Judgment : 1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No. 16/1995, which was pending in the Court of Special Judge, Aurangabad. By the decision dated 12.10.2000, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under section 7 and section 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C. Act' for short). Both the sides are heard. 2. The original complainant had complained to Fuse Call Center of M.S.E.B. in the first week of February 1995 that his meter of electricity was faulty. Accused/appellant Shri. Gaikwad and one Shri. Pardhi were working as Lineman, as public servant, in Fuse Call Center of M.S.E.B. They visited the residential place of the complainant to check the meter and after checking it, they expressed that the meter was burnt and so, there was need to replace the meter. These two Linemen informed the complainant that it was necessary for him to pay Rs. 400/-as the charges for replacement of the meter. The complainant gave Rs. 400/- to Shri. Pardhi on the same day. 3. In the second week of February 1995, Pardhi visited the residential place of complainant and shifted the place of meter, however, new meter was not fixed. On that day, Pardhi and Gaikwad demanded Rs. 265/-more from the complainant as shifting charges. The complainant was not having such amount with him on that day. No new meter was fixed on that day. 4. In the first week of March 1995, complainant visited the aforesaid office and met Pardhi. When the complainant made inquiry about the replacement of the faulty meter, Pardhi said that for the replacement and for supplying new meter, it was necessary to give some amount to Superior Officer. The complainant said that he had already paid Rs. 400/- and he promised to give more amount after the replacement of the meter. Pardhi informed that within few days, the replacement will be made. 5. On 19.4.1995 the accused Gaikwad went to the residential place of complainant with new meter. Before fixing the new meter, he demanded Rs. 300/-from the complainant. Complainant said that he was having only Rs. 150/-on that day. The accused said that the complainant should give remaining amount of Rs. 150/-on the next day. When complainant agreed to it, the accused fixed new meter. Before fixing the new meter, he demanded Rs. 300/-from the complainant. Complainant said that he was having only Rs. 150/-on that day. The accused said that the complainant should give remaining amount of Rs. 150/-on the next day. When complainant agreed to it, the accused fixed new meter. The necessary form in respect of the replacement was got filled from the complainant. The accused then visited many times the residential place of complainant to collect the remaining amount of Rs. 150/-, but complainant avoided to give the amount. On 24.4.1995 when the accused visited the residential place of complainant, accused expressed grievance that he had visited the place of complainant many times for collecting Rs. 150/-and complainant should fulfill his promise. On that day also, complainant said that he was not having the amount of Rs. 150/- with him. The accused then gave ultimatum to the complainant and said that if the amount was not given on 25.4.1995 he would disconnect the electricity supply. In view of this threat given by the accused, the complainant promised to give amount of Rs. 150/- on 25.4.1995 and the accused was to visit the place at 8.00 a.m. 6. The complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) Office on 24.4.1995 and gave complaint against the accused. The trap was laid in the house of complainant on 25.4.1995 after following the routein procedure. On 25.4.1995 the accused did not turn up. The complainant visited the Office of accused on 26.4.1995 to make inquiry. In the office, the complainant learnt that the accused had taken weekly off on 25.4.1995 and the accused was expected to join the duty for shift starting at 2.00 p.m. on 26.4.1995. As residential place of complainant is situated on the way of accused to office, the complainant thought that the accused would visit his house at 2.00 p.m. on 26.4.1995. The complainant then went to A.C.B. Office and gave complaint accordingly. 7. The trap was laid on 26.4.1995 in the house of complainant. The tainted money of Rs. 150/- consisting of three currency notes of Rs. 50/-denomination, each, was kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant. One panch witness was to remain in the company of the complainant and they were to sit in the front room of the house of the complainant. The tainted money of Rs. 150/- consisting of three currency notes of Rs. 50/-denomination, each, was kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant. One panch witness was to remain in the company of the complainant and they were to sit in the front room of the house of the complainant. The other members of the trap team were to remain in disbursed condition and some were to remain present in the kitchen portion of the house of the complainant. The accused came to the house of complainant at 2.40 p.m. The talk between the accused and complainant took place in the presence of panch witness and accused asked the complainant to pay remaining amount of Rs. 150/-. The complainant got explanation from the accused with regard to this amount to make it clear that it was the bribe amount. The accused accepted the amount by using both his hands and he started counting the notes. The complainant then gave pre-decided signal to the staff of A.C.B. 8. The Officers of A.C.B. and the second panch entered the aforesaid room and the accused was held. When the Officers of A.C.B. gave their introduction, the accused became frightened. The Officers recovered the aforesaid tainted money from the hands of the accused. Anthracene powder was detected on the hands of the accused