Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1381 (MAD)

K. B. Madhavan v. State

2012-03-16

R.MALA

body2012
Judgment 1. The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 14.11.2005, made in Spl. C.C.No.3 of 2003, on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, whereby the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for each offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and the accused shall run both the sentences concurrently. 2. The respondent Police has filed a final report stating that on 26.03.2002, at about 10.00 a.m., at the Government Industrial Training Institute, Coimbatore, the accused, who is the Assistant Training Officer, Related Instruction Centre (South), Government I.T.I., a public servant, demanded a sum of Rs.200/-as gratification other than legal remuneration from P.W.2-Selvan, for processing his application and to arrange for getting hall ticket to appear for All India Trade Test and in continuation of his earlier demand, on 27.03.2002, at about 1.30 p.m., made a subsequent demand and accepted Rs.200/- from P.W.2 as bribe by abusing his official position and obtained the above amount as pecuniary advantage and therefore, committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988. 3. The case of the prosecution on the basis of the witness is as follows: (i) The Government Industrial Training Institute at Coimbatore, is imparting training to students in different technical trades such as fitter, turner, electrician, welder etc. During the year 2002, P.W.4-Kuthalampillai was working as Assistant Director of that Institution, P.W.5-Mariapitchai Muthu was working as Assistant Apprentice Supervisor and P.W.7-Dhanapal was working as Assistant Training Officer of the Centre along with the accused K.S.Madhavan, who was also working as Assistant Training Officer. The accused imparting training to the students for M.M.V., I.M., R.M.A.C. etc. branches. Apart from that, the accused was entrusted with the duties of maintaining the attendance register of the students, supervising the work of the part time instructors, verification of records and application of the students and forwarding them to the Assistant Director. During the time of examination, the Assistant Director will issue an application form, challan for remittance of examination fees for the apprenticeship trainees intending to appear examination. During the time of examination, the Assistant Director will issue an application form, challan for remittance of examination fees for the apprenticeship trainees intending to appear examination. The fees for the examination during the relevant period is Rs.100/-. The accused who is the Assistant Training Officer will affix his signature in the challan and after remittance of the necessary amount by the students into the Treasury, the challan will be submitted to the Assistant Director, namely, P.W.4. The accused would verify the head of account and hall ticket would be issued on the date prior to the examination. (ii) P.W.2-Selvan, who underwent fitter trade training in the above I.T.I., was later provided apprenticeship training in "PRICOL" Company (Premier Instruments Control Ltd.,) Coimbatore, for the period from 16.03.2001 to 15.03.2002. When Ex.P5-Agreement was entered into between P.W.2 and the above said company, P.W.6-Arunachalam was the Additional Director in the office of the Regional Joint Director of Training, Coimbatore. P.W.8-Anita, Personal Officer of the PRICOL Company, issued Ex.P13-Attendance Certificate and Ex.P10-I.D. Card. (iii) On completion of the apprenticeship training, P.W.2-Selvan decided to appear for the All India Trade Test to be held in the month of April 2002 and approached the accused, who entrusted with the duty of issuing challan for the above purpose on 26.03.2002 in the Government I.T.I. at 10.00 a.m. The accused also issued a challan and directed P.W.2 to fill it up. Later the accused signed in the challan and instructed P.W.2 to remit the amount into the Treasury and come with Rs.200/- along with copies of the certificates. When P.W.2 enquired about the demand for Rs.200/-, the accused stated to him that every student should pay Rs.200/-as illegal gratification and then only he would verify the certificates and arrange for issuance of hall ticket for the examination. P.W.2 went to the sub-treasury (North), Coimbatore and remitted Rs.100/-. As he was not willing to pay bribe of Rs.200/-, he proceeded to the office of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Coimbatore and gave Ex.P2-complaint. P.W.2 went to the sub-treasury (North), Coimbatore and remitted Rs.100/-. As he was not willing to pay bribe of Rs.200/-, he proceeded to the office of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Coimbatore and gave Ex.P2-complaint. (iv) P.W.11-Inspector of Police, V & AC, who received the complaint from P.W.2 and on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Western Range, V & AC, Coimbatore, he registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2002/AC/CB under Section 7 of P.C. Act and prepared Ex.P3-F.I.R. Then P.W.11 procured the assistance of P.W.3-Arumugharajan, Supervisor, Agricultural Department, Coimbatore and Saravanan, Scientific Assistant Grade I, Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Race Course, Coimbatore, who agreed to be the witnesses for the trap proceedings. P.W.11 also forwarded F.I.R. along with the complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. Then P.W.2 was instructed to come on next day along with the bribe amount. (v) On 27.03.2002, at 8.30 a.m., P.W.11 introduced the above official witnesses to P.W.2-Selvan. Then P.W.3 and one Saravanan gone through F.I.R. and enquired P.W.2 and ascertained about the complaint made by P.W.2. P.W.2 produced two 100 Rupees notes (M.O.3 series). P.W.11 received the same and prepared Ex.P4- Entrustment Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses and also conducted phenolphthalein test on the above currency notes. The importance of phenolphthalein test was explained to the witnesses and P.W.2. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the above two currency notes and handed over to P.W.2, who kept it in his shirt pocket. P.W.2 was instructed that he should give the amount only on the demand made by the accused. P.W.11 was also instructed P.W.3-Arumugharajan to proceed to the office of the accused along with P.W.2-Selvan and observe and listen to the conversation between the accused and Selvan. P.W.11 also instructed P.W.2 to give pre-arranged signal after the accused demanded and received the amount. Thereafter, the witnesses and P.W.2 affixed their signatures in the entrustment mahazar. (vi) On the instruction of P.W.11, P.W.2 Selvan and the witnesses proceeded in vehicles to the Government I.T.I. and P.W.2, went to the Southern Block at 10.20 a.m. and P.W.3 was acted according to the previous instructions. P.W.2 entered into the accused room and P.W.3 was standing near the door of the accused room. P.W.2 Selvan informed to the accused that he was remitted the amount under the challan. The accused issued him an application form and hall ticket and directed him to fill it up. P.W.2 entered into the accused room and P.W.3 was standing near the door of the accused room. P.W.2 Selvan informed to the accused that he was remitted the amount under the challan. The accused issued him an application form and hall ticket and directed him to fill it up. P.W.3 was hearing and watching the proceedings, who was standing near the door. A male student and a girl student along with a part time instructor were also present in the room. After filling up the application form and affixing the photograph, P.W.2 handed over them to the accused, who demanded Rs.200/-. P.W.2 gave him M.O.3 series namely, the tainted amounts and the accused received the same in his right hand and put it in his rear side pant pocket. P.W.3 who was standing near the entrance door of the room, watched everything. Then the accused instructed P.W.2 to come and receive the hall ticket on 20th April. P.W.2 after came out of the room, made a pre-arranged signal. (vii) On seeing the above signal, P.W.11 and his party approached P.W.2 and P.W.3 and ascertained that the accused received the bribe amount from P.W.2. P.W.11 and his party entered into the room of the accused and introduced themselves to the accused. P.W.11-Inspector of Police conducted phenolphthalein test on the hands of the accused, which was found positive. Then he recovered the tainted amounts from the accused. At about 1.45 p.m., P.W.11 arrested the accused after informing the grounds of arrest and on further enquiry, the accused produced Rs.200/-, Rs.2,050/-and Rs.735/- from his front side pant pocket and one 100 rupees currency note and one Rs.50/- and five 10 rupees currency notes besides M.O.3 series currency notes, totaling Rs.3,385/-. Since the accused was not able to give proper explanation for the above amounts, P.W.11 recovered the above amounts and conducted the sodium carbonate test on the pant of the accused, which was marked as M.O.7. On further enquiry, the accused produced the application form, Challan, Copy of the certificates issued by the PRICOL Company, Copy of the I.T.I. Certificate, 10th and 12th Standard mark sheets, Transfer certificate, apprenticeship agreement, entry card with photo, original of the certificate issued by PRICOL Company and the same were recovered by P.W.11 under Ex.P6-Seizure mahazar. The hall ticket was marked as Ex.P9. The hall ticket was marked as Ex.P9. The accused also produced pieces of papers containing certain phone numbers, names and dates and the same were marked as Ex.P11 series. The Inspector recovered them in the presence of P.W.3 under Ex.P6-Seizure Mahazar and then he prepared rough sketch Ex.P17. (viii) After obtaining permission from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he