Judgment :- 1. The appeal has been arising out of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.C.No.31 of 2004, on 24.03.2010, convicting the appellants/A.1 and A.2 under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act; and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The respondent has laid a final report against the first accused/K.Chinnamadhan, alleging that on 06.05.2002, R.Kandasamy, the de facto complainant had appeared for practical Government Industrial Training Institute Apprenticeship examination for the post of turner at Government Industrial Training Institute, Mint, Chennai-21. After completing the examination, the first accused working as Junior Training Officer, while serving as Invigilator in the said institute, had demanded Rs.400/- from the said Kandasamy for him as gratification other than legal remuneration for awarding good marks and time adjustment in the practical training. Since the said Kandasamy was not having such amount, the first accused had collected the identity card of Kandasamy on 06.05.2002 and kept it in his possession with an assurance that he would return the attendance cum identity card to him as soon as the said gratification amount demanded by him was paid to him. On 08.05.2002, at about 3.15 p.m., when Kandasamy along with official witness Chandrasekaran entered into the Government I.T.I., Mint, Chennai, met the first accused. By that time, the first accused reiterated his demand and when Kandasamy was about to pay Rs.400/-to A.1, the first accused directed the said Kandasamy to hand over the said money to one Haridoss, a student studying in the same I.T.I. At the instance of A.1, Haridoss received the amount of Rs.400/- for and on behalf of A.1 as gratification other than legal remuneration. Thus, A.1 has committed an offence of criminal misconduct by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position as a public servant obtained Rs.400/-from the said Kandasamy thereby the the first accused appears to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The respondent has also laid a final report against the second accused/M.Anbazhagan alleging that the second accused working as Assistant Training Officer has demanded money from one Muthukumar and Sankar Ganesh a sum of Rs.400/- as gratification other than legal remuneration for awarding good marks and time adjustment in the practical training for the post of turner to be held on 06.05.2002 and that thereby the second accused collected the hall tickets of the said Muthukumar and Sankar Ganesh and thereby the second accused being a public servant by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his official position obtained Rs.200/- from one Govindarajalu as pecuniary advantage for himself and thereby the second accused appears to have committed the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. The learned trial Judge, after following the procedures, has framed necessary charges. Since the accused/the appellants were pleaded not guilty, the learned trial Judge examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.22. M.O.1 to M.O.8 were also produced before the trial Court. 5. The prosecution case on the basis of the evidence is as follows:- The first accused was working as Junior Training Officer and A.2 was working as Assistant Training Officer at Government Industrial Training Institute, Mint, Chennai. A.1 and A.2 are public servants as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. P.W.2-R.Kandasamy, the de facto complainant, P.W.3-K.Muthukumar, P.W.6-J.Sekar and P.W.7-Govindarajalu and P.W.9-D.Sankar Ganesh are the students, who were appeared in the written examinations held from 22.04.2002 to 02.05.2002 and practical examinations held from 03.05.2002 to 06.05.2002; that 04.05.2002 and 05.05.2002 are holidays. Ex.P.11 is the Work Allotment Register concerned to A.2. As per Ex.P.11, A.1 was Invigilator for P.W.2-R.Kandasamy. That P.W.2 is having his Attendants Particulars and Identity Card and the same is marked as Ex.P.3. Work Allotment Register is marked as Ex.P.4. Ex.P.11 is the Work Allotment Register concerned to A.2. As per Ex.P.11, A.1 was Invigilator for P.W.2-R.Kandasamy. That P.W.2 is having his Attendants Particulars and Identity Card and the same is marked as Ex.P.3. Work Allotment Register is marked as Ex.P.4. P.W.2 has completed his practical examinations from 03.05.2002 to 06.05.2002 and the first accused has demanded Rs.400/- from him as gratification other than legal remuneration for awarding good marks and time adjustment in the practical training for the post of turner to be held on 06.05.2002. After completing the examinations, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.9 are sent a complaint to the Principal of the said ITI under Ex.P.5, dated 07.05.2002. On 08.05.2002, P.W.2 went to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office at about 10.00 a.m., and gave a complaint under Ex.P.5. On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.12, Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.4/AC/2002/CC-2 for a offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and prepared a printed F.I.R., under Ex.P.18. Then, on the instruction from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.12 conducted the trap proceedings and sent a communication to the Forest Department as well as to the Highways Department to secure the witnesses. P.W.5, Junior Draftsman from Highways Department and one Gnanaguru met P.W.12 at 11.30 a.m. P.W.2 was introduced by P.W.12 to the witnesses and after that they satisfied with the contents of the