JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Special Case No. 146 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli. He stood charged for offences under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court, by Judgment, dated 06.11.2013, convicted him under both charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: "The appellant was the Assistant Engineer in the office of the Panchayat Union, Orathanadu in Thanjavur District between 22.10.2008 to 26.08.2009. Admittedly, he is a public servant. One Mr. Thilakraj was a registered contractor with the said Panchayat Union Office. P.W. 1, Mr. Thiravida Kathiravan, was working under him and he was working for the affairs of Mr. Thilakraj. Mr. Thilakraj was awarded a contract to lay a tar road at Keelaiyur Village colony. After completion of the said work, Mr. Thilakraj, had submitted a bill for the amount as per the terms of the contract. The said bill was pending with the accused. In order to forward the said bill to the higher officials for sanction of the said amount, it is alleged that on 10.08.2009, at 11.00 a.m., the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification from P.W. 1. Again on 14.08.2009 at 03.00 p.m., it is alleged that the accused reiterated the demand as illegal gratification for forwarding the bill to the higher officials for passing the same. At that time, it is alleged that the accused demanded the said amount to be paid in two equal instalments. Again on 25.08.2009 at 11.00 a.m., when P.W. 1 met the accused in the Panchayat Union Office, he reiterated the said demand for Rs. 10,000/-. At that time, it is alleged that the accused demanded the said amount to be paid in two equal instalments. Again on 25.08.2009 at 11.00 a.m., when P.W. 1 met the accused in the Panchayat Union Office, he reiterated the said demand for Rs. 10,000/-. For having made the demand for illegal gratification, according to the prosecution, the accused is liable to be punished under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, according to the case of the prosecution, P.W. 1 had gone to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station at Thanjavur. P.W. 17, Mr. Rengarajan, was the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, attached to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station at Thanjavur. On 26.08.2009, at 09.30 a.m., according to him, P.W. 1 appeared before him and presented a complaint under Ex. P.1, making the above allegations. P.W. 17 registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No. 10 of 2009 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Then, P.W. 17 worked out a plan to lay a trap for the accused. P.W. 17 then contacted the Thanjavur District Educational Officer to send a responsible officer to be a witness for the trap proceedings. Similarly, he made a request to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thanajvur, to send a responsible officer to be a witness for the trap proceedings. Accordingly, at about 11.40 a.m., P.W. 2, Mr. Udhayakumaran, came from the office of the District Educational Office, Thanjavur and one Mr. Sathiyamoorthy came from the office of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thanjavur. According to P.W. 17, he explained to these two witnesses about the plan for trapping the accused. Then, with the help of a Police Constable, by name Mr. Kandappan, he conducted demonstration of phenolphthalein test. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 understood the same fully. Thereafter, P.W. 17 received a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, which P.W. 1 was readily having in his hands. Then, with the help of a Constable, he smeared phenolphthalein powder on the said currency notes. He entrusted the said currency notes to P.W. 1, with proper instructions. P.W. 17 prepared a mahazer for the same. Then, P.W. 17 took P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to the office of the accused at Orathanadu. Then, with the help of a Constable, he smeared phenolphthalein powder on the said currency notes. He entrusted the said currency notes to P.W. 1, with proper instructions. P.W. 17 prepared a mahazer for the same. Then, P.W. 17 took P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to the office of the accused at Orathanadu. At 02.45 p.m. on the same day, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were asked to go to the office of the accused and to give the above said phenolphthalein smeared currency notes, if demanded by the accused. P.W. 17, Mr. Rengarajan and the other police officials were waiting outside by hiding themselves. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 accordingly went into the office. But, the accused was not available in the office. They were told that the accused would be returning only in the evening. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, therefore, returned and informed the same to P.W. 17. Then, P.W. 17 instructed them to go and wait in the office of the accused for the arrival of the accused. According to P.W. 17, at about 05.35 p.m., the accused came to the office, demanded and received Rs. 5,000/- from P.W. 1." 