Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Cuddalore, dated 16.8.2005 made in Special Case No. 5 of 1999 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ` 1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ` 1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The appellant/accused faced the trial under the following backdrop: (i) The accused was working as Village Administrative Officer at Panickankuppam Village, Cuddalore District during the year 1998. P.W.2 is a resident of the said village and he had married P.W.9 on 15.7.1997. The said marriage is a love and inter-caste marriage. Exhibit P-2 is the marriage certificate. For the purpose of getting grant-in-aid of ` 20,000/- from the Government as an incentive for the inter-caste marriage, P.W.2 has preferred three applications, Exhibit P-3 series, for the issuance of Community Certificate, Residence Certificate and Income Certificate to the Tahsildar, Panruti. The Tahsildar made an endorsement in the said applications and handed over the same to P.W.2 with an instruction to obtain the required certificates from the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer. Accordingly, P.W.2 gave the said applications to the accused/Village Administrative Officer on 24.9.1998. The accused asked P.W.2 as to why he is requiring those certificates. P.W.2, in turn, informed him that he is requiring those certificates for the purpose of receiving a sum of ` 20,000/- as grant-in-aid for inter-caste marriage. The accused insisted for the similar applications from the wife of P.W.2, viz., P.W.9. Accordingly, P.W.2 submitted applications, Exhibits P-4 series, for his wife, P.W.9, seeking the issuance of Community Certificate, Residence Certificate and Income Certificate to the Tahsildar, Panruti, on 3.10.1998. Again the Tahsildar made an endorsement in the said applications and handed over the same to P.W.2 with an instruction to obtain the required certificates from the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer. P.W.2 met the accused on 4.10.1998 with the applications, Exhibit P-4 series. Again the Tahsildar made an endorsement in the said applications and handed over the same to P.W.2 with an instruction to obtain the required certificates from the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer. P.W.2 met the accused on 4.10.1998 with the applications, Exhibit P-4 series. He has also produced Exhibits P-5 and P-6, School Transfer Certificates. At that time, the accused demanded ` 1,000/- from P.W.2 for issuing the community, residence and income certificates as P.W.2 is going to get ` 20,000/- grant-in-aid. P.W.2 expressed his inability to give such an amount. (ii) The accused came to the house of P.W.2 on the next day, i.e., on 5.10.1998. At that time, the parents of P.W.2, his wife/P.W.9 and his uncle were precent. The accused told the parents of P.W.2 that very soon P.W.2 is going to get ` 20,000/- and as such, nothing wrong in giving ` 1,000/- to him. The uncle of P.W.2 agreed to give the said amount, but insisted for a receipt. The accused stated to them that no one would give such a receipt for receiving bribe amount and left, from that place. (iii) P.W.2 and his uncle’s son one Arokyadas went and met the accused again on the next day, i.e., 6.10.1998 and the accused demanded the amount of ` 1,000/ on that day also. P.W.2 informed that they cannot, give such an amount and returned back to his house. (iv) On 7.10.1998, P.W.2 along with his cousin Arokyadas went to the office of the accused and met him. The accused demanded an amount, of ` 1,000/- and thereafter, reduced the amount to ` 500/-. (v) As P.W.2 not inclined to give the bribe amount, he has decided to give a report to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption police. Accordingly, he went to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption office at Cuddalore along with his cousin Arokyadas on 8.10.1993 at 9.30 a.m. and gave the report, Exhibit P-7. (vi) P.W.8, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, on receipt of the report, registered the case in Crime No. 6/AC/98/Cuddalore for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Exhibit P-18 is the First Information Report. (vii) P.W.8 decided to conduct a trap and summoned two witnesses, viz., P.W.4 from the office of the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry and another from the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture. Exhibit P-18 is the First Information Report. (vii) P.W.8 decided to conduct a trap and summoned two witnesses, viz., P.W.4 from the office of the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry and another from the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture. He introduced P.W.2 to P.W.4 and another and asked them to read the report, Exhibit P-7. Thereafter, P.W.8 demonstrated the phenolphthalein test after noting down the numbers of the currency notes in the mahazar. The tainted currency notes are M.O.1 series. The said proceedings have been recorded under the mahazar, Exhibit