Judgment :- 1. The appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed in Judgment, dated 31.01.2003, made in Special Case No.1 of 2000, on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur. The appellant herein was arrayed as A-2 in the said special case and convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months imprisonment for an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo a further period of three months R.I for the offence, aggrieved by which the appeal has been preferred. 2. It is not in dispute that the copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused, charges were framed, as per procedure, under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 43 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. On the side of the accused, no one was examined, but documents Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. The trial court found that the guilt against the appellant / A2 and the co-accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant / A2 and the other accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/A2, while working as Head Constable in Thogaimalai Police station, on 25.01.1999 at about 4.18 p.m., along with co-accused/A1 Inspector of Police and A3 Station writer had received bribe, a sum of Rs.5,000/-from P.W.3 on the instruction given by the co-accused/A1. It is seen that the case was registered against the appellant and the co-accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. It is seen that the case was registered against the appellant and the co-accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. On the side of the prosecution 11 witnesses were examined and 43 documents were marked and by the impugned judgment, dated 31.01.2003, the court below found that the appellant / A2 was guilty, accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- as stated above with default sentence. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the charges framed against the appellant/A2 was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. According to the appellant he is an innocent person, however he was found guilty, based on certain unforeseen circumstances. It is not in dispute that the appeals preferred by A1 and A3 were dismissed for default, though the appeal preferred by the appellant/A2 was also dismissed, subsequently on petition, the same was restored to file. It is a trap case planned by the respondent herein, based on a complaint given by the defacto-complainant P.W.3, against the co-accused / A1. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Ex.P.3, dated 31.12.1998, and submitted that as per the prosecution case, P.W.3 had given a complaint to take action against one Laxmanan S/o.Mathavan Naicker and 9 others, on the ground that they were causing damage to his crops by cattle and also attempting to attack him. Subsequently, P.W.3 met the co-accused / A1, who was the Inspector of Police and sought action against his rivals, for which the co-accused / A1 demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/-from P.W.3, then P.W.3 went to the office of the respondent herein and gave a written complaint against the co-accused / A1. As per Ex.P.4, the defacto-complainant, Paara Naicker, P.W.3 gave a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti corruption, Trichy, stating that the Inspector of Police / A1 had asked him to pay Rs.5,000/- as bribe for taking action against the aforesaid persons and also to take steps to discharge P.W.3 from the aforesaid case, registered against him and for doing favour to the other accused in getting bail. Though P.W.3 was not willing to pay the bribe he agreed for paying the amount Rs.5,000/- to the co-accused/A1 and informed the same to the respondent. 7. Though P.W.3 was not willing to pay the bribe he agreed for paying the amount Rs.5,000/- to the co-accused/A1 and informed the same to the respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 further submitted that there is no whisper against the appellant/A2 in the written complaint given by P.W.3, that he had demanded any illegal gratification and the defacto complainant / P.W.3 had raised allegation only against the co-accused / A1. Subsequently, as per the prosecution case, on 25.01.99 at about 17.45 hours the Vigilance and Anti Corruption squad came to the police station, as already planned and P.W.3 entered into the police station as per the trap proposal. Prior to that he had been given fifty hundred Rupee notes by the respondent and was instructed to hand over the same to the co-accused / A1 and to give immediate signal to the Vigilance Squad from the police station. Accordingly, P.W.3 went to the police station and at that time, the Inspector / A1 was also present in his office, then P.W.3 informed him that he had the money Rs.5,000/-, as demanded by him and requested A1 to do the needful, after receiving the amount. However, the co-accused / A1, cleverly informed P.W.3 to hand over the money to A2, who was the Head Constable sitting in the other room, attending his work. Then P.W.3 went to the appellant / A2 and informed the appellant / A2 that he was asked to hand over the money to him by Inspector of Police / A1. The appellant / A2, after verifying the same with the Inspector / A1 received the amount from P.W.3 and kept it in his shirt pocket. The denominations and the number of the currency notes were already noted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption squad and also applied phenolphthalein powder in the currency notes. 8. As per the trap arrangement, P.W.3, could have handed over the money to A1, but as instructed by A1, he handed over the money to the appellant / A2, then P.W.3 went out of the police station and lighted a match box, immediately, as per the trap arrangement, the Vigilance squad rushed into the police station and caught hold of the appellant / A2. In the presence of witnesses, the currency notes were recovered from the appellant / A2, and the numbers were verified by the squad and found tallied. In the presence of witnesses, the currency notes were recovered from the appellant / A2, and the numbers were verified by the squad and found tallied. Then they asked the appellant / A2 to dip both his hands in a tumbler that contained sodium carbonate water and after the dip, the same became light pinkish in colour. In order to prove the factum of seizure of currency notes from the appellant / A2 and the phenolphthalein power test conducted, mahazars were prepared in the presence of witnesses and the witnesses were examined before the court below, on the side of the prosecution. The recovery of the currency notes from the appellant / A2 has been proved, as per the findings of the Court below. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant / A2 is an innocent person, he had nothing to do with the alleged offence and there was no allegation against the appellant / A2 in the original complaint, Ex.P.3 given by the defacto complainant. As per the evidence of P.W.3, he approached the co-accused / A1 and informed that he was ready with the money Rs.5,000/- as demanded by him and requested him to receive the same and do the favour in a pending criminal case relating to him. However, the co-accused / A1 cleverly asked P.W.3 to hand over the money to the Head Constable, the appellant / A2, who was sitting in the other room. The appellant / A2, without knowing the illegal dealing of the co-accused / A1 with P.W.3, after verifying whether any such instruction was given by the Inspector / A1, his superior officer, received the money from P.W.3, without any malafide intention and kept it in his shirt pocket itself. According to the learned counsel for the appellant / A2, the appellant has not committed any offence, punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that there was no criminal intention established, as against the appellant / A2 by the prosecution. 10. It is seen that P.W.1, Deputy Inspector General of Police has accorded sanction to prosecute the co-accused / A1, being an Inspector of Police and he has also deposed that after considering the materials placed before him, having satisfied, on perusal of the materials, accorded the sanction. 10. It is seen that P.W.1, Deputy Inspector General of Police has accorded sanction to prosecute the co-accused / A1, being an Inspector of Police and he has also deposed that after considering the materials placed before him, having satisfied, on perusal of the materials, accorded the sanction. P.W.2, Superintendent of Police, Karur District has deposed that having gone through the copy of the FIR, seizure mahazar and the statement of witnesses, satisfied and granted permission to prosecute the appellant / A2, who was the Head Constable and the co-accused / A3. P.W.3 is the defacto complainant, who was made as witness by the respondent for the trap arrangement. As per the prosecution case, only on the complaint given by P.W.3 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police under Ex.P.4, he was asked to be present at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police at 4.45 p.m on 25.01.1999 and P.W.4, Munusamy and one Selvaraj were also shown as independent witnesses for the occurrence. 11. In the original complaint given by the defacto complainant / P.W.3, admittedly the allegation of demanding bribe was raised only against the co-accused / A1, Inspector of Police and no whisper about the appellant / A2 in the complaint. The aforesaid circumstances would show that there is every possibility for the appellant / A2 being an innocent person to the occurrence. It is also not in dispute that prior to the occurrence, P.W.3 visited the police station and met the Inspector / A1. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant / A2 might have thought that P.W.2 was a person close to the Inspector / A1. 12. During the course of arguments, both the learned counsel relied on the following decisions : 1. T.Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 1242 2. State of A.P. vs. M.Radha Krishna Murthy, 2009 (2) Cr.R. 569 (S.C.) 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision, T.Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1242 , while interpreting the scope of Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, (49 of 1988), held that acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant would lead to a presumption of law and cast an obligation on Court to operate it in every case brought in, however, it is to be rebutted by proof and not by an explanation, which may seem to be plausible. In the referred case, charges were framed under Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, based on the trap materials, wherein the accused, officer and his junior officer working in Commercial Tax Department, had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.300/-from the complainant, who was a dealer in grocery articles for making way bills. As per the evidence, the accused officer directed the money to be paid to his Junior Officer and the evidence of the complainant and the trap witnesses established the recovery of money from the accused / Junior Officer. It was held that presumption could be raised that since accused persons therein had accepted illegal gratification, when there was no tenable defence, as there was no tax due and on the contrary, complainant was entitled to refund of the amount already paid. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / A2 submitted that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, since in the referred case, the excess money found with the Junior Assistant was not explained satisfactorily to show that it was received towards payment of tax, since the defacto-complainant was entitled to get refund of the excess amount paid by him. 15. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent submitted that the appellant / A2 in this case is accountable for the amount received from P.W.3, as the recovery of the amount has been established. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant / A2, the appellant has specifically stated that he received the money from P.W.3, on the instruction given by the Inspector, without knowing the fact that it was paid towards illegal gratification. 16. In T.Shankar Prasad vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1242 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that once the acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is established, there could be a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 17. 