complaint. Thereafter, P.W.12 asked P.W.2 about the money to be given as bribe. P.W.2 handed over M.O.1 bribe amount to P.W.12, who in turn given the same to P.W.5 and Gnanaguru to count the same. Then, P.W.12 has prepared Sodium Corbonate solution in a clean glass tumbler and asked the witness P.W.5-K.Chandrasekaran to count M.O.1 and dip his fingers in the sodium carbonate solution and he demonstrated the Phenolphthalein test. Then, he prepared the Entrustment Mahazar under Ex.P.7 and handed over the money after dipping into the phenolphthalein and instructed P.W.2 to give M.O.1 to the accused only on demand. He also directed P.W.5 to accompany P.W.2. Then they proceeded to Government I.T.I., Mint, Chennai. Then, P.W.2 and P.W.5 met the first accused. While so, A.1 demanded Rs.400/-from P.W.2. When the money was handed over by P.W.2, A.1 directed P.W.2 to pay the money to P.W.4-Haridoss, a student of I.T.I. As such, M.O.1 was paid to P.W.4-Haridoss and received back Ex.P.3-Attendance particulars cum Hall ticket. Then they proceeded to Government I.T.I., Mint, Chennai. Then, P.W.2 and P.W.5 met the first accused. While so, A.1 demanded Rs.400/-from P.W.2. When the money was handed over by P.W.2, A.1 directed P.W.2 to pay the money to P.W.4-Haridoss, a student of I.T.I. As such, M.O.1 was paid to P.W.4-Haridoss and received back Ex.P.3-Attendance particulars cum Hall ticket. Immediately, P.W.2 and P.W.5 came out of the said Government ITI and gave a signal about the payment of bribe amount. Immediately, P.W.12 along with team of officials entered into the said Government ITI and asked P.W.2 and P.W.5 to identify A.1. Then, P.W.12 has introduced himself after A.1 was identified by P.W.2. Then, P.W.12 again prepared sodium carbonate solution into two clean glasses and asked P.W.4-Haridoss to dip his hands into the said solution. When P.W.4 dipped his right hand finger, the solution changed into pink colour. But, the solution colour did not change when P.W.4 dipped his left hand finger. Then, P.W.12 has conducted search on the first accused and found Rs.960/- and he recovered the same under the recovery Mahazar-Ex.P.9. During the course of the same transaction, when P.W.12 and the said witnesses were present in the Government Industrial Training Institute, P.W.3-Muthukumar, P.W.9-Sankar Ganesh reported to P.W.12 that A.2 also involved the same allegation that he has collected money from the students Rs.400/-each and also detained the hall tickets of the students, who are not paid the money as demanded by him. P.W.12 conducted search on A.2 and found Rs.850/- being stated to be received from the students and thereafter P.W.2 searched the cupboard drawer of A.2 and in that he found the hall tickets of P.Ws.3, 7 and 9 and also found Ex.P.19-Tool Receipt Papers 22 numbers and the same were recovered under cover of mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. He also recovered Ex.P.4-Work Allotment Register in respect of A.1 from P.W.8-S.Subramanian and Ex.P.3-Attendance particulars and Identity Card of P.W.2 in the presence of witnesses under Ex.P.9-Seizer Mahazar. After completion of the trap proceedings, P.W.12 arrested the accused and furnished the copy of Ex.P.9 to them and obtained their signature for proof of the receipt. (ii)P.W.12 searched the house of A.1 at Ayanavaram and the house of A.2 at Royapettah in their presence but, no incriminating document was seized. He prepared Search Lists at the residence of the accused under Exs.P.20 and P.21. (ii)P.W.12 searched the house of A.1 at Ayanavaram and the house of A.2 at Royapettah in their presence but, no incriminating document was seized. He prepared Search Lists at the residence of the accused under Exs.P.20 and P.21. Then, on 09.05.2002, the accused were sent to judicial custody. He also prepared Rough Sketch-Ex.P.22 that has been received by P.W.13-G.Ravichandran, Inspector of Police, for investigation. P.W.12 sent a requisition to the learned Principal Sessions-cum-Special Judge, Chennai, to forward M.O.2 to M.O.5 to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, Mylapore, for examination. That requisition sent by the Court is marked as Ex.P.14. Acknowledgment given by the Forensic Laboratory is marked as Ex.P.15 and Chemical Report received is marked as Ex.P.16. Letter sent by the Forensic Science Laboratory is marked as Ex.P.17. Hall Tickets of P.W.3 are marked as Exs.P.6 and P.8. Hall Ticket of P.W.7 is marked as Ex.P.12 and Hall Ticket of P.W.9 is marked as Ex.P.13. P.W.13, Inspector of Police, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after obtaining necessary sanction from P.W.1, P.W.13 laid a final report against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence, has placed the incriminating evidence before the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/Accused 1 and 2 has submitted that there is no necessity for the accused/appellants for demanding bribe amount since they are not the competent persons to award marks. Furthermore, both written and practical examinations have been over on 06.05.2002 and the complaint has been given only on 08.05.2002. Hence, there is no necessity for them to demand money. The learned counsel questioned about the sanction that has not been accorded by the competent authority. P.W.1 is the Joint Director and only the Director is a competent authority to accord sanction. He further submitted that the demand was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the accused have not received the bribe amount. So, there is no acceptance of the amount. The amount has not been recovered from the accused. P.W.1 is the