Judgment : 1. These Criminal Appeals have been filed by the accused 1 and 3 as against the judgment, dated 26.11.2001 passed in Special Case No. 1 of 1996 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Tirunelveli, and to set aside the conviction under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentence imposed upon each of the accused to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7, and sentence imposed on each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i) A.1 was working as General Manager, A.2 was working as Project Manager and A.3 was working as Inspector of Industries at District Industries Centre, Tirunelveli at the relevant point of time. They are public servants as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. P.W.6 applied for grant of permanent licence and licence to claim electricity subsidy on 9.6.1993 and on the same date itself A.3, visited the Swarnapriya Printers and recommended for grant of permanent licence on 10.6.1993. With such recommendation P.W.2 submitted the application on 11.6.1993. The file was made ready which is marked as Ex. P.7. It is alleged that on 14.6.1993 about 11.00 a.m. at the office of the District Industries Centre, Tirunelveli, when P. Jeyaraj (P.W.2) son of Pakkianathan met A.3 and made enquiries regarding the application presented by him already on 11.6.1993 on behalf of Swarnapriya Printers, Tiruchendur Road, Palayamkottai for grant of a permanent Small Scale Industries Licence, and the Licence for claiming electricity subsidy, for the said firm, then A.3 demanded from him a sum of Rs.1,000/- for himself, Rs.2,000/-for being paid to A.2 and another sum of Rs.2,000/- for being paid to A.1 by that evening itself for making arrangements to issue the necessary orders for grant of the licences applied by the said firm. P.W.2 not to heed to the said demand, decided to complain the same to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Palayamkottai. P.W.2 not to heed to the said demand, decided to complain the same to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Palayamkottai. Accordingly on 14.6.1993 itself at 4.00 p.m., P.W.2 gave Ex.P.2 complaint to P.W.2 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cell, Palayamkottai. Thereafter a case in Cr.No. 3/93 was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and FIR copy is Ex.P.13 P.W.12 arranged for official witnesses. In the Vigilance Office preliminary sodium carbonate solution test was conducted in the presence of the official witnesses between 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. which was reduced into mahazar, Ex.P.3 Thereafter the trap team reached the office where the accused were working by 5.45 p.m. (ii) Pursuant to the above demand, on 14.6.1993 at or about 5.50 p.m. at the office of the District Industries Centre, Tirunelveli at the office room of A.2 and in his presence A.3 obtained a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from P.W.2 as stated above as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for themselves as a motive or reward for their taking early action on the application of Swarnapriya Printers, Palayamkottai dealt with by the said District Industries Centre, Tirunelveli. (iii) In the course of same transaction on 14.6.1993 a few minutes thereafter, at the office room of A.1 he demanded and obtained a sum of Rs. 2,000/-from P.W.2 in the presence of A.2 and A.3 as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward for his taking early favourable action on the application of the said firm for grant of a permanent SSI licence and the licence for claiming electricity subsidy. (iv) After receipt of money by the accused and on the signal given by P.W.2 the trap team went inside the office and caught red handed the accused and conducted the phenolphthalein powder test with sodium carbonate solution which proved positive and the currency notes as well as the bottles were marked and sent for chemical analysis for corroboration. The trap was reduced into writing in Mahazar Ex.P.4. Thereafter the houses of the accused were also searched and inventories were prepared. Thereafter the case was investigated further by P.W.14, who obtained statements from the prosecution witness and also received the sanction from P.W.1 Thereafter his successor P.W.15 filed the charge sheet. The trap was reduced into writing in Mahazar Ex.P.4. Thereafter the houses of the accused were also searched and inventories were prepared. Thereafter the case was investigated further by P.W.14, who obtained statements from the prosecution witness and also received the sanction from P.W.1 Thereafter his successor P.W.15 filed the charge sheet. (v) Thus it is alleged that A.1 to A.3 being public servants, by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing their positions obtained for themselves the sums of Rs.2000/- for A.1 Rs.2000/- for A.2 and Rs.1,000/- for A.3 as pecuniary advantages from P.W.2 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (vi) Further, it is also alleged that on 16.6.1993 in the forenoon at the residence of A.1 fabricated the file No. Pdl/62/D2/93 of the said Office in a manner which he knew to be incorrect by making false record in the said file to make it appear that the sum of Rs.2000/-received by him on 14.6.1993 from the said Jayaraj was given to him towards Small Savings and initialled with ante date (14.6.1993) with intent to save himself from legal punishment for the offences committed by him and thereby A.1 committed an offence punishable under Section 218 I.P.C. also. 3. Before the Sessions Court, on behalf of the prosecution, 15 witnesses were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.16 were marked, besides M.Os. 1 to 13. On behalf of the accused no one was examined and Exs. D.1 to D.8 (sic) were marked. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they denied the same. 4. The Learned Special Judge, Tirunelveli on a consideration of the material evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that charges under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were proved and convicted and imposed sentence as stated supra. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, these two appeals are filed. 5. A perusal of the documents would show that A.1 had ever seen P.W.2 on any occasion prior to 14.6.1993. The only witness to speak about the case of the prosecution with regard to the bribe amount or illegal gratification received by accused are P.Ws.2 and 3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, these two appeals are filed. 5. A perusal of the documents would show that A.1 had ever seen P.W.2 on any occasion prior to 14.6.1993. The only witness to speak about the case of the prosecution with regard to the bribe amount or illegal gratification received by accused are P.Ws.2 and 3. However, P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case in respect of A.1. Hence he was treated as hostile. He has also admitted that A.1 ever demanded illegal gratification from him and the evidence of P.W.3 is unreliable. P.W.3 is a shadow witness and he claims that as though he was present from the very beginning to the end, but his evidence is contrary on material particulars. 6. There was a target fixed for each officer and as per Exs. D.1 to D.5, circulars issued by the Collector, the target fixed for the Revenue Year 1993-1994 was Rs. 95 lakhs. The case of the accused is that the amount was received towards collection of Small Savings as the target fixed by the District Collector. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that in the office there is no ledger or account books or receipt book for the receipt of money from the public or persons in connection with small savings. When a target is fixed that a officer has to collect a huge amount like this, it is natural that the officers will ask the affluent business people to part with money towards small savings. The huge amounts fixed as targets to the authorities can not be contributed by them from their pocket and they have to only depend upon the affluent industrial customers or persons seeking to help for passing an order in their favour. If the amount is not collected from such persons, no officer in the country can meet the demand of target fixed by the higher officials. 7. The practice of collecting small savings through officers is highly deprecated. On the one side for the officers fixing a huge target for collection towards small savings and on the other side prosecuting them for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act would give benefit to the officers to take the plea of collecting the money towards small savings even if the money was really obtained as gratification other than legal remuneration. 8. In Ex. 8. In Ex. D.6, immediately after receipt of money, A.1 has made an endorsement that he has received the sum of Rs.2000/- from P.W.2 Jayaraj for the purpose of Small savings. The whole files (Exs. D.1 to D.7) reads the number of meeting he has attended, called for by the District Collector, and the purpose of the meetings was collection of small savings. Only for one or two days prior to the trap the accused A.1 has attended such a meeting. If that is so, when there is a pressure from the higher authority to collect huge amount as small saving collection fixing as target, it is quite natural that the officers have to collect money only from the affluent customers. It is also seen that A.1s office had collected Rs.7.3 lakhs as per Ex.D.3. Admittedly there was a drive in A.1s office to collect amounts towards the small savings scheme and P.W.2 also joined in such scheme. 9. In. AIR 1960, SC 548: (1960) 1 MLJ (Crl) 228, a Five Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that ‘the word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or to gratification estimable in money. Therefore, “gratification” mentioned in Section 4(1) cannot be confined only to payment of money. What the prosecution has to prove before asking the court to raise a presumption against an accused person is that the accused person has received a “gratification other than legal remuneration” if it is shown that the accused received the stated amount and that the said amount was not legal remuneration then the condition prescribed by the section is satisfied. If he word “gratification” is construed to mean money paid by way of a bribe, then it would be futile or superfluous to prescribe for the raising of the presumption”. 10. In. AIR 1966 SC 1762 : (1966) 1 MLJ (Crl) 827, the Apex Court held that “to praise the presumption under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has received “gratification other than legal remuneration”. When it is shown that the accused has received a certain sum of money which was not his legal remuneration the condition prescribed by the Section is satisfied and the presumption must be raised. Further the mere receipt of “money” is sufficient to raise the presumption”. 11. When it is shown that the accused has received a certain sum of money which was not his legal remuneration the condition prescribed by the Section is satisfied and the presumption must be raised. Further the mere receipt of “money” is sufficient to raise the presumption”. 11. In, AIR 2003 SC 2169 : (2002) 5 SCC 86 , it has been held that “mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13(1)(d)(i). In Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, the Legislature has specifically used the word ‘accepts‘ or ‘obtains‘. As against this, there is departure in the language used in Clause (1)(d) of Section 13 and it has omitted the word ‘accepts‘ and has emphasized the word ‘obtains‘. Further, the ingredient of sub clause (i) is that by corrupt and illegal means, a public servant obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, under Clause (ii), he obtains such thing by abusing his position as a public servant, he obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, without any public interest. Therefore, for convicting the person under Section 13(1)(d), there must be evidence on record that the accused obtained; for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. 12. In , AIR 2002 SC 488 : (2002) 9 SCC 634 , it has been observed that “it is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by providing beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability”. 13. In , (1997) SCC (Cri) 894, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that “the primary condition for acting on the legal presumption under Section 4 (1) of the Act is that the prosecution should have proved that what the accused received was gratification. The word “gratification” is not defined in the Act. Hence, it must be understood in its literal meaning. In , (1997) SCC (Cri) 894, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that “the primary condition for acting on the legal presumption under Section 4 (1) of the Act is that the prosecution should have proved that what the accused received was gratification. The word “gratification” is not defined in the Act. Hence, it must be understood in its literal meaning. The word “gratification” is used in Section 4(1) to denote acceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfaction of the recipient. If the money paid is not for personal satisfaction or pleasure of the recipient it is not gratification in the sense it is used in the Section. In other words unless the prosecution proves that the money paid was not towards any lawful collection or legal remuneration the court cannot take recourse to the presumption of law contemplated in Section 4(1) of the Act, though the court is not precluded from drawing appropriate presumption of fact as envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act at any stage.” 14. By applying the above said legal propositions, it is clear that in the present case, the preponderance of probability is in favour of the accused. In a case of this nature, the prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Once the receipt of money is accepted by the accused, it is the duty of the accused to explain the receipt of money and the burden is not like the prosecution and the burden is only to show existence of preponderance of probability. In this case, Exs. D.1 to D.7 which are office notes and files would go to show that it is probable that the money could have been received as only towards small savings collection. Thus when the accused have established that the money received by them was towards small savings collection they are entitled to benefit of doubt and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 15. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants in the common judgment in Special S.C.No. 1 of 1996 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. The bail bonds executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. Fine paid, if any, by the appellants shall be returned to them.