and also on the currency notes. The numbers of currency notes were already noted in pre-trap panchanama and they tallied with the notes recovered from the accused. The first panch witness informed the Investigating Officer about the incident, which took place in his presence. The post trap panchanama came to be prepared accordingly. The Investigating Officer collected the relevant record from the office of M.S.E.B., from a Junior Engineer. It transpired during investigation that for changing the meter in such a case, it was not necessary to pay anything. The Executive Engineer of M.S.E.B., who was the disciplinary authority, having power to remove the accused from service, gave sanction order to prosecute the accused for aforesaid offences. The chargesheet came to be filed for aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and took the defence of total denial. The accused took a defence that his colleague Shri. Pardhi was behind this implication. 9. The chargesheet came to be filed for aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and took the defence of total denial. The accused took a defence that his colleague Shri. Pardhi was behind this implication. 9. In the Trial Court, the prosecution examined the complainant, panch witness on post trap panchanama, Junior Engineer who was immediate official superior of the accused, sanctioning authority and the Investigating Officer. Some other witnesses are also examined to show that the house is belonging to the family of complainant. The Trial Court has believed all the witnesses. The aforesaid defence taken by the accused is considered, but it is not believed. The Trial Court has held that it was official work of the accused to fix or replace the meter and when nothing could have been charged for it, the accused demanded and accepted amount of Rs. 150/-from the complainant and so, it was a bribe amount. This Court is discussing the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant along with the evidence of prosecution hereinafter. 10. The complainant Deokar (PW 1) has given evidence that after giving of complaint to Fuse Call Center of M.S.E.B., the accused and Pardhi visited his residential place in the first week of February 1995. He has deposed that after checking the meter, these two persons declared that the meter was in burnt condition and it was necessary to replace it. He has deposed that as the accused and Pardhi said that amount of Rs. 400/-was required for the replacement of meter, he gave Rs. 400/- to Pardhi on that day. 11. The complainant (PW 1) has deposed that in the second week of February 1995, Pardhi came to his house and shifted the place of meter to other place. However, no new meter was fixed. He has deposed that on the same day, accused had visited his house at about 3.30 p.m. and accused had demanded Rs. 265/-as charges for shifting the meter. He has deposed that on that day, the accused was not ready to accept the amount like Rs. 50/-, which the complainant was having on that day. Thus, the evidence of complainant shows that after demanding and accepting Rs. 400/- by accused and Pardhi, demand of more amount was made, but the old meter was not changed. 12. He has deposed that on that day, the accused was not ready to accept the amount like Rs. 50/-, which the complainant was having on that day. Thus, the evidence of complainant shows that after demanding and accepting Rs. 400/- by accused and Pardhi, demand of more amount was made, but the old meter was not changed. 12. The complainant (PW 1) has deposed that he visited Fuse Call Center in the first week of March 1995 and requested Pardhi to fix new meter. He has deposed that Pardhi said that, it was necessary to pay Rs. 150/-to his superior officer. He has deposed that he told Pardhi that he had already paid Rs. 400/- to Pardhi. The complainant has deposed that he promised Pardhi to pay more amount, but after fixing of new meter. 13. The complainant has deposed that on 19.4.1995 the accused came with new meter and told that Pardhi had asked the complainant to pay Rs. 300/-. The complainant has given evidence that he told to the accused that he was having Rs. 150/- only with him. The complainant has deposed that accused then said that the complainant should give remaining amount of Rs. 150/- on the next day. The complainant has deposed that when he paid Rs. 150/- on that day, the accused fixed the new meter. The complainant has given evidence that on 19.4.1995 one form was got filled from him by the accused. 14. Kulkarni (PW 3), Junior Engineer, who was immediate official superior of the accused, was also doing the work of supervision over such staff. This witness has deposed that accused was working as Assistant Lineman and Pardhi was working as Line Helper. He has given evidence that after receiving the oral complaint of the complainant in respect of faulty meter, he deputed accused and Pardhi to check the meter. He has deposed that after checking the meter, accused and Pardhi informed him that there was no outgoing supply to the meter. He has deposed that the form was got filled, on which there is signature of the complainant. He has deposed that new meter was supplied and old meter was brought to the office. The relevant record in respect of the replacement of the meter is proved as Exhs. 32 and 33. The evidence of this Junior Engineer shows that the replacement was done on 19.4.1995. He has deposed that new meter was supplied and old meter was brought to the office. The relevant record in respect of the replacement of the meter is proved as Exhs. 32 and 33. The evidence of this Junior Engineer shows that the replacement was done on 19.4.1995. This witness has given evidence that for such replacement, his office does not charge anything. Thus, there was no question of taking anything from the complainant by the accused as the lawful charges. The duty list of the accused and Pardhi is proved by the prosecution in his evidence as Exh. 33. The oral evidence of this Junior Engineer and this record is consistent with the evidence of complainant in respect of incident dated 19.4.1995. 