P-8. The raiding party left the vigilance office at 12.00 noon to the office of the accused. The vehicle of the raiding party was stopped near the office of the Village Administrative Officer at Panruti-Kumbakonam Road. P.W.8 instructed P.W.2 to meet the accused in his office and handover the amount only in the event of the accused demanding the said amount and thereafter instructed him to give the pre-arranged signal. He has asked Arokyadas and P.W.4 to accompany P.W.2 to watch the transaction between P.W.2 and the accused. Accordingly, all the three left, for the office of the accused. (viii) Before going to the office of the accused, P.W.4 purchased cashewnut from a shop near the Village Administrative Officer‘s office. Arokyadas, cousin brother of P.W.2, remained in the said shop. Thereafter, P.Ws.2 and 4 went inside the office of the Village Administrative Officer. The accused/Village Administrative Officer, at that time, was talking with a person sitting in front of his office. The accused asked P.W.2 whether he has brought the money saying that the matter could be finished. The accused enquired about P.W.4, for that, P.W.2 informed that P.W.4 is his friend and he has come to purchase cashewnut. The accused instructed P.W.2 to send P.W.4 away. P.W.2 come to the cool drink shop and left P.W.4. P.W.2 came back to the office of the accused and at that time, the accused was standing outside the office and chatting with the mother of P.W.2 and other ladies. Thereafter, P.W.2 handed over the currency notes M.O.1 series containing five 100 rupee notes to the accused. He received, the amount and counted the same and put it into his shirt pocket and thereafter, went inside his office. At 12.45 noon, P.W.2 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal to P.W.8. Thereafter, P.W.2 handed over the currency notes M.O.1 series containing five 100 rupee notes to the accused. He received, the amount and counted the same and put it into his shirt pocket and thereafter, went inside his office. At 12.45 noon, P.W.2 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal to P.W.8. (ix) On receiving the pre-arranged signal, P.W.8, along with his raiding party, rushed to the office of the accused. The accused came out of his office. P.W.2 identified the accused to P.W.8 and stated that the amount was received by the accused. P.W.4 also narrated the sequence of events to P.W.8. Thereafter, P.W.2 was waiting in the cool drink shop. P.W.8 introduced himself to the accused and enquired the accused about the money received from P.W.2. The accused admitted the receipt of the currency notes and stated that he has kept it in his shirt pocket and as he has seen the raiding party, he has kept the currency notes in between two papers, of a file. P.W.8 conducted phenolphthalein test in respect of the fingers of the right hand of the accused which proved positive and in respect of the fingers of the left hand, the colour of the solution did not turn pink. The solutions in respect of the phenolphthalein test conducted for the hands of the accused were kept in the bottles, M.Os.2 and 3. The shirt pocket was also subjected to phenolphthalein test and the test proved positive. The solution in respect of the said test has been kept in M.O.4. The accused produced the currency notes, M.O.1 series, kept in between two papers of the file. The currency notes have been compared by the witnesses along with the numbers mentioned in the mahazar, Exhibit P-8. P.W.8 also subjected the file papers from which, the currency notes were recovered for phenolphthalein test. The said test proved positive. The solution in respect of the said test was kept in a bottle, M.O.5 and M.O.7 series are papers. P.W.8 also recovered Exhibit P-10 identity card of the accused, Exhibit P-11/passbook of the accused, Exhibit P-12, the letter sent by the insurance company to the accused. He has also prepared the rough sketch of the office of the accused under Exhibit P-13. He sent the material objects to the court with a requisition to send the same for chemical examination. He has also prepared the rough sketch of the office of the accused under Exhibit P-13. He sent the material objects to the court with a requisition to send the same for chemical examination. He has received the chemical examination report, Exhibit P-15. He examined that witnesses, P.Ws.1, 7, 9 and others. (x) Further investigation was taken over by P.W.11. After completion of the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet on 1.11.1.999 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 11, filed Exhibits P-1 to P-18 and marked M.Os.1 to 7. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he has denied each and every incriminating circumstance as false and contrary to the facts. The accused further stated during the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that P.W.2 was having grudge against him as he has measured the land in respect of P.W.2 ‘ s aunt. It is further stated by the accused that P.W.2 has planted the currency notes during his absence in his office records. The accused has also stated that the police threatened him and thereafter, they asked P.W.2 to take the amount from the file and handed over the amount to him and as such, he has received the amount and handed over the same to P.W.8, the Inspector, Vigilance. 