conducted house search of the accused in the presence of P.W.3-Arumugharajan, one Saravanan and the wife of the accused. He recovered 16 documents from the almirah in the house and Rs.1,20,000/- under Ex.P7-House search list. He handed over the gold jewels and silver articles to the wife of the accused besides Rs.8,220/-and he issued a copy of the search list to the accused. (ix) P.W.12-Thangavelu, Inspector of Police, V & AC, took up the matter for further investigation. On 27.03.2002, he examined P.W.2, P.W.3 and another witness Saravanan and recorded their statements. He gave a requisition under Ex.P15 to the concerned Magistrate for sending the articles to the chemical analyst in the Forensic Science Lab with the covering letter dated 22.04.2002 under Ex.P16. P.W.9-Mariya Selvi Rosalene, conducted the chemical examination and gave Ex.P14-Report. After completing his investigation, P.W.12 obtained Ex.P1 sanction order from P.W.1-Joint Director of Employment Wing and filed a charge sheet against the accused. 4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence (i.e.) P.W.1 to P.W.12, Exs.P1 to P17, M.O.1 to M.O.7 against the accused were placed before him. He admitted the issuance of challan to P.W.2-Selvan, but denied the demand of bribe. The accused stated that he paid a sum of Rs.200/-to P.W.2 and asked him to remit the amount in the Sub-treasury, Coimbatore, for two students namely, Amudhavalli and Gokila for the forth coming examinations. But P.W.2 failed to remit the amount and handed over the same to him on 27.03.2002. The accused examined D.W.1-Isravel, Assistant Training Officer and D.W.2-Marudhachalam, a Former student of the Institute, in support of him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above, against which, the accused preferred an appeal. 5. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, Mr.B.Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the appellant is an innocent and he never made a demand. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above, against which, the accused preferred an appeal. 5. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, Mr.B.Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the appellant is an innocent and he never made a demand. It is true, he received Rs.200/-, but the amount has been given by the appellant/accused to P.W.2 for remitting the amount in Subtreasury, Coimbatore, for the examination fees of two students namely, Amudhavalli and Gokila, in order to help them. Since Gokila died, she was not examined. It is further submitted that a plausible explanation was given by the appellant/accused and that factum has not been considered by the Special Court. As per the dictum of the Apex Court, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But whereas the defence has proved the defence by preponderance of probabilities. To prove the defence, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined. He further submitted that most of the students are coming from rural area and they are poor people and in order to help them, the accused remitted the amount for the examination. He would further submit that the demand has not been proved and hence, he prayed for allowing of this appeal. To substantiate the same, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) 2011 (2) SCC (crl.) 1010 (State of Kerala and another v. C.P.Rao) (ii) 1990 SCC (crl) 627 : AIR 1990 SC 431 ( Tej Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P.) 6. Resisting the same, Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the prosecution has proved the demand made by the accused. The accused made a demand on 26.03.2002, which was cogently deposed by P.W.2-Selvan and the second demand made by the accused on 27.03.2002, was proved by the evidence of P.W.2, which has been corroborated by P.W.3, who is a trap witness and there is no evidence for discarding the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. It is further submitted that there is no enmity between the appellant/accused and P.W.2. So the evidence of P.W.2 is natural, cogent and hence it is reliable and trustworthy. It is further submitted that the house search proved that the accused possessed disproportionate wealth and that has been evidenced by the search list. It is further submitted that there is no enmity between the appellant/accused and P.W.2. So the evidence of P.W.2 is natural, cogent and hence it is reliable and trustworthy. It is further submitted that the house search proved that the accused possessed disproportionate wealth and that has been evidenced by the search list. Furthermore, other than the tainted amount of Rs.200/-, Rs.3,185/-has been recovered from the accused. But the accused is unable to give an explanation that how he possessed the amount, which was seized from him. It is further submitted that non examination of Amudhavalli, one of the girl students, is fatal to the case of the defence. Since the recovery of bribe amount has been proved, there is a presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act and that presumption is not rebutted by the appellant/accused. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) AIR 2007 SC 3106 ( Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of M.P.) (ii) 2006 (11) Scale 288 (B.Noha v. State of Kerala and another) 7. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record. 8. The appellant/accused was working as Assistant Training Officer in the Government I.T.I. P.W.1-Velusamy was working as Joint Director, Employment wing, Chennai, who is a competent person to appoint or remove the appellant. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has not challenged the competency of P.W.1 and validity of Ex.P1-sanction order. So Ex.P1 sanction order is valid in law. 9. Now this Court has to decide whether the demand has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt? At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the arguments of the learned senior counsel Mr.B.Kumar, who submitted that there is no need for the appellant/accused to demand money, since he was entrusted with the work to verify the documents and processing the application forms for examination and issuance of hall ticket. It is pertinent to note that examination fees is Rs.100/-. Before considering the evidence of P.W.2, this Court has to decide that whether the evidence of P.W.2 is reliable? There is no reason has been assigned for discarding the evidence of P.W.2. There is no suggestion has been posed before P.W.2 that there is an enmity between him and the accused. Before considering the evidence of P.W.2, this Court has to decide that whether the evidence of P.W.2 is reliable? There is no reason has been assigned for discarding the evidence of P.W.2. There is no suggestion has been posed before P.W.2 that there is an enmity between him and the accused. Since there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.2, on the cursory reading of the evidence of P.W.2, it would show that his evidence is natural, cogent and convincing and hence it is trustworthy and reliable. 10. P.W.2 stated that on 26.03.2002, he approached the accused for obtaining application form for forth coming examination and gave a challan and filled up the same. P.W.2 handed over the same to the accused and then the accused put his initial in the challan and handed over to P.W.2 and asked him to pay the examination fees before Sub-treasury, Coimbatore. After making remittance of examination fees, P.W.2 was directed to appear before him along with all the copies of certificates, including a sum of Rs.200/-. When P.W.2 questioned the accused as to why he was asked Rs.200/-, at the time, the accused stated that he asked Rs.200/-as a illegal remuneration for processing the application forms for examination and then only the students will get their hall tickets. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the accused demanded bribe on 26.03.2002. 11. While considering the cross-examination of P.W.2, in respect of demand made on 26.03.2002, no suggestion has been posed to him in his cross-examination. Per contra, it was alleged that on 26.03.2002, the accused himself gave Rs.200/- to P.W.2 to pay the examination fees for the two students namely, Amudhavalli and Gokila and remitted the amount into the Treasury. Since P.W.2 had not remitted the amount into the Treasury, the accused taken back that amount on 27.3.2002. Except this statement, no suggestion has been posed to the accused that whether he demanded any money on 26.03.2002. The second demand alleged to be made on 27.03.2002. P.W.2 in his chief examination he stated that on 27.03.2002, he gone to the office of the accused at 10.20 a.m. and approached the accused and intimated the fact that he paid examination fees in the Sub-Treasury. The second demand alleged to be made on 27.03.2002. P.W.2 in his chief examination he stated that on 27.03.2002, he gone to the office of the accused at 10.20 a.m. and approached the accused and intimated the fact that he paid examination fees in the Sub-Treasury. Then the accused directed him to come to his room at Southern Block, at 1.15 p.m. In pursuance of the same, P.W.2 gone to the accused room at 1.00 p.m. and he intimated the fact that he remitted the fees and shown him the challan and the accused handed over the hall ticket and application form and asked him to fill it up. P.W.3, a trap witness was standing near the door of the accused room and watched everything. At that time, one girl student, one boy student and one part time instructor were present in the room. Then P.W.2 filled up the application form and hall ticket and handed over the same to the accused, who received the same and demanded Rs.200/-and P.W.2 handed over the same and that has been witnessed by P.W.3, who was standing near the door. After receiving Rs.200/-, the accused intimated P.W.2 to get the hall