15. The complainant (PW 1) has given evidence that on 24.4.1995 the accused visited his house and said that the complainant was compelling him to visit the house of complainant time and again for collecting Rs. 150/-. The complainant has deposed that accused then gave ultimatum to the complainant and asked to be ready with the amount of Rs. 150/- on 25.4.1995. The complainant has given evidence that on 24.4.1995 accused gave threat of disconnection of electricity, in case the remaining amount of Rs. 150/- was not paid to the accused on 25.4.1995. 16. The complainant (PW 1) has given evidence that on 24.4.1995 he visited A.C.B. Office and gave complaint against the accused. The complaint dated 24.4.1995 is proved as Exh. 22. This complaint is consistent with the aforesaid incidents described in oral evidence of complainant on material points. 17. The complainant (PW 1), panch witness Narawade (PW 4) and the Police Inspector of A.C.B. Shri. Sawai (PW 7) have given evidence on the trap, which was laid on 25.4.1995 in the house of accused. There is no need to discuss the evidence given on routein procedure, which is followed for laying trap. The trap dated 25.4.1995 was not successful as the accused did not turn up. 18. The complainant has given evidence that on 25.4.1995 he visited the Fuse Call Center Office to make inquiry. He has given evidence that he was informed that it was weekly off of for the accused on 25.4.1995. The trap dated 25.4.1995 was not successful as the accused did not turn up. 18. The complainant has given evidence that on 25.4.1995 he visited the Fuse Call Center Office to make inquiry. He has given evidence that he was informed that it was weekly off of for the accused on 25.4.1995. The complainant (PW 1) has given evidence that when he learnt that on 26.4.2013 the accused was expected to resume the duty for the shift starting at 2.00 p.m., he went to the A.C.B. Office and gave another complaint. His evidence shows that he was thinking that the accused would visit his residential place on 26.4.1995 while proceeding to the Office. The second complaint, Exh. 23, is proved in the evidence of complainant and this document is consistent with the oral evidence. The record regarding the duty list etc. proved in the evidence of Junior Engineer (PW 3) is consistent with this part of the case also. 19. The complainant (PW 1) has given evidence that on 26.4.1995 the second trap was laid in his house. The complainant (PW 1), panch witness Narawade (PW 4), Investigating Officer (PW 7) have given evidence that pre-trap panchanama was prepared in the office of A.C.B. and routein procedure was followed before laying the trap. There is no dispute over this part of the case of the prosecution. The evidence shows that the tainted money of Rs. 150/- of three currency notes of Rs. 50/-denomination each was kept in the pocket of shirt of the complainant. There is evidence that the complainant and panch witness Narawade were expecting to wait in the front room of the house of the complainant. The evidence shows that some members of the trap team were to wait in the kitchen portion of the house of complainant and others to wait outside of the house. 20. The complainant (PW 1) has given evidence that accused came to his house on 26.4.1995 at about 2.40 p.m. He deposed that accused demanded amount of Rs. 150/-from him, by saying that it was the remaining amount. The complainant has given evidence that he told him that he had already paid Rs. 400/-on the first occasion and Rs. 150/- on the second occasion. The complainant has given evidence that in spite of saying so by the complainant, the accused said that it was necessary for the complainant to give Rs. The complainant has given evidence that he told him that he had already paid Rs. 400/-on the first occasion and Rs. 150/- on the second occasion. The complainant has given evidence that in spite of saying so by the complainant, the accused said that it was necessary for the complainant to give Rs. 150/- more. The complainant has deposed that the accused said on that occasion that it was not possible to reduce the demanded amount. The complainant has deposed that he took out tainted money from his pocket and gave it in the hands of the accused. The complainant has deposed that he asked the accused to count the notes. The complainant has given evidence that he went to the door of the house and gave pre-decided signal to the trap team. The evidence of complainant (PW 1) shows that the Officers of the A.C.B. like Shri. More came out of the kitchen portion and held the hands of the accused. He has deposed that when Officer Sawai, Investigating Officer, disclosed his identity to the accused, the accused started trembling with fear. 21. The evidence of panch witness Narwade (PW 4) is consistent with the aforesaid evidence on trap given by the complainant. This witness has deposed that there was specific demand of Rs. 150/-from the accused and the complainant had the conversation with the accused to make it clear that it was demand of the accused. His evidence shows that only after making of the demand of money by the accused, the tainted money was handed over by the complainant to the accused. 