5. The learned trial Judge, on consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused and convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. Being aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant. 6. Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, would vehemently contend that the entire prosecution case suffers from infirmities and inconsistencies and put forward the following contentions: (1) The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused and as such, mere receipt of tainted amount itself would not attract the offence alleged against the appellant. (2) The alleged demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused as per the version of P.W.2 is highly doubtful and unbelievable as it is claimed by P.W.2 that the accused demanded the illegal gratification of ` 1,000/- and thereafter, reduced it to ` 500/- for the purpose of issuing community, residence and income certificates for obtaining grant-in-aid from the Government for the inter-caste marriage. But the said version is unbelievable as the applications for issuance of the said certificates were given only to the Tahsildar and the same would not be sent to the Village Administrative Officer and the Tahsildar alone is empowered to issue such certificates as per the evidence of P.W.10, the then Deputy Tahsildar, Panruti. (3) The uncorroborated version of P.W.2 in respect of the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused prior to the trap is unbelievable as he has not stated during the course of investigation to P.W.8 that the accused demanded ` 1,000/-for issuing the certificates. (4) The prosecution has also miserably failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused at the time of trap as the version of P.W.2 is not corroborated by P.W.4, independent witness, as he has not stated that the accused demanded money and his evidence is not clear to that effect. (5) If really the accused demanded any illegal gratification, he could not have made such demand in the presence of P.W.4 as it is claimed by P.W.2 that the accused asked him to take P.W.4 away and only thereafter received the amount and as such, the evidence of P.W.2 is unbelievable and unreliable. (6) The entire trap proceeding is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, viz., (a) P.W.8 instructed P.W.4 and one Arokyadas, cousin brother of P.W.2, to accompany P.W.2 and watch the transaction taking place between the accused and P.W.2 and further P.W.8 stated that all the three entered inside the office of the accused. (6) The entire trap proceeding is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, viz., (a) P.W.8 instructed P.W.4 and one Arokyadas, cousin brother of P.W.2, to accompany P.W.2 and watch the transaction taking place between the accused and P.W.2 and further P.W.8 stated that all the three entered inside the office of the accused. But P.Ws.2 and 4 stated that the said Arokyadas was standing at the cool drink shop near the office of the accused and he has not accompanied with them to the office of the accused and such version is unbelievable; (b) The version of P.Ws.2 and 4 that P.W.4 was taken out by P.W.2 from the office of the accused at the instructions of the accused is unbelievable as it is stated by P.W.2 that the accused enquired about P.W.4 and he has introduced P.W.4 to him as his friend and as such, there is no reason for the accused to instruct P.W.2 to take P.W.4 away from the office; (c) Even as per the admitted version of P.W.4 that he has not seen the alleged transaction of P.W.2 handing over the amount to the accused and as such, the uncorroborated version of P.W.2 cannot be relied on; and (d) P.W.2 stated that the amount was handed over to the accused while he was standing outside and chatting with his mother and other women-folk near the Village Administrative Officer ‘ s office and if such version is true, the said transaction could have been seen even by the raiding party including P.W.4 who were standing outside and hiding themselves as per their version; (7) The accused has given probable and reasonable explanation for the recovery of tainted money, M.O.1 series, to the effect that the said currency notes have been planted by P.W.2 while he was away from the office in between the papers of his office record file and the said explanation is probabilised as per the admitted version of P.Ws.48 to the effect that the currency notes, M.O.1 series, have been recovered from in between two papers of a file. (8) The accused probabilised his explanation by preponderance of probabilities and thereby rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. Per contra, Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction. (8) The accused probabilised his explanation by preponderance of probabilities and thereby rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. Per contra, Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction. It is contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence through P.Ws.2, 4 and 8. The learned Government Advocate would submit that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.2 about the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused for issuing, the certificates as his version is also corroborated by P.W.4 and in view of the same, the demand made by the accused at the time of trap is proved. It is further contended that the prosecution proved the demand and receipt of the illegal gratification as the phenolphthalein test conducted by P.W.8 proved positive. 