ticket on 20th April. While considering the cross-examination of P.W.2, the accused never demanded the amount at 10.20 a.m., on 27.03.2002. At the time of alleged occurrence, one girl student, one boy student and one part time instructor were present in the room of the accused. The accused room is measuring 10 X 10 feet. P.W.2 fairly conceded that he had not given any complaint to the superior of the accused either on 26.03.2002 or 27.03.2002 in respect of the alleged demand made by the accused. A suggestion was posed to P.W.2 that the amount of Rs.200/-has been given by the accused with a direction to remit the amount to the Treasury in the names of Amudhavalli and Gokila, who are the girl students for their forth coming examination. But it was denied by P.W.2. 12. At this juncture, this Court has to consider whether the alleged demand made on 27.03.2002 has been corroborated by P.W.3 and whether his evidence is reliable? But P.W.3 is none other than the trap witness. But it was denied by P.W.2. 12. At this juncture, this Court has to consider whether the alleged demand made on 27.03.2002 has been corroborated by P.W.3 and whether his evidence is reliable? But P.W.3 is none other than the trap witness. P.W.3 in his evidence he stated that he was standing near the door of the accused room and the accused asked P.W.2 whether he brought the amount of Rs.200/- and immediately, P.W.2 handed over the same to the accused. But P.W.3 in his cross-examination, he stated that the accused did not demand any amount, when P.W.2 handed over the challan. He further stated that when they gone to the office of the accused, one girl student, one boy student and a part time instructor were present. He denied a suggestion that the accused had never demanded the money. 13. Now it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, reported in 1990 SCC (crl) 627 : AIR 1990 SC 431 ( Tej Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P.) and submitted that P.W.3's evidence is not reliable, because he has not stated that he is accompanying with P.W.2. He relied upon Para-9 of the Judgment and submitted that P.W.3 was standing near the door of the accused room. In such circumstances, sixth sense in every human being so as to detect the presence of another in such close surrounding. No prudent man would demand and receive bribe. To that effect, he relied upon para-9 of the above decision, which reads as follows: "9.) The third circumstance of significance is about the happening of the incident in the house of the complainant itself. Now when the appellant had entered the house an hour earlier before his scheduled visit, it cannot be expected that the members of trap party which were said to be sitting in the adjoining back room had become instantly stone-still so as to conceal their presence from the appellant. The dimensions of those two rooms 8 ft. x 8 ft. and 8 ft. x 12 ft. separated merely by a window and a door on which curtains were hanging are suggestive of the fact that if the happenings in one room could be known to the inmates of the other, the converse would also be true. The dimensions of those two rooms 8 ft. x 8 ft. and 8 ft. x 12 ft. separated merely by a window and a door on which curtains were hanging are suggestive of the fact that if the happenings in one room could be known to the inmates of the other, the converse would also be true. Relatively, if the members of the trap party could see and hear what was-happening in the drawing room through the curtains, the inmates of the drawing room could also see the presence of others in the connecting room, huddled as they were in that small space. The appellant in these circum-stances could not be expected to throw caution to winds and either ignore or become indifferent of the presence of the inmates of the adjoining room especially when both rooms were lit by electric tube lights and there was just a curtain intervening. Additionally, in such a situation there awakes the six sense in every human being so as to detect the presence of another in such close surrounding. The appellant could not have been so foolhardy to accept bribe in circumstances which were obviously suspicious, and that too in the house of the complainant, running the risk of being entrapped." But the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because the trap team were sitting besides the room of the accused in his house. But in the case on hand, on the alleged date itself, trap has been conducted in the office room of the accused at I.T.I. Considering the cross-examination of P.W.3, there is no reason for discarding his evidence. Hence, I am of the view, the demand of Rs.200/- made by the accused on 27.03.2002 has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 14. One more adding circumstance is that on 27.03.2002, other than the tainted amount of Rs.200/-, the accused possessed Rs.200/-, Rs.200/-, Rs.2,050/- and Rs.735/-, totaling, Rs.3,385/-. But the accused