22. Narawade (PW 4) has given evidence that when Officer Shri. More held the accused and the Officers of A.C.B. disclosed their identity, the complainant was asked to leave the said room and so he went outside of the room. His evidence shows that remaining procedure of recovery was followed in the presence of panch witnesses by the A.C.B. Officers. This panch witness has deposed that the hands of the accused were checked in the ultra violet light and Anthracene powder was detected (blue shining was appearing) on the hands. He has deposed that on the tainted money recovered from the accused, there was Anthracene powder. The post trap panchanama is proved as Exh. 42 in the evidence of this panch witness. His evidence shows that accused singed on the panchanama at Exh. He has deposed that on the tainted money recovered from the accused, there was Anthracene powder. The post trap panchanama is proved as Exh. 42 in the evidence of this panch witness. His evidence shows that accused singed on the panchanama at Exh. 42 in his presence. His evidence shows that he gave description of the incident of trap to A.C.B. Officers and that was reduced in to writing in Exh. 42. He has given evidence on the collection of the documents from the Junior Engineer by the Investigating Officer. Panchanama at Exh. 43 is proved in the evidence of this witness. The tainted money produced in the Court is identified by this witness. 23. Shri. Sawai (PW 7), Investigating Officer, has given evidence on first trap and the second trap. He has given evidence that on 26.4.1995 as per the plan of trap, the complainant was sitting with one panch witness in the front room and he was present in the kitchen room of the complainant with some staff members. He has deposed that when the complainant gave pre-decided signal at about 2.45 p.m., he and his staff members rushed to the front room. His evidence shows that Officer Shri. More caught hold of accused and accused became frightened. He has deposed that tainted money of Rs. 150/- was recovered from the hands of the accused and Anthracene powder was also detected on the both the hands of the accused. His evidence is consistent with the evidence of complainant and panch witness. He has given evidence that he gave copy of panchanama to the accused and he obtained the signature of the accused on seizure panchanama. He has given evidence on the incident of collection of the record from Junior Engineer under panchanama at Exh. 43. He has given evidence that after the trap, he gave report to CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. This F.I.R. is proved as Exh. 55. He has given evidence on recording of the statements etc. and the investigation made by him. He has deposed that he had forwarded the papers to Office of District Superintendent of Police for moving the matter for obtaining sanction order from the disciplinary authority of the accused. 24. This F.I.R. is proved as Exh. 55. He has given evidence on recording of the statements etc. and the investigation made by him. He has deposed that he had forwarded the papers to Office of District Superintendent of Police for moving the matter for obtaining sanction order from the disciplinary authority of the accused. 24. The prosecution has examined one witness Shaikh Wahed (PW 5) to prove that the house, where the meter was fixed and the incident took place, was sold by his father to the complainant. There is no dispute over this point. There is no need to discuss this evidence in detail. 25. Shri. Misal (PW 2), Surveyor, is examined to prove the map of house of the complainant. The map is proved as Exh. 27 in his evidence. This map is consistent with the versions on the trap laid and positions of the complainant, panch witnesses and the Investigating Officer. This witness was cross examined on the point of description of the house, but his evidence remained unshattered. 26. The evidence of panch witness, complainant and the Investigating Officer shows that the description of currency notes used for trap, the numbers of which were written in the pre-trap panchanama, tallied with the description of the tainted money recovered from the accused. Further, Anthracene powder was also detected on the hands of accused. There is cross examination of the Investigating Officer on the demonstration and use of Anthracene powder, but in view of the nature of the evidence given by these witnesses, there is no need to discuss that cross examination. 27. The tenor of the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses made by the defence counsel and submissions made in this proceeding by the learned counsel of the appellant show that it is not seriously disputed that accused did visit the residential place of complainant on 26.4.2013. It was submitted for the accused that the accused visited the residential place only because on that day the complainant had come to the Fuse Call Center and he was making inquiry about the accused. The defence taken by the accused that Pardhi is behind this trap, has no support of any circumstance and this defence is not consistent with the aforesaid defence taken by the accused. The defence taken by the accused that Pardhi is behind this trap, has no support of any circumstance and this defence is not consistent with the aforesaid defence taken by the accused. If the work of replacement of meter was already executed and when there was no more complaint received from the complainant with regard to functioning of the meter and when Superior Officer like Junior Engineer Kulkarni had given no instruction to visit the residential place of complainant, there was no other reason for the accused to pay such visit on that day than to collect the bribe amount. Thus, the record and circumstances are not consistent with the defence of the accused, but they are consistent with the version given by the complainant. 