Joint Director and only the Director is a competent authority to accord sanction. He further submitted that the demand was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the accused have not received the bribe amount. So, there is no acceptance of the amount. The amount has not been recovered from the accused. Hence, the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. He further submitted that there is no complaint that A.2 has demanded money for awarding more marks and adjusting the time for practical examination. He further submitted that the practical examination has been over on 06.05.2002. Since the witnesses P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 9 are not the students of the ITI, they are coming from other side, it is the duty of the Invigilator to collect the hall tickets from them. After finishing of the examination only, the call tickets will be handed over to the students and that factum has not been considered by the trial Court. The trial Court has failed to consider the explanation submitted the appellants/accused. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed for allowing of this appeal. 8. Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the demand has been proved by the examination of P.W.2 that has been corroborated by P.Ws.3, 7 and 9 in respect of demand made by A.1 and A.2 respectively. There is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 9. It is true that the amount has been accepted by P.W.4-Haridoss. The test was ended in positive. Only on the instruction of the first accused, P.W.4 has received the bribe amount. So, the recovery has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there is no motive for the students to give a false complaint against the accused. Once the amount was accepted and recovered, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could be invoked. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 Crl.L.J. 3433 [Subbu Singh Vs. State by Public Prosecutor]. He further submitted that presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 Crl.L.J. 3433 [Subbu Singh Vs. State by Public Prosecutor]. He further submitted that presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts. In support of the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2001 Crl.L.J. 515 [M.Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh] and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2042 [State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V.C.Uma Maheswara Rao]. He further submitted that passing of money may be proved by way of circumstantial evidence and it is not necessary by direct evidence. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this appeal. 9. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and perusal of records admittedly A.1 and A.2/appellants are concerned, A.1 is the Junior Training Officer and A.2 is the Assistant Training Officer at Government Industrial Training Institute, North Madras, Chennai. Admittedly, P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 9 are the students, who were appearing in the written examinations in the Government ITI, Mint, from 22.04.2002 to 02.05.2002 and practical examinations from 03.05.2002 to 06.05.2002. As per the evidence of P.W.2, 04.05.2002 and 05.05.2002 are holidays. As per Ex.P.3-Attendance particulars and Identity Card of P.W.2, he is having 240 days of attendance. Ex.P.4 is Work Allotment Register. As per Ex.P.4, P.W.2 did his practical examination on 03.05.2002 in between 9.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., and on 06.05.2002 in between 9.00 a.m., and 9.30 p.m. That factum also is not disputed. He did his practical in the presence of A.1, the first appellant herein. As per Ex.P.11-Work Allotment Register, P.W.3-K.Muthu Kumar has attended his practical examination at 9.30 a.m. on 03.05.2002 and 10.15 a.m. on 06.05.2002. Admittedly, the practical examination has been over on 06.05.2002. Hall tickets of P.W.3-Muthukumar, P.W.7-Govindarajalu, and P.W.9-D.Sankar Ganesh were found in the drawer of A.2. It is also pertinent to note that the complaint has been given only on 08.05.2002 i.e., after the completion of examination. As per the evidence given by P.W.1-R.Veluchamy, Joint Director and P.W.8-S.Subramaniam, Training Officer, the accused 1 and 2 are not the competent persons to award marks and allot time for doing practical examination. Furthermore, as already stated above, the practical examination has been completed on 06.05.2002 itself. As per the evidence given by P.W.1-R.Veluchamy, Joint Director and P.W.8-S.Subramaniam, Training Officer, the accused 1 and 2 are not the competent persons to award marks and allot time for doing practical examination. Furthermore, as already stated above, the practical examination has been completed on 06.05.2002 itself. P.W.8-Subramaniam, in his cross-examination, has stated that the appellants are not the competent persons to assess the attendance register and award marks in the examination. So, the accused are only the invigilators because they are working in the Government ITI, Mint, Chennai. Now, this Court has to consider whether the demand has been proved by the prosecution?. It is well settled principles of law that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but whereas the defence has been proved only by preponderance of probabilities. But, here to prove the demand made by the accused, P.W.2-R.Kandasamy alone has been examined as if that A.1 has demanded money from him. P.W.2, in his chief examination, has stated that when he gone for practical examination, A.1 has demanded money and