2. It is the further case of the prosecution that as instructed earlier, P.W. 1 had come out of the office and made a signal. On getting signal, P.W. 17 and other police officials rushed into the office of the accused. On seeing the police, according to P.W. 17, the accused was perflexed. Then, P.W. 17 conducted phenolphthalein test on both the hands of the accused. When the fingers of both the hands of the accused were dipped into Sodium Carbonate solution, they turned into pink colour, thereby indicating the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the fingers of the accused. When P.W. 17 enquired the accused about the money, he took out the tainted currency notes from his pant pocket and handed over the same to P.W. 17. P.W. 17 verified the numbers of the said currency notes and the same tallied with the currency notes, which were entrusted to P.W. 1. During the said proceeding, P.W. 17 collected the Sodium Carbonate solutions, which turned into pink colour on the accused dipping his fingers, in two separate bottles and sealed the same. Then, he arrested the accused, collected the records from the office pertaining to contract and the bill raised by Mr. During the said proceeding, P.W. 17 collected the Sodium Carbonate solutions, which turned into pink colour on the accused dipping his fingers, in two separate bottles and sealed the same. Then, he arrested the accused, collected the records from the office pertaining to contract and the bill raised by Mr. Thilakraj and returned to the Police Station at 10.30 p.m. On reaching the Police Station, P.W. 17 altered the case into one under Section 7 and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and forwarded the material objects to the Court. Then, he handed over the investigation to P.W. 18. 3. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W. 18, examined P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and recorded their statements. Then, he examined P.W. 4, the Block Development Officer of Panchayat Union, Orathanadu who has spoken about the contract, the bill raised by Mr. Thilakraj and the connected matters. P.W. 5, Mr. Singaravelu, Junior Engineer, attached to the said office, has also spoken about the same. Then, P.W. 18, on completing the same, placed all the papers before the District Collector, Thanjavur, seeking sanction for prosecution. The District Collector, Thanjavur, accordingly gave sanction and based on the same, P.W. 18 laid charge sheet against the accused. 4. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as stated in the first paragraph of the Judgment. When the accused was questioned in respect of the charges, he denied the same as false. 5. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined, 47 documents were exhibited and 5 material objects were marked. 6. Out of the said witnesses, P.W. 1, according to the case of the prosecution, from whom, illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded by the accused, has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. He has stated that the accused came to the spot, measured the work done by Mr. Thilakraj and even then he did not forward the papers to the higher officials for sanction. According to him, the accused, on one occasion, scolded and humulated him. When he informed the same to Mr. Thilakraj, he told him that he would speak to the accused over phone. Thilakraj and even then he did not forward the papers to the higher officials for sanction. According to him, the accused, on one occasion, scolded and humulated him. When he informed the same to Mr. Thilakraj, he told him that he would speak to the accused over phone. Thereafter he asked the accused that he should go and prefer a complaint. Accordingly, he went to the Police Station, where, his signature was obtained in a paper and he did not know the contents of the complaint. P.W. 2, the accompanying witness, has stated about the demonstration of phenolphthalein test conducted at the Police Station. He has further stated that he accompanied P.W. 1 to the office of the accused and at the time of trap, according to him, P.W. 1, voluntarily gave the amount to the accused, the accused received the same, counted the same and then kept the same in his pant pocket. P.W. 3, Mr. Sathiyamoorthy, is yet another witness for the trap proceedings. But, he was not present at the time of trap. He accompanied P.W. 17 upto the office of the accused, but he did not accompany P.W. 1, when the amount was allegedly paid by P.W. 1 to the accused. Subsequently, he was taken by P.W. 17 into office and the phenolphthalein test was conducted on the fingers of the accused in his presence. P.W. 4 was the then Block Development Officer of the Panchayat Union. He has stated about the mahazer prepared, after the trap proceeding was over, at his office, by the police. P.W. 5 is yet another important witness. He worked as a Junior Engineer at the office of the Panchayat Union at Orathanadu. In the said office, his seat was next to the seat of the accused. According to him, on 26.08.2009, at 05.15 p.m., he was sitting in his seat in the office. At that time, the accused came from outside into the office and went to his seat. According to him, at that time, P.W. 1 came and after some time he left the place. The accused followed him. But, when the accused went out of the office, he was caught by two other people and he was brought into the office. Then, he came to know that people, who apprehended him, were vigilance police officials. This witness has not been treated as hostile. The accused followed him. But, when the accused went out of the office, he was caught by two other people and he was brought into the office. Then, he came to know that people, who apprehended him, were vigilance police officials. This witness has not been treated as hostile. P.W. 6 is the Block Development Officer in the Panchayat Union Office. He has spoken about the contract bill raised and other facts. P.W. 7 has also spoken to the same fact. P.W. 8 has not spoken anything incriminating against