did not give any explanation for that amount. Furthermore, a search has been conducted in the house of the appellant/accused and the house search list was marked as Ex.P7, in which, Rs.1,28,220/- by cash has been found and Rs.8,220/- was handed over to the wife of the accused and recovered Rs.1,20,000/- . But the accused did not give any explanation for that amount. Furthermore, a search has been conducted in the house of the appellant/accused and the house search list was marked as Ex.P7, in which, Rs.1,28,220/- by cash has been found and Rs.8,220/- was handed over to the wife of the accused and recovered Rs.1,20,000/- . The tainted amount of Rs.200/-(M.O.3 series) has been recovered from the appellant under Seizure Mahazar Ex.P6 and M.O.3 tainted amount has been sent for chemical analysis under Exs.P15 and P16. P.W.9 has conducted the chemical test and issued Ex.P14-Chemical Report that too shows positive result. So the prosecution has entitled a presumption under Section 20 of P.C.Act, where the public servant accepts the gratification other than legal remuneration. In such circumstances, the appellant/accused has to give plausible explanation to prove that the amount was not a illegal gratification other than legal remuneration. 15. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reported in 2006 (11) Scale 288 (B.Noha v. State of Kerala and another) and submitted that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of money and if it is proved, there is no further burden cast upon the prosecution to prove the demand or motive. Further, he relied upon the decision reported in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2001 Cri.L.J. 175), which reads as follows: "The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted 'as motive or reward' for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the Court has to draw on the factual premises that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like 'gratification or any valuable thing'. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it. " It is not the case of the accused that the said amount was received by him as the amount which he was legally entitled to receive or collect from PW-1. It was held in the decision in State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy, that when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant, the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. That burden was not discharged by the accused. 16. For the same proposition, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) also relied upon the following decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 3106 ( Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of M.P.) and submitted that the accused had accepted the amount, it was wholly immaterial whether the said acceptance of amount was for him or for someone else. Even if an accused accepts the amount for someone else, he commits an offence. He further submitted that in the case on hand, the evidence of P.W.2 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.11-Trap Laying Officer. It was held in the above decision that the evidence of police Official is admissible and the presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the Magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration. 17. Considering the above decision, as per the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the tainted amount, which was recovered from the accused was consciously accepted by him. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.9-Chemical Analyst would also prove that the tainted amount was recovered from the accused. As per Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the accused received illegal gratification, so he has to rebut the presumption by way of giving plausible explanation. 18. Now this Court has to consider the explanation submitted by the appellant. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.9-Chemical Analyst would also prove that the tainted amount was recovered from the accused. As per Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the accused received illegal gratification, so he has to rebut the presumption by way of giving plausible explanation. 18. Now this Court has to consider the explanation submitted by the appellant. It is true, the defence has to be proved only by preponderance of probabilities not beyond reasonable doubt. Now this Court has to consider the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and Section 313 CrPC questioning and the explanation submitted by the appellant. When P.W.2 was in witness box, a suggestion was posed to him that the accused gave Rs.200/- to P.W.2 for paying examination fees for the students namely, Amudhavalli and Gokila. Since P.W.2 had not remitted that amount, the accused received back the amount. Admittedly, neither Amudhavalli nor Gokila were examined. Since Gokila died, it is not possible to examine her. But there was no reason has been assigned as to why Amudhavalli was not examined. It is to be noted that on 26.03.2002 itself, the complaint has been given by P.W.2 after he remitting the examination fees before the Sub-Treasury. 