8. This Court, carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 9. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.2/the complainant, P.W.4/the trap witness and P.W.8, who has conducted trap. At the outset, it is to be stated that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the first and foremost ingredient, viz., the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused for establishing the offences under Sections 7 and 13 Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As far as the case on hand is concerned, in respect, of the demand of illegal gratification, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4. 10. Let me now analyse and assess the evidence of the said two witnesses to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused prior to the trap and on the date of trap. It is the version of P.W.2 that the accused demanded ` 1,000/- for issuing community, residence and income certificates to enable him to obtain grand-in-aid of ` 20,000/- from the Government for his intercaste marriage with P.W.9. It is the version of P.W.2 that the accused demanded ` 1,000/- for issuing community, residence and income certificates to enable him to obtain grand-in-aid of ` 20,000/- from the Government for his intercaste marriage with P.W.9. It is claimed by P.W.2 that he has submitted the applications, Exhibit P-3 series, in respect of himself and Exhibit P-4 series in respect of his wife, P.W.9, to the Tahsildar, Panruti and the Tahsildar after making endorsement, handed over the said applications to him instructing him to get the certificates from the Revenue Inspector and village Administrative Officer and bring the said certificates to him. But this version of P.W.2 is falsified by the evidence of P.W.10, the Deputy Tahsildar, Panruti. P.W.10 has categorically stated that he has received the applications and sent the same to the Revenue Inspector for the purpose of conducting enquiry and submitting the report. It is further stated by P.W.10 that the Revenue Inspector would conduct enquiry by examining the Village Administrative Officer, the applicant and the Village Assistants and thereafter a report will be submitted to the Tahsildar for issuing necessary certificates. It is categorically stated by P.W.10 in his chief examination itself that the said applications would not be sent to the Village Administrative Officer. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the accused, being the Village Administrative Officer, has no role to play in issuing the certificates required by P.W.2. It is needless to state that the certain official correspondences would not be given to the applicants and if at all authorities would like to send the communications to the other authorities, they have to send it through proper official channel. The version of P.W.2 in respect of the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused is liable to be rejected on the above said ground itself. 11. Now coming to the version of P.W.2 to the effect that he has met the accused on 24.9.1998 and at that time, the accused asked him the purpose, for which, the certificates required by him and he has informed that he has to get ` 20,000/- as grant-in-aid from the Government, the prosecution is left with the version of P.W.2 alone. Admittedly, on 24.9.1998, the accused has not made any demand of illegal gratification from P.W.2. Admittedly, on 24.9.1998, the accused has not made any demand of illegal gratification from P.W.2. Yet another version of P.W.2 that he has given the application for his wife under Exhibit P-4 series for the issuance of same certificates to the Tahsildar, Panruti and thereafter, the Tahsildar, Panruti, by making endorsement asked him to get the necessary certificates from the Revenue inspector and Village Administrative Officer is also falsified by the evidence of P.W.10, the then Deputy Tahsildar, Panruti, as pointed out earlier. It is the version of P.W.2 that the accused made the demand of illegal gratification for the first time on 4.10.1998 and here again, the prosecution is left with the solitary evidence of P.W.2. It is the further version of P.W.2 that the accused came to his house on 5.10.1998 and made a similar demand and there is no one to corroborate even the said version. Lastly, it is