received Rs.400/-from him. When he questioned why he demanded money, he has stated for awarding marks and making time adjustment. But in his cross examination, he has not mentioned the date when the first demand has been made. But, at this juncture, it is appropriate to consider Ex.P.5-complaint addressed to the Principal of Government Industrial Training Institute, North Madras, dated 07.05.2002. It appears from Ex.P.5, that P.W.2-R.Kandasamy, P.W.3-K.Muthukumar, P.W.6-J.Sekar and one S.Babu have prepared the complaint but they have never stated in which date the accused have demanded the money. After that, only on 08.05.2002 P.W.2 has given a complaint under Ex.P.5. Except the Ipse dixit of P.W.2 no other evidence is available to the demand made by the accused. It is one more adding circumstance is that the amount has not been received by the first accused. The amount has been received by P.W.4, who is the student of the Government ITI, North Madras. Merely because there is no enmity between the students and the Masters viz., accused 1 and 2, there is no need for them to give a false complaint against the accused. But, the above argument of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) does not merit acceptance. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Merely because there is no enmity between the students and the Masters viz., accused 1 and 2, there is no need for them to give a false complaint against the accused. But, the above argument of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) does not merit acceptance. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Except Ipse dixit of P.W.2 no other evidence is available for the demand made by the first accused. In respect of A.2, no complaint has been given by P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.9. At the time of trap proceedings only, P.W.3 met P.W.12-Trap Laying Officer and intimated the fact that A.2 also retaining his hall ticket on demanding money. But admittedly, there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that A.1 and A.2 have demanded money as gratification other than legal remuneration. 10. Now, this Court has to see whether the prosecution has proved the acceptance. Admittedly, neither A.1 nor A.2 has accepted the tainted money and only P.W.4 has received the money. P.W.2, in his chief examination, has stated that on the instruction of A.1, he has handed over the money to P.W.4-Haridoss. P.W.4, also in his chief examination, has stated that he has received the money from P.W.2 on the instruction of A.1. But he handed over the same to A.1. Then, A.1 had returned back the amount to P.W.4. It is appropriate to incorporate the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4. Evidence of P.W.2 "TAMIL" Evidence of P.W.4 "TAMIL" 11. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.12, Trap Laying Officer. He has stated that the Sodium Carbonate test has been negatived. No colour changed in respect of the first accused. In his cross examination, he has specifically stated that no colour changed in the hands of A.1. But whereas P.W.11-Mariya Selvi Rosalin, it is stated in her Opinion-Ex.P.16 that the Sodium Carbonate test has been proves to be positive. In such circumstances, there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.12. Since there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.W.12 and Ex.P.16, the prosecution has not proved that material objects sent to the Forensic Department for examination is collected during the trap proceedings. 12. Admittedly, A.1 has not received the tainted money. So, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the acceptance of the tainted money by the first appellant/first accused. 12. Admittedly, A.1 has not received the tainted money. So, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the acceptance of the tainted money by the first appellant/first accused. It is true that the money has been recovered only from P.W.4. But during the investigation, P.W.12 has recovered some amount in the hands of A.1 and A.2. But it is not the tainted money. But whereas in the recovery mahazar, it was stated that the amount has been collected by A.1 and A.2 from the students. But that cannot be taken as if that the amount has been received by the accused as illegal gratification from the students. 13. At the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the first accused has stated that the amount seized from him are belonging to him. In such circumstances, as already stated, the explanation given by the first accused is acceptable one. Admittedly, as per the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5, it is proved that the amount has not been accepted by A.1. In such circumstances, it is not fair on the part of the Court to conclude that the first accused has received the bribe amount. 14. At this juncture, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has contended that once it is proved by the prosecution that the money was demanded as bribe, the same was received from P.W.2, Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into play. It is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as bribe. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraph No.12 of the judgment reported in 2009 Crl.L.J. 3433. "12.So far as the stand that money was kept for the purpose of false implicating, the same is without substance. The accused was a police officer who knew the consequences of the bribe. He had not explained as to why he took up the money in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused stated that the P.W.2 took the money because the Inspector asked him to do so. The normal conduct would have been to take action against PW2 for offering bribe. Additionally, if matter was closed there was no need for going to the field. It is to be noted that the appellant was alone in his room for sometime holding the currency notes before P.W.26 and other officer entered into the house. The normal conduct would have been to take action against PW2 for offering bribe. Additionally, if matter was closed there was no need for going to the field. It is to be noted that the appellant was alone in his room for sometime holding the currency notes before P.W.26 and other officer entered into the house. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, the possibility of appellant counting the money with the help of right hand cannot be ruled out. Once it is proved by the prosecution that the money was demanded as bribe and the same was received from PW2, Section 20 of the Act comes into play. Once there is a presumption as contemplated under Section 20, it is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as bribe." But the above citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the accused are not received the bribe amount. 15. In paragraph Nos.17 and 22 of the judgment reported in 2001 Crl.L.J. 515 [M.Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- "17.Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts. While inferring the existence of a fact from another, the Court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. But it could as well be final if it remains undisturbed later. Presumption in Law of Evidence is a rule indicating the stage of shifting the burden of proof. From a certain fact or facts the Court can draw an inference and that would remain until such inference is either disproved or dispelled. 22. ... It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to the only inference that the money was obtained by the accused from PW3. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. One of the illustrations to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the Court may presume that a person who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession." 16. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 873 [Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration)] and submitted that it is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. In paragraph No.9 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- "9.It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to the only inference that the money was obtained by the accused from P.W.3. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. One of the illustrations to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the Court may presume that a person who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. So too, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Court may presume that the accused who took out the currency notes from his pocket and flung them across the wall had obtained them from P.W.3, who a few minutes earlier was shown to have been in possession of the notes. So too, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Court may presume that the accused who took out the currency notes from his pocket and flung them across the wall had obtained them from P.W.3, who a few minutes earlier was shown to have been in possession of the notes. Once we arrive at the finding that the accused had obtained the money from P.W.3, the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is immediately attracted. The presumption is of course rebuttable but in the present case there is no material to rebut the presumption. The accused was, therefore, rightly convicted by the Courts below." 17. But admittedly, as already stated, the amount has been received only by P.W.4. As per the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5, the amount has been received by P.W.4. But the evidence of P.W.4 is not trustworthy because no Teacher or Master has received the amount through the students and they will not implicate the students in the illegal activities. The circumstances of the case has clearly proved that the receipt of the money by P.W.4-Haridoss is not on behalf of A.1, because, the practical examination has been over on 06.05.2002 itself and that the accused are not the competent persons to award marks and adjusting the time. The practical examination has been over on 06.05.2002 itself. Therefore, there is no necessity for the accused to demand money. 18. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved either by way of direct or indirect evidence that the amount received by P.W.4 is on behalf of A.1 on demand made by A.1. Since the amount has not been accepted by the accused, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invoked. As narrated above, the prosecution has neither proved the demand nor proved the acceptance and recovery from the accused. So, the trial Court has erred in concluding that the amount received by P.W.4 is on behalf of A.1. So, I am of the view that the prosecution is not entitled to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. So, I am of the view that the prosecution is not entitled to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is erroneous, hence it is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. 19. In fine, The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No.31 of 2004 by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 24.03.2010 is hereby set aside. The fine amount paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. The bail bond executed shall stand cancelled.