16. In T.Shankar Prasad vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1242 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that once the acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is established, there could be a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 17. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as follows : "Presumption where pubic servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration – (1) where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 of section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he known to be inadequate. (2) where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn." 18. It is a rebuttal presumption against the accused person, who received the amount, hence he is accountable for the amount recovered by him. It is a rebuttal presumption against the accused person, who received the amount, hence he is accountable for the amount recovered by him. In the instant case, the appellant / A2 has not disputed the recovery of the money from his shirt pocket and also the positive result of the phenolphthalein test, which shows that he had spoken the truth and unreasonably not disputed the factum. Even when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he has stated that he received the money innocently from P.W.3, as P.W.3 informed him that the Inspector had asked him to hand over the money to the Head Constable, the appellant herein, who was sitting in the other room and attending his work. Only after verifying with the Inspector / A1, whether he had asked the appellant / A2 to receive the money, the appellant received it from P.W.3 and kept it in his shirt pocket. 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be presumed that knowingly the illegal gratification was accepted by the appellant / A2, a public servant, admittedly, there was also no excess amount found with the appellant / A2. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant / A2, Head Constable was acting as agent of the Inspector / A1 to receive the illegal gratification on behalf of the co-accused / A1. Had he been accustomed in receiving the illegal gratification on behalf of the Inspector / A1, there could have been no possibility for the appellant / A2 to verify whether the co-accused / A1 had asked P.W.3 to hand over the amount to him and keeping the money in his shirt pocket, which would show that he could have been an innocent person. As per the trap arrangement, when the defacto complainant tried to hand over the money to the Inspector, co-accused / A1, who actually demanded bribe, he cleverly asked the defacto complainant / P.W.3 to hand over the money to the Head Constable / A2, sitting in the other room. 20. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, as the co-accused / A1 was the Inspector of Police, superior officer to the appellant, without knowing that the amount was paid as illegal gratification, the appellant / A2 could have received the amount and he has not suppressed the facts. 20. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, as the co-accused / A1 was the Inspector of Police, superior officer to the appellant, without knowing that the amount was paid as illegal gratification, the appellant / A2 could have received the amount and he has not suppressed the facts. Even at the initial stage, the appellant had stated the same without any contradiction. P.W.3 also admitted that he had raised allegation only against the co-accused / A1 in his complaint, which resulted in the trap arrangement. Similarly, as per the trap arrangement, P.W.3 went to the police station and approached the complainant / A1 directly, but to his surprise, the co-accused / A1 asked him to hand over the money to the Head constable, the appellant herein. As it was not expected by the appellant, after verifying the factum, whether the Inspector had asked the P.W.3 to hand over the money to him, the appellant / A2 received the money and kept it in his shirt pocket. 21. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be presumed that under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, knowingly the illegal gratification was accepted by the appellant / A2, a public servant to draw presumption. 22. In Mohmoodkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1997 (10) SCC 600 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has interpreted the word "gratification" appearing in Section 4 (1) of the At, as follows : "7. The primary condition for acting on the legal presumption under S.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 the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, the word 'gratification' is shown to have the meaning 'to give pleasure or satisfaction to.' The word 'gratification' is used in S.4 (1) to denote acceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfaction of the recipient." 23. Similarly, in State of Assam vs. Krishna Rao, reported in 1973 (3) SCC 227 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has given its interpretation as to what is the concept of gratification as follows : “21. In our opinion, there is merit in the appellant’s contention that the High Court has taken an erroneous view of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That section reads: ‘4. In our opinion, there is merit in the appellant’s contention that the High Court has taken an erroneous view of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That section reads: ‘4. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where in any trial or an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or of an offence referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of this Act punishable under sub-section (2) thereof, it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said Section 161, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code or under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of this Act, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn." 24. As per the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, the word 'gratification' is shown to have the meaning to give pleasure or satisfaction. As per the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, the word 'gratification' is shown to have the meaning to give pleasure or satisfaction. In the instant case, there is no allegation in the original complaint against the appellant / A2. As instructed by the co-accused / A1, the defacto complainant / P.W.3 went to the other room, where the appellant / A2 was sitting as Head Constable and informed him that the Inspector had asked him to hand over the money to him. Only after verification with the co-accused / A1, whether there was any such instruction, the appellant received the amount and kept it in his shirt pocket. The aforesaid conduct of the appellant would show that he had no knowledge about the illegal dealing of the co-accused / A1 with P.W.3 25. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be presumed that receiving the amount as instructed by the superior officer would be pleasure or satisfaction to the appellant, so as to decide it as illegal gratification. 26. It is a well settled concept of criminal jurisprudence, which requires the following two elements to constitute an offence 1. 'actus rea' 2. 'mens rea'. As per P.Ramanatha Aiyar, The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edition, meaning of the latin maxim 'Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea' is given, an act alone does not make one guilty, unless the mind is also guilty. On the peculiar special circumstance of the case, the Court has to decide whether there was guilty mind of the appellant, while receiving the amount from P.W.3. 27. In State of Maharashtra vs. Mayer Hans George, reported in AIR 1965 SC 722 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an act itself does not make a person guilty, unless the act has been done with a guilty intent. Hence, the mere act is not a crime unless it is committed with a particular criminal intention (mens rea). What constitutes the 'mens rea' is laid down in the case of offences defined in the Indian Penal Code. 28. In the instant case, the appellant / A2 himself has admitted that he had received the amount from the defacto complainant / A2 innocently, as instructed by his superior officer, Inspector of Police / A1 and kept it in his shirt pocket. 28. In the instant case, the appellant / A2 himself has admitted that he had received the amount from the defacto complainant / A2 innocently, as instructed by his superior officer, Inspector of Police / A1 and kept it in his shirt pocket. The conduct of the appellant / A2, as discussed earlier in the Judgment, the unblemished record of the appellant / A2 would show that he could have received the amount without knowing that it was handed over to him towards illegal gratification, that was demanded by the co-accused / A1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court could not find any culpability of mind or mens rea, as against the appellant / A2, as per criminal jurisprudence. 29. It is seen that the appellant / A2 has categorically stated that he received the money from P.W.3, without knowing the illegal dealing of the co-accused / A1 with P.W.3, as the Inspector, being a superior officer had asked P.W.3 to hand over the money to him, after verifying the same with A1. As per the evidence, it is seen that even before receiving the money, the appellant / A2 had asked the co-accused / A1, whether he had instructed P.W.3 to hand over the money to him. It could be normally possible for the appellant to receive the money innocently, unaware of the fact that P.W.3 was going to hand over the money to him as illegal gratification to A1. Even as per the prosecution case, P.W.3 was asked to hand over the money to the co-accused / A1, who had demanded the same as bribe only. When P.W.3 was about to hand over the money to the co-accused / A1, he cleverly asked the P.W.3 to hand over the same to the Appellant / A2, who was the Head constable sitting in the other room. Therefore, the said instruction given by the co-accused / A1 was unexpected to P.W.3 as well as the appellant / A2. 30. Had it been known to the appellant / A2, prior to the trap, there could be no possibility for the appellant to verify whether A1 had asked P.W.3 to hand over the money to the appellant, that is the first circumstance available in favour of the appellant / A2. 30. Had it been known to the appellant / A2, prior to the trap, there could be no possibility for the appellant to verify whether A1 had asked P.W.3 to hand over the money to the appellant, that is the first circumstance available in favour of the appellant / A2. The second circumstance is that after receiving the money without keeping it in the drawer of his table or any other place, the appellant / A2 kept it in his shirt pocket, which would also show that the appellant could have received the money innocently on the direction of his superior officer / A1. The third circumstance is that P.W.3 had stated that another co-accused / A3 also asked him to pay some amount to him, after the occurrence and P.W.3 said that he had parted with a sum of Rs.5,000/-, hence he need not pay any further amount, for which the co-accused / A3 replied that the amount Rs.5,000/- was only for the Inspector and hence, P.W.3 has to pay some amount to him. The conversation would show that the said amount Rs.5,000/-, demanded by A1 was only for A1 and not for the appellant / A2. It has been made clear that the amount handed over to the appellant / A2, even as per the prosecution case is only for the Inspector / A1. 31. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that subsequently, the co-accused, A1 and A3 may file petition to restore their appeals and the decision would affect the other cases. It is well settled that each case has to be decided, as per the facts and circumstance of the case and therefore, this decision is nothing to do with the charges framed, decided against the co-accused / A1 and A3, even in case of restoration of their appeals. 32. In State of A.P vs. M.Radha Krishna Murthy, reported in 2009 (2) Cr.R.569 (S.C), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "6. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion in meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd., vs. Horton, 1951 AC 737, Lord Mac Dermot observed : "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished Judge." 