claimed by P.W.2 that he went to the office of the accused along with his cousin one Arokyadas on 7.10.1998 and at that time, the accused also made a demand of ` 1,000/- as illegal gratification for the purpose of issuing the certificate. But the prosecution has not examined the said Arokyadas to corroborate the version of P.W.2. In view of the above said factors and the reasons pointed out earlier by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the version of P.W.2 is unbelievable and unreliable. The non-examination of the cousin brother of P.W.2, namely, one Arokyadas is necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused prior to the trap. 12. Now coming to the prosecution version that the accused said to have made the demand of illegal gratification at the time of trap, i.e., on 8.10.19.98, the prosecution placed reliance on the version of P.Ws.2, 4 and 8. It is pertinent to note that as per the version of P.W.8, Inspector of Police, Vigilance, he has instructed P.W.4 and Arokyadas to accompany with P.W.2 to the office of the accused and to watch the transaction taking place between P.W.2 and the accused. But there are contradictory versions in respect of Arokyadas going inside the office of the accused with P.Ws.2 and 4. But there are contradictory versions in respect of Arokyadas going inside the office of the accused with P.Ws.2 and 4. P.W.8, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, has categorically stated that P.Ws.2, 4 and the said Arokyadas entered inside the office of the accused, P.W.4 came out of the said house after 10 minutes and he was hiding himself in a place. On the other hand, P.Ws.2 and 4 stated that the said Arokyadas has not accompanied with them while they have entered inside the office of the accused and he was standing at the cool drink shop near the office of the Village Administrative Officer. There is absolutely no explanation as to what purpose Arokyadas stood outside the cool drink shop in spite of the specific instruction given by P.W.8 to accompany P.Ws.2 and 4 and watch the transaction taking place between P.W.2 and the accused. 13. As far as P.W.4 is concerned, it is stated by P.W.4 that after entering inside the office of the accused, the accused enquired about him from P.W.2 and P.W.2 introduced him as his friend to the accused. It is his further version that the accused asked P.W.2 to send him away and thereafter, he would receive the amount. If the version of P.W.4 is true that the accused stated to P.W.2 that he would receive the amount after sending him, there is no reason for the accused to ask P.W.2 to take P.W.4 outside the office as P.W.4 might have been aware about the demand of illegal gratification made by the accused. Therefore, there is absolutely no explanation as to why the accused asked P.W.2 to take P.W.4 outside his office and the same throws considerable doubt about the veracity of the version of P.Ws.2 and 4. P.W.8 has categorically stated that even during his examination P.W.2 has not stated about the demand of illegal gratification of ` 1,000/- said to have been made by the accused. In view of this serious infirmity, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has also miserably failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused at the time of trap. 14. Once the prosecution failed to prove the first and foremost ingredient, viz., demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused, the entire prosecution case would collapse. 14. Once the prosecution failed to prove the first and foremost ingredient, viz., demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused, the entire prosecution case would collapse. It is well-settled that the mere recovery of the tainted money itself is not sufficient in the absence of proof of demand for establishing the offences alleged against the accused. 15.0 At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. 15.1 The Hon‘ble Apex Court in T. Subramamian v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2006 SC 836 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 401 : (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl) 63 has held as hereunder, “ Theevidence in this case no doubt proves that a sum of ` 200/- way paid by P.W.1 to the appellant. But the crucial question is whether the appellant had demanded ths said amount as illegal gratification to show any official favour to P.W.1 and whether the said amount was paid by P.W.1 and received by the appellant as consideration for showing such official favour. Mere receipt of ` 200/- by the appellant (admitted by the appellant) will not be sufficient to fasten guilt under Section 5(1) (a) or Section 5(1) (d) of the Act, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. ” 15.2 The Hon‘ble Apex Court in V. Venkatasubba Rao v. State AIR 2007 SC 489 : 2007 (3) SCC (Cri.) 175 has held as follows: “ 24..... In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand proved. It reads as under: “ 20. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand proved. It reads as under: “ 20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration - (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (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 knows to be inadequate. ” 25. Furthermore, even in such a case, the burden on an accused does not have to meet the same standard of proof, as is required to be made by the prosecution. 26. In M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala AIR 2006 SC 3366 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri.) 30 , this Court held, “ Moreover, the onus on an accused is not as heavy as that, of the prosecution. It may be compared with a defendant in a civil proceeding. ” 15.3 The Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dayaneshwar Laxman Rao Wandhede (2010) 2 SCC (Cri.) 385 : (2009) 15 SCC 200 : (2009) 4 MLJ (Crl) 335 has held as hereunder: “ 16.Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. ” …. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. ” …. ” 15.4 The principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged demand of bribe said to have been made by the accused, as pointed out earlier. 16. Now coming to the prosecution case in respect of the trap leading to the recovery of the tainted currency notes, M.O.1 series, it is to be stated, at the outset, that the entire trap proceeding is surrounded by doubts and improbabilities. The fact remains that in respect of the receipt of the illegal gratification of ` 500/- by the accused, the prosecution case is left with the sole and solitary evidence of P.W.2 alone as it is already pointed out that even as per the admitted version of P.W.4, he was taken outside the office of the accused by P.W.2 and thereafter, he was hiding himself near the office of the Village Administrative Officer. It is not the version of P.W.4 that he has seen the transaction of handing over the amount by P.W.2 to the accused. 17. As far as P.W.2 is concerned, his version is also surrounded by serious doubts in respect of method and manner as to how he has handed over the money to the accused. P.W.2 has claimed that after taking P.W.4 outside the office, he came back to the office of the accused and at that time, the accused was standing outside the office and chatting with his mother and other women-folk. It is pertinent to note that none of them have been examined by the prosecution. It is the version of P.W.2 that the amount was handed over to the accused outside the office and after counting the currency notes, the accused has put the amount, into his shirt pocket and thereafter, he went inside the office. It is pertinent to note that none of them have been examined by the prosecution. It is the version of P.W.2 that the amount was handed over to the accused outside the office and after counting the currency notes, the accused has put the amount, into his shirt pocket and thereafter, he went inside the office. If the said version of P.W.2 is true to the effect that he has handed over the money while the accused was standing outside the office, nothing prevented the raiding party headed by P.W.8 and P.W.4, who were hiding themselves near the office of the accused to witness the same, but they have not, whispered a word about seeing P.W.2 handing over the amount to the accused while, they were standing outside the office. This aspect raises serious doubt about the version of the prosecution regarding the receipt of the currency notes by the accused. 18. It is also relevant to note that as per the version of P.W.8, soon after handing over the money to the accused, P.W.2 gave the pre-arranged signal and he rushed to the office of the accused within a minute and thereafter, questioned the accused after introducing himself and ultimately recovered the amount in between two papers of a file kept on the table of the accused. It is pertinent to note that the phenolphthalein test conducted by P.W.8 proved positive only in respect of the fingers of the right hand of the accused and not in respect of the fingers of the left hand as it is categorically stated by P.W.4 in his chief examination that after dipping the fingers of the left hand of the accused, he is not able to see the solution turning pink. If the version of P.W.2 that the accused after receiving the amount counted the same, the phenolphthalein test could have been proved positive in respect of both the hands of the accused. 