the accused. He has also spoken about the contract. P.W. 9 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W. 9, according to the case of the prosecution, was the one, who accompanied P.W. 1 on 10.08.2009, when the demand for Rs. 10,000/- was made by the accused. But, he has not stated so in his evidence and he has been treated as hostile. P.W 10 was working at the office of the Block Development officer, Orathanadu. He has spoken about the various entries in the Registers, etc. and he has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W. 11 is yet another official and he has also spoken about the recovery of relevant files from the office. P.W. 12, was the Director of Rural Development, Government of Tamil Nadu. He has spoken about the sanction given by him for prosecuting the accused as required under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. P.W. 13 is yet another official from the Panchayat Union Office and he has spoken about the work order issued to Mr. Thilakraj to do the contract work. P.W. 14 and P.W. 15 have also spoken about the same facts. P.W. 16 has spoken the fact that he examined the Sodium Carbonate solutions sent to him and according to him, he found phenolphthalein in all the three bottles. According to his evidence, the prosecution would say that phenolphthalein powder was found on the fingers of the accused. P.W. 17 has spoken about the laying of the trap and connected facts and P.W. 18 has spoken about the investigation done by him. 7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. P.W. 17 has spoken about the laying of the trap and connected facts and P.W. 18 has spoken about the investigation done by him. 7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. He offered an explanation under Section 313Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that since the contract work was not done as per the specifications, he scolded P.W. 1 in the presence of the officials. Because of the said incident, according to him, a false complaint has been made and based on the same, trap has been laid. It is the further explanation that at the time of trap, when he was in the office, P.W. 1 came into the office and without his knowledge suddenly inserted the tainted currency notes into his pant pocket and he took it out and shouted at P.W. 1, followed him and asked him to get it back. In the meanwhile, the Vigilance Police came and took him into custody. Thus, according to him, he never demanded any amount as illegal gratification and he did not receive any amount similarly as illegal gratification. 8. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 7 and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and punished him accordingly. That is how, the accused is before this Court, with this appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and I have also perused the records carefully. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that absolutely there is no evidence to prove the alleged demand for illegal gratification on the part of the accused. He would point out that P.W. 1 has completely turned hostile and he has not stated anything about the alleged demand. P.W. 9, who is stated to have accompanied P.W. 1 at the time, when the initial demand was made, has also turned hostile and he has not stated anything about the alleged demand. He would point out that even P.W. 2 has not stated anything about the illegal demand allegedly made by the accused at the time of trap. Thus, according the learned counsel for the appellant, absolutely there is no evidence to prove the demand. 11. He would point out that even P.W. 2 has not stated anything about the illegal demand allegedly made by the accused at the time of trap. Thus, according the learned counsel for the appellant, absolutely there is no evidence to prove the demand. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit that so far as the alleged acceptance of the tainted currency notes as illegal gratification, there is no clear evidence. He would submit that P.W. 1 himself has stated in his evidence that without the knowledge of the accused, suddenly he inserted the tainted currency notes into the pant pocket of the accused. He would further submit that there is no reason to reject this part of the evidence of P.W. 1. He would further submit that this evidence of P.W. 1 is in tune with the explanation offered by the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that there can be no presumption that the money was received by the accused as illegal gratification as Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is not applicable to a case under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned counsel would further submit that in the absence of proof of demand, mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused would not constitute an offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka (2015) 3 SCC 247 : LNINDU 2014 SC 94. The learned counsel for the appellant would also rely on a Judgment of this Court for the same proposition in R. Sasidaran @ Sasi v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Nagercoil 2015-2-L.W(Crl.)116 : LNIND 2015 MAD 1057. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the trial Court was not right in convicting the accused. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, of course, it is true that P.W. 1 had turned hostile and he had not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. But, on that score, according to him, the entire case of the prosecution, cannot be rejected. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, of course