28. It was submitted for the accused that no work was left with the accused or his office and so the provision of section 7 of P.C. Act cannot be used against him. This proposition is not at all acceptable. The evidence discussed shows that the accused was incharge of work of checking the electricity supply and he had given threat of disconnection of electricity to the complainant, if his demand was not met with. 29. Nothing is brought on the record in the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses to create probability that there was any reason for the complainant or other witnesses to falsely implicate the accused. To the evidence of complainant and the panch witnesses, there is corroboration of the aforesaid circumstances and record. The tainted money was actually recovered from the possession of the accused. The accused was not in a position to explain as to why he had visited the residential place of the complainant on that day. This Court had occasion to discuss the provisions of P.C. Act like sections 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) and section 20 and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in respect of these three provisions in the case reported as 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2113 [Shivrao Wamanrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra]. This Court has made following observations:- "28] The charge was framed against both the accused for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Let us see which things are required to be proved by the prosecution. State of Maharashtra]. This Court has made following observations:- "28] The charge was framed against both the accused for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Let us see which things are required to be proved by the prosecution. 29] Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under:- "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant--(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--(d) If he, (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or" 30] Thus, the prosecution is required to prove only two things. viz, (i) the accused used his official position, post in Government office and (ii) accused extracted, obtained money. 31] It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was some work of the complainant pending with the accused and for that work the amount was obtained by the accused for proving offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. This section simply prohibits a public servant from obtaining pecuniary advantage or valuable thing and so in the present case the prosecution can prove offence only by proving that the amount of Rs. 150/- as bribe amount was obtained by the accused, who is public servant. 32] In the case reported as AIR 1980 Supreme Court, 873 (Hazari Lal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration), the Apex Court has discussed the provisions of Sections 3 and 114 of the Evidence Act and has given the meaning of term "obtaining" used in the aforesaid provision. The Apex Court has laid down that the act of obtaining can be proved by giving circumstantial evidence or by giving direct evidence. Though in the reported case there was charge for offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, this section is similar to the present section viz. Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 37] Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 runs as under: "7. Though in the reported case there was charge for offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, this section is similar to the present section viz. Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 37] Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 runs as under: "7. Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act-- Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause ( c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation--(d) "A motive or reward for doing". A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression." 38] The aforesaid provision shows that for proving the offence under Section 7, the following things are required to be proved in the case like the present one; (a) The accused accepted or obtained; (b) any gratification whatsoever other than legal remuneration; and (c) as a motive or reward for doing any official functions, rendering or attempting to render any service with Government Department, Office etc. In explanation (d) to Section 7 it is made clear that when a public servant receives gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or what he is not in a position to do or what he has not actually done also, comes within this expression "motive or rewards for doing". In explanation (d) to Section 7 it is made clear that when a public servant receives gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or what he is not in a position to do or what he has not actually done also, comes within this expression "motive or rewards for doing". 41] The prosecution is required to prove that the gratification accepted was other than legal remuneration for proving the offence under section 7. It is also required to show that the amount was accepted as motive or reward for doing some official function with regard to the complainant. In this regard, explanation (d) to Section 7 is already discussed and it is also observed that in the present case there was work of the complainant with the accused. In addition to that, there is statutory presumption made available under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 42] Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 runs 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". 20 (3) : Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn". 