33. It has been made clear that the Court has to decide whether culpability of mind of the appellant has been established, coupled with actus rea, based on the available evidence by applying the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and as per the Indian Evidence Act, without any deviation from the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence. 34. In the instant case, there was no complaint against the appellant / A2 by the defactocomplainant, that he had demanded any bribe from him along with A1, hence, mere recovery of tainted money by itself cannot establish the charge of prosecution in the absence of any evidence to prove the payment as illegal gratification or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it as bribe or illegal gratification. Similarly, when the defence raised by the accused is plausible and more probable than that of the prosecution case, the defence of the accused has to be accepted and as per criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt should always be given to the accused. 35. Similarly, when the defence raised by the accused is plausible and more probable than that of the prosecution case, the defence of the accused has to be accepted and as per criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt should always be given to the accused. 35. In the instant case, it is clear that it was not expected by the respondent, Vigilance and Anticorruption wing, Tiruchirapalli or the defacto complainant, while the defacto-complainant / P.W.3 try to hand over the money, as demanded by the co-accused / A1, that he would cleverly direct him to hand over the same to the appellant / Head constable sitting in the other room. In the aforesaid circumstances, it could be legally presumed that such direction by the co-accused / A1 would not be known to the appellant / A1 and further, it probablise the defence of the appellant, since the appellant verified whether the co-accused / A1, had asked the defacto-complainant, P.W.3 to hand over the money to him. The unexpected act of the appellant, receiving the amount, after verifying the instruction given by the superior officer / A1 and keeping it innocently in his shirt pocket would show that the appellant might not have voluntarily received the money, knowing it to be bribe or illegal gratification payable to the co-accused / A1. 35. This Court in Jothiramanlingam vs. State, etc., reported in 2001-2-LW (Crl) 861, this Court (M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J) has held that Section 20 of the Act, which raises presumption would not apply to the offence under Section 8 of the Act. In short, when it is the prosecution case through the materials placed before the Court that A1 asked A2 to receive the money as bribe on his behalf and consequently, A2 received the same and the said demand by A1 through A2 has been disbelieved and consequently, he is acquitted by the trial Court, A2 for the mere receipt of the money from P.W.2 could not be convicted, especially when the ingredient of Section 8 is not made out. 36. 36. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the defence raised by the appellant / A2 is plausible and more probable on the following circumstances of this case : (i) In the trap case, prior to the trap arrangement, the defacto-complainant / P.W.3 had given a written complaint to the respondent, wherein he has specifically stated that the co-accused / A1 had demanded Rs.5,000/-to do some favour. However, there is no whisper in the complaint against the appellant / A2. (ii) As per the trap arrangement, the defacto-complainant directly went to the police station and informed the Inspector / A1 that he was ready with the money, as demanded by him and requested him to do the needful in his favour. However, the Inspector / A1 cleverly asked the defactocomplainant to hand over the money to the appellant, who was the Head constable, sitting in the other room. Had it been known to the appellant / A2, he would not have verified with the co-accused / A1 before receiving the amount, whether he had instructed, so to receive the amount from P.W.3 and there was no other excess amount available with the appellant. The amount handed over by the defacto-complainant and the conduct of the appellant / A2, keeping the money in his shirt pocket would show that he had innocently received the amount, without knowing that the same was an illegal gratification demanded by A1, otherwise, at least, he could not have kept the money in his shirt pocket itself. (iii) As per the evidence of defacto-complainant / P.W.3, after the amount was handed over to the appellant / A2, while coming out of the room, A3 / writer of the police station, asked further amount from him and the defacto-complainant said that he had already parted with a sum of Rs.5,000/-, for which the reply by the co-accused / A3, according to P.W.3, is that the amount Rs.5,000/-given by him was only for the Inspector and hence, something must be given to him. (iv) It is not the evidence of defacto-complainant / P.W.3 that the aforesaid amount, Rs.5,000/-was for the Inspector / A1 and the appellant / A2, as per the said conversation. (v) It is not the case of the prosecution that the Head constable used to collect bribe or illegal gratifications on behalf of the Inspector / A1. (iv) It is not the evidence of defacto-complainant / P.W.3 that the aforesaid amount, Rs.5,000/-was for the Inspector / A1 and the appellant / A2, as per the said conversation. (v) It is not the case of the prosecution that the Head constable used to collect bribe or illegal gratifications on behalf of the Inspector / A1. (vi) It is not in dispute that the appellant / A2 had unblemished record till his retirement, except the present case, which is vitiated by serious suspicious circumstances, which probablise the defence raised by the appellant / A2 in his favour. 37. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find it just and reasonable to allow the criminal appeal, holding that the prosecution has not established the alleged guilt against the appellant / A2 for convicting the appellant / A2, under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant / A2 by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur (Special Judge), in Special Case No.1 of 2000 is liable to be set aside, to meet the ends of justice. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentenced imposed on the appellant / A2 by the Court below in Special Case No.1 of 2000 is set aside. The bail bond, if any executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him forthwith.