19. Yet another important aspect to be borne in mind of this court is that P.W.8 stated that, on enquiry, the accused informed him that he has received the amount and kept it in his pocket and after seeing the raiding party, he has removed and placed it under the file. This Court is of the considered view that such version of the prosecution is unbelievable. This Court is of the considered view that such version of the prosecution is unbelievable. As it is already pointed out that the accused was inside the office and P.W.8 along with his raiding party rushed to the office of the accused within a minute after receiving the pre-arranged signal and as such, it is highly improbable for the accused to remove the notes; and keep the same in between the papers of a file lying on his table. If such version of P.Ws.4 and 8 is true, both of them could have very well seen the accused taking the amount from his pocket and keeping the same in between the papers of a file. All these serious doubts, probabilises the explanation given by the accused that the amount was planted by P.W.2 while he was away. 20. At the risk of repetition, it is to be reiterated that admittedly the accused was moving out of office and P.W.2 was also away by taking P.W.4 and came back to the office of the accused and at that time, the accused was chatting with several people, viz., mother of P.W.2 and others and as such, the possibilities of P.W.2 planting currency notes into the file behind the back of the accused cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the accused has come forward with a probable explanation. 21.0 At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. 21.1 In Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas (2006) 1 SCC (Cr) 520 : (2005) 12 SCC 576 the Hon‘ble Apex Court has confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the High court on the ground that absence of proof of demand and doubts and improbabilities in the prosecution version as to trap. The Hon‘ble Apex Court in that decision has held as hereunder: “ 36. In this case demand of illegal gratification by the respondent has not been proved..... 37. NarsingaRao v. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691 relied upon by Mr. Sharan, was rendered having regard to the contention raised therein that it was not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant, to make it as acceptance of gratification ; prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification. Sharan, was rendered having regard to the contention raised therein that it was not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant, to make it as acceptance of gratification ; prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification. ” The Hon‘ble Apex Court in the said decision has agreed with the finding of the High Court in respect of the doubts and improbabilities regarding the trap conducted by the prosecution- and confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. 21.2 The Hon‘ble Apex Court in VenkatasubbaRao v. State (supra) has also disbelieved the prosecution version in view of the illegalities in the trap proceedings holding that the manner in which the trap proceedings were undertaken is questionable and ultimately set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision has held as hereunder: “ 14.Illegalities committed in the trap proceedings are galore. The complaint, Exhibit P-3 was made on 11-12-1988. P.W.2 did not state that he was asked to report on the next day. 15. According to P.W.2, he had attended his office on 12.12.1988 at 2.30 p.m., but the documentary evidence brought on records established that he met the Inspector at 12.30 p.m. According to P.W.6, it takes at least 2 to 3 hours to commence pre-trap proceedings, but in this case it was arranged within 40 minutes. The trap party proceeded in an official car. Eight persons travelled in the same car. Why so many persons travelled in one car, is not explained. Why so many persons had to travel together is also beyond our comprehension. A trap proceeding envisages secrecy and not a wide publicity. It reached Chodavaram at about 6.10 p.m. P.W.2, admittedly, was not travelling with them. He was taken to the spot by the said Shri Ram Murthy. 16. P.W.2 did not know D.W.1 at all. It was D.W.1 who not only led the raiding party to the house of the appellant, he pressed the call bell also. Why services of an unknown person, who was not known to P.W.2, were taken, remained to be explained. Even the circumstances in which his services had to be obtained were not disclosed. 17. The appellant, at that time, had already taken his dinner. Why services of an unknown person, who was not known to P.W.2, were taken, remained to be explained. Even the circumstances in which his services had to be obtained were not disclosed. 17. The appellant, at that time, had already taken his dinner. They were, allegedly, taken inside a bedroom, which is again wholly unlikely. 18. According to P.W.2, after him several other persons entered the room whom he did not know. Why persons who were not connected with the raid gathered and entered into the room and even could know in which room the money was lying is a mystery. 