30. The observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR 1964 Supreme Court 575 [Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai Vs. 30. The observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR 1964 Supreme Court 575 [Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra] (decided by five judges of the Apex Court) and the comparison between the provisions of section 4 of P.C. Act, 1947 and section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 gives us following two propositions :- "i) The statutory presumption under section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 must be drawn if it is shown that valuable thing has been received. In view of the provision of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was further observed that it is not necessary for State to prove that gratification, other than legal remuneration, was accepted by the accused. However, in view of the provision of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the prosecution is required to prove the receipt of such gratification. ii) There is difference in presumptions available under section 114 of the Evidence Act and section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947." 31. In the reported case of Shivraocited supra, this Court has made more observations in this regard and they are as follows :- "45] The presumption, which was available under section 4(1) of the old Prevention of Corruption Act, is similar to the presumption available under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both these presumptions are statutory presumptions and the words are used that "the court shall presume unless contrary is proved". Thus, when condition laid down in Section 20 of the Act is fulfilled, the Court is bound to draw presumption. So when it is proved for the purpose of Section 7 that the accused accepted or obtained the tainted money, gratification (other than legal remuneration) it becomes necessary for the Court to presume that it was received as motive or reward as is mentioned in Section 7. Thus, in support of the present case, there is additional legal provision. It is already observed that even in the absence of provision of Section 20, the prosecution could have proved offence under Section 7 in the present case. Thus, in support of the present case, there is additional legal provision. It is already observed that even in the absence of provision of Section 20, the prosecution could have proved offence under Section 7 in the present case. 46] The observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Dhanvantrai(cited supra) show that when the conditions laid down in Section 20 are satisfied by the prosecution, it becomes necessary for the accused to show that money was legally due to him or that he had received it for transaction or arrangement which was lawful. The Apex Court has observed that the accused can establish directly his case by leading evidence or upon the material before the Court he can show that his case is so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Thus, only probable or reasonable explanation from the accused is not sufficient for rebutting the burden imposed by Section 20. In the case of AIR 1958 Supreme Court, 61 (State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer), the Apex Court has held that the term used under section 4(1) "shall be presumed" has the same meaning as given in definition of "shall presume" in section 4 of the Evidence Act. So unless and until the fact established by the prosecution is disproved, the Court is required to continue to presume the existence of fact established by the prosecution viz. the gratification was accepted as motive or reward as is mention in Section 7." 32. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand show that the accused never gave explanation with regard to the tainted money recovered from his possession. Thus, the burden of the section 20 of P.C. Act 1988 is not discharged by the accused. 33. In view of the provisions of section 20 (3) of P.C. Act, alternate argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and it was submitted that the amount of Rs. 150/- can be treated as trivial amount. The amount of Rs. 150/- was obtained in the year 1996, when ordinarily labour was getting Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- as wages per day. Section 20 (3) of P.C. Act shows that the Court has to give first finding that amount is trivial and then decision needs to be taken about the use of the presumption. The amount of Rs. 150/- was obtained in the year 1996, when ordinarily labour was getting Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- as wages per day. Section 20 (3) of P.C. Act shows that the Court has to give first finding that amount is trivial and then decision needs to be taken about the use of the presumption. It is not possible to hold that the amount of Rs. 150/-was trivial amount on the date of incident. Further, the background of the case and the amount which was already given, cannot be ignored in such a case. Though there was no specific charge in respect of past incidents the circumstances need to be kept in mind at the time of using such provision and also imposing of penalty. 34. For the State, reliance was placed on the case reported as 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2426 (S.C.) [Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujrat]. The Apex Court refused to treat the amount of Rs. 50/- obtained as bribe in the year 1994 as trivial amount. The Apex Court refused to use plenary power given under Article 142 of Constitution of India for reducing the sentence by observing that the sentence imposed was minimum. In the case of Shivrao, cited supra, this Court has discussed this point also. 35. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case reported as 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2173 Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench [Vijaykumar s/o. Marotrao Daiwalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra] and also case reported as 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2117 Bombay High Court [Hanmantappa Murtyappa Vijapure (deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. State of Maharashtra]. This Court in the first case held that the amount of Rs. 200/- obtained in the year 1991 was trivial amount and the departmental action ought to have been taken in stead of taking action under P.C. Act. The observations in the second case are in respect of the trivial amount. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narendracited supra and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the amount cannot be treated as trivial amount and the use of provision of section 20 of P.C. Act is a must in the present case. 36. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narendracited supra and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the amount cannot be treated as trivial amount and the use of provision of section 20 of P.C. Act is a must in the present case. 36. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case reported as 2001 CRI.L.J. 515 [M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P.]. The Apex Court has discussed the provisions of section 20 of the P.C. Act and the provisions of section 3 and 114 of Evidence Act. The observations made by the Apex Court show that the Apex Court has again reiterated that the presumption raised by section 20 of the P.C. Act is compulsory presumption. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition in view of the case of Dhanvantraidecided by the five Judges of the Apex Court, which is already cited supra. 37. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case reported as 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1341 Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench [Bismillakha s/o. Salarkha Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra]. The learned counsel submitted that for raising presumption under section 20 of the P.C. Act, the prosecution must first prove that the accused had accepted or had agreed to accept as gratification, any valuable thing. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case reported as 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1425 Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench [Rajendrakumar Laxmichand Gupta Vs. The State of Maharashtra]. In this case, this Court gave benefit of doubt in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. There was no evidence on demand or obtaining of the bribe. As the facts and circumstances of the present case are altogether different, this case is of no help to the appellant. 38. Ghule (PW 6) has given evidence that he was disciplinary authority at the relevant time and only after studying the material like papers of investigation, he accorded sanction. His evidence shows that he formed opinion on the basis of record that it was a fit case for according sanction. The sanction order issued by this witness is proved in his evidence. His evidence shows that he formed opinion on the basis of record that it was a fit case for according sanction. The sanction order issued by this witness is proved in his evidence. In the cross examination, he has given admission that he had used the draft sanction order supplied by A.C.B. Office. Due to this admission, his evidence cannot be discarded and it cannot be inferred that he did not apply the mind. His evidence and the sanction order are sufficient to infer that there was the application of mind. 39. For the appellant, reliance was placed on the case reported as 1992 CRI.L.J. 1142 Bombay High Court [Arun Prahlad Kale Vs. The State of Maharashtra]. In this case, this Court held that the amount of Rs. 40/-was petty amount, the sanctioning authority had used casual approach and had not applied mind. There are the cases of the Apex Court, which are already referred by this Court, on this point and so, the observations made by this Court in Arun'scase cited supra are of no help to the appellant. In the case of Shivrao, this Court has referred the case reported as 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 670(S.C.) [Kootha Perumal Vs. State] and made the following observations :- "The Apex Court has observed that if the Sanctioning Authority had gone through the necessary facts of the case which have been actually proved by the prosecution in trial and on the basis of such material if the Sanctioning Authority has given sanction for prosecution, such sanction order is in accordance with law. It is already observed that from the facts of each case it needs to be ascertained as to whether relevant material was considered by the Sanctioning Authority before according the sanction." 40. The Trial Court has believed all the prosecution witnesses. The Appellate Court is not expected to lightly interfere in the finding given by the Trial Court on such point. The discussion already made shows that there is no room for interference in the judgment and order of conviction. The Trial Court has given sentence of two years for offence committed under section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act and sentence of one year for offence committed under section 7 of the P.C. Act. The discussion already made shows that there is no room for interference in the judgment and order of conviction. The Trial Court has given sentence of two years for offence committed under section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act and sentence of one year for offence committed under section 7 of the P.C. Act. The quantum of sentence is on lower side and so, there is no room to interfere on the point of quantum of sentence also. 41. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellant stands cancelled. The appellant to surrender for undergoing the sentence.