as such this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not at all discharged its initial burden of proving the first and foremost ingredient of demand said to have been made by the accused. Though the accused never demanded any bribe prior to the trap, there are contradictory and inconsistent versions even in respect of the demand said to have been made by the accused at the time of trap. II. Receipt of Bribe Amount: 20. Now this Court has to scrutinise the evidence available on record in respect of the case of the prosecution relating to the receipt of the bribe amount by the accused. In respect of this crucial portion of the prosecution case, we are having the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.20. 21. It is seen that P.W.2 claimed that the accused demanded bribe amount after taking tea, in the canteen opposite to the police station, he has taken the amount from his pocket and handed over it to the accused, who in turn taking the handkerchief (M.O.8) from his pant pocket and asked to put the amount in the handkerchief and put the handkerchief with the amount into his pant pocket, whereas P.W.3 stated that after taking tea, the accused demanded bribe amount and P.W.2 handed over the same, which was received by the accused by showing the handkerchief in his right hand but P.W.3 has not whispered a word about the accused putting the bribe amount into his pant pocket. 22. It is pertinent to be noted that as per the categorical version of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the accused has not at all touched the currency notes, namely, M.O.8 series, handed over by P.W.2 and their categorical version is that the accused received the same by showing the handkerchief in his right hand. It is also significant to note that thereafter, there is no time gap for the accused to take and count the amount by himself. It is also significant to note that thereafter, there is no time gap for the accused to take and count the amount by himself. Though the prosecution went to the extent of stating that the accused handed over the said amount to P.W.7, the fact remains that P.W.2 is totally silent about the accused handing over the bribe amount to P.W.7 and P.W.3 also has not stated clearly that the accused handed over the bribe amount to P.W.7 but he has merely stated that the accused has given and taken something in a petty shop and then he was proceeding in front of the house of P.W.6 P.W.3 was able to see that the accused has given something to P.W.7 and received back and from this version of P.W.3, by no stretch of imagination, it could be concluded that the accused gave the bribe amount to P.W.7 and asked him to count the same, then P.W.7 returned the same to the accused. This process of alleged handing over the amount to P.W.7 and P.W.7 returning the amount after counting definitely would have taken some time and there is no explanation as to why the accused gave the amount to P.W.7 for counting, when the amount is only ten fifty rupee notes. This prosecution version is highly improbable. III. Recovery of the Bribe Amount: 23. Added to this infirmity, the further version of the prosecution about the recovery of M.O.3 series, namely, ten fifty rupees notes, is also doubtful. It is claimed by P.W.20 investigating officer, that the accused on questioning immediately stated that he has not received any bribe amount the thereafter on has compelling and repeated questions, the accused took out some currency notes from his pocket totalling Rs.1350/- however, P.W.20 has found that amount has nothing to do with the bribe amount. Thereafter, it is the version of P.W.20 that he has once again questioned the accused and the accused told him that he has handed over the bribe amount to P.W.7. Here again, there is no clarity or consistency in the prosecution version. P.W.7 on the other hand stated that the accused came to his shop at 8.00 a.m. and 28.3.1994 and gave fifty rupee currency notes to him and asked him to count and return. But he has not purchased and article from his shop. Here again, there is no clarity or consistency in the prosecution version. P.W.7 on the other hand stated that the accused came to his shop at 8.00 a.m. and 28.3.1994 and gave fifty rupee currency notes to him and asked him to count and return. But he has not purchased and article from his shop. After counting, P.W.7 returned the currency notes, which were received by the accused in his left hand. Here, the crucial aspect is that there is no whisper about the handkerchief (M.O.8) by P.W.7. The version of the prosecution is highly improbable that the accused went to the shop of P.W.7 and handed over the amount only for the purpose of counting the same. It is pertinent to be noted that P.W.7 categorically admitted in his cross examination that he has no acquaintance at all with the accused. The accused have never asked him to count the notes on earlier occasions. 