19. To prove the defence mentioned in the explanation, the accused examined D.W.2-Marudhachalam. In his evidence, he stated that on 27.03.2002, at 11.00 a.m., the accused called D.W.2 and intimated the fact that two students namely, Amudhavalli and Gokila were coming from Dindigul and on behalf of them, D.W.2 has to remit Rs.200/- to the Treasury and the accused gave Rs.200/-and two challans for the same. Thereafter, D.W.2 went to the Treasury and remitted the amount and returned back at 1.15 p.m. Then D.W.2 met the accused at his office room in the Southern block. At the time, the accused, Amudhavalli, Gokila, D.W.1 and P.W.2 were present in the room. P.W.2 entered into the room and handed over the challan and certificates to the accused. The accused told to P.W.2 that D.W.2 paid that amount in the Treasury and hence, P.W.2 handed over the amount of Rs.200/-to the accused. Considering the evidence of D.W.2, I am of the view, the evidence of D.W.2 is not reliable, because considering the cross-examination of P.W.2, he denied the suggestion that on 26.03.2002, the accused gave Rs.200/- to him for remitting examination fees for the students namely Amudhavalli and Gokila. Considering the evidence of D.W.2, I am of the view, the evidence of D.W.2 is not reliable, because considering the cross-examination of P.W.2, he denied the suggestion that on 26.03.2002, the accused gave Rs.200/- to him for remitting examination fees for the students namely Amudhavalli and Gokila. On 27.03.2002, the accused met P.W.2 at 10.20 a.m., at the time, the accused asked P.W.2 to come to his room at Southern Block at 1.15 p.m., but the accused did not question P.W.2 in respect of the payment of examination fees of Amudhavalli and Gokila. But P.W.2 has given a complaint even on 26.03.2002 after he remitting examination fees for himself before the Sub-Treasury. But as per the evidence of D.W.2, he stated that at 11.00 a.m., he was called by the accused and he gave Rs.200/- to remit the same in sub-treasury, which shows that the evidence of P.W.2 is contradictory to the version of D.W.2. In such circumstances, I am of the view, explanation offered by the appellant is not true, reliable and acceptable. Furthermore, Ex.P6-Seizure Mahazar shows that the appellant had possessed nearly Rs.3,185/-, on the date of trap, but he has not given any plausible explanation for the amount he possessed. 20. It is pertinent to note that at the time of questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that on 26.03.2002, he gave Rs.200/-to P.W.2. He further stated that he is having hearing problem (short of hear). Furthermore, in the house of the accused, Rs.1,20,000/- has been seized, but he has not given any explanation for the same. 21. D.W.1, who is the part time instructor, deposed that when he was inside the room of the accused, P.W.2 entered into the room and the accused told P.W.2 that he gave Rs.200/- to D.W.2 for remitting the same. So P.W.2 has returned back Rs.200/-to the accused. While considering the evidence of D.W.1, it shows that he wants to help his colleague. So it is not trustworthy and not reliable. 22. The evidence of P.W.2 would clearly prove that the accused demanded the money on 26.03.2002 and immediately he gave a complaint. The very next day, on 27.03.2002, a trap has been conducted and the accused made a demand at 1.15 p.m. and the same has been spoken by P.W.2, which was corroborated by P.W.3. The acceptance of money also proved by both the witnesses. The very next day, on 27.03.2002, a trap has been conducted and the accused made a demand at 1.15 p.m. and the same has been spoken by P.W.2, which was corroborated by P.W.3. The acceptance of money also proved by both the witnesses. The evidence of chemical analyst-P.W.9 has also proved that the result was positive and that the accused possessed the tainted amount. So the explanation offered by the appellant is not true and reliable. In such circumstances, the trial Court is correct in holding that the accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act. 23. Considering the quantum of sentence, the trial Court on considering the gravity of offence, sentenced the accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offences, which is fair and proper and it does not warrant any interference. Therefore, I am of the considered view, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is hereby confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. 24. In fine, The Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.11.2005 made in C.C.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The Bail bond executed by the appellant, if any, shall stand cancelled. The Special Court is directed to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.