19.Although, according to P.W.2, he and the appellant met in one room alone, when the Inspector asked him to disclose as to where the money was, response came from three other persons and not from the appellant. Strangely P.W.2 did not disclose the fact of availability of the money in a particular room to the Inspector. ” By pointing out the said infirmities and improbabilities in respect of the trap, the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra disbelieved the prosecution case. 21.3 The Honble Apex Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI AIR 2009 SC 2022 : 2009 (2) SCC (Cri.) 1 : (2009) 3 MLJ (Crl) 341 placing reliance on the earlier decision in SurajMai v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1979 SC 1408 : 1980 SCC (Cri.) 159 : (1980) 1 MLJ (Crl) 73 has held that, “ ....mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the-case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against tha accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. ” 21.4 In State of Maharashtra v. Dayaneshwar Laxman Rao Wandhede (supra), the Hon‘ble Apex Court-has held as hereunder: “ 21.Even in a case where the burden is on the accused, it is well known,, the prosecution must prove the foundational facts. (See NoorAga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417 and JayendraVishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 7 SCC 104 ). (See NoorAga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417 and JayendraVishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 7 SCC 104 ). ” 21.5 The Hon‘ble Apex Court, in State of Maharashtra v. Dayaneshwar Laxman Rao Wandhede (supra) has held as hereunder; “ For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-à-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and, not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. ” The principle laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra are also squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case aa in this case also the trap proceedings is surrounded by doubts and improbabilities. 22.0 It is also relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. 22.1 The Hon‘ble Apex Court in TrilokChand v. State of Delhi AIR 1977 SC 668 : 1975 SCC (Cr) 725 has held that, “ The degree and the character of the burden of proof which Section 4(1) casts on an accused person to rebut the presumption raised thereunder, cannot, be equated with the degree and character of proof which under Section 101 , Evidence Act rests on the prosecution..... In other words, the accused may rebut the presumption by showing a mere preponderance of probability in his favour: it is not necessary for him to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt. ” 22.2 In yet another decision in Man Singh v. Delhi Admn. AIR 1979 SC 1455 : 1979 SCC (Cr) 528 : (1980) 1 MLJ (Crl) 52 , the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held as hereunder at p. 53 of MLJ (Crl): “ 2. ” 22.2 In yet another decision in Man Singh v. Delhi Admn. AIR 1979 SC 1455 : 1979 SCC (Cr) 528 : (1980) 1 MLJ (Crl) 52 , the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held as hereunder at p. 53 of MLJ (Crl): “ 2. …..It is well-settled that in such cases the accused is not required to prove his defence by the strict standard of proof of reasonable doubt but it is sufficient if he offers an explanation or defence which is probable and once this is done, the presumption under Section 4 stands rebutted. ” …. ” 22.3 In State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan and Another VII (2000) SLT 266 the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held as follows: “ the version of planting the amount by the prosecution witness is probabilised coupled with the fact that the prosecution version of the demand of bribe and the circumstances under which the said demand was made is suspect. ” 22.4 The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India has held in Pumjabraov. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 486 : 2004 SCC (Cr) 1130 as follows: “ 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 the explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability. ... It is, of course, true as observed by the High Court that when the investigating officer seized the amount from the accused Patwari, he did not after the explanation that it was in relation to a collection of loan, but that by itself would not be sufficient to throw away the explanation offered by the accused in his statement under Section 313 when such explanation could be held to be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case. ” 22.5. ” 22.5. The principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra are also squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also the accused has come forward with a reasonable and probable explanation not only by putting suggestions to the witnesses, but also raised such a plea during questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused has rebutted the presumption contemplated under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by placing reliance on the answers elicited from the prosecution witnesses as well as by the circumstances and preponderance of probabilities. 23. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court has come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Cuddalore, dated 16.8.2005 made in Special Case No. 5 of 1999 is hereby set aside. Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to the appellant. Bail bonds executed, if any, shall stand terminated.