24. Thereafter, it is the further version of P.W.20 that when the accused was again questioned, he told him that while he was chasing by them, he threw out the handkerchief with the amount into the compound wall of the house of P.W.6, who is an advocate and thereafter, P.W.20 is said to have searched the place and recovered M.O.8 handkerchief with the currency notes M.O.3 series. Here, it is seen that admittedly, P.W.20 has not prepared any mahazar for the recovery of M.O.8 handkerchief which throws considerable doubt about the prosecution version. IV. Fatal Aspects to the prosecution case: 25. Yet another crucial aspect to be seen in respect of the recovery of the amount though P.W.2 claimed that he was present after giving pre-arranged signal and the raiding party rushed to the scene and while the accused started to run from the place, he was stopped by the raiding party and according to P.W.2, the accused was stopped in that place itself and he had not jumped and went inside the compound wall of the house of P.W.6. But P.W.3 and P.W.20 on the other hand, stated that the accused ran away from the scene and he was chased by P.W.20 and others and thereafter, the accused jumped the wall and he was caught hold by P.W.20 and his party. But P.W.3 and P.W.20 on the other hand, stated that the accused ran away from the scene and he was chased by P.W.20 and others and thereafter, the accused jumped the wall and he was caught hold by P.W.20 and his party. P.W.3 has come out with the categorical version that he was present all along with the accused continuously and in spite of the same, none of the witnesses, namely, P.W.2, 3 and 20 whispered a word about the accused throwing away the handkerchief (M.O.8) containing fifty rupee notes ten (M.O.3 series) namely, the alleged bribe amount. Therefore, there is no explanation at all from the prosecution as to how the accused is connected with the handkerchief M.O.8, which is said to have been recovered near the compound wall of the house of P.W.6, when especially, there is no mahazar for recovering the same. 26. Yet another undisputed fact remains that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the handkerchief M.O.8 belongs to the accused. This serious infirmity assumes importance in view of the admitted case of the prosecution to the effect that the accused never touched the currency notes as spoken by P.Ws. 2 and 3 and in these circumstances, it is ridiculous to say that when the fingers of the accused dipped into the solution which proved positive. 27. There is also another disturbing feature in this case. It is the categorical version of P.W.2 that after the receipt of the amount from the handkerchief (M.O.8) the accused said to have put the amount into his pant pocket. But the investigating officer P.W.20 has not subjected the pant pocket to phenolphthalein test. Therefore, the entire version of the prosecution in respect of the receipt and recovery of the bribe amount from the accused is bristled with suspicious circumstances. There is considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. 28. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India has held in T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401 : (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl) 63 (SC) 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”. 29. The above well settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In the instant case, as already stated, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand, which is said to have been made by the accused. The accused also placed reliance on the materials on record to show that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused received the amount and the categorical version of P.W.20 to the effect that even at the earlier point of time the accused has denied the receipt of any bribe amount and therefore, there is no consistent evidence in respect of the manner under which the amount was handed over by P.W.2 and received by the accused. 30. In yet another decision, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has also held in State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishan and Another VII (2000) SLT 266 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.” 31. The said principle of law laid down by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. In view of the inconsistent and improbable version coupled with suspicious circumstances regarding the recovery of the handkerchief M.O.8 and he possibility of planting of M.O.8 with the notes M.O.3 series cannot be ruled out. 32. It is also pertinent to be noted that it is equally well settled that to rebut the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the burden rests on an accused to displace the statutory presumption that is raised under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, is not onerous as that cast on the prosecution to prove its case. The accused can discharge the burden by placing reliance on the answers elicited from the prosecution witness as well a s by preponderance of probabilities. 33. In this case also, this Court is of the considered view that the accused has discharged the burden of rebutting the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C. Act through eliciting the answers from the prosecution witnesses viz., P.Ws.2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 and by placing reliance on the preponderance of probabilities on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. 34. 34. Therefore, the prosecution has not only miserably failed to prove the demand of bribe said to have been made by the accused but also the alleged receipt of the bribe amount by the accused and the prosecution case is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the version of the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities in respect of the manner under which the accused said to have received the alleged bribe amount. 35. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge and Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput in Special Case No. 1 of P.W. 1995, dated 14.9.1998 is set aside and the appeal is allowed bail bond executed if any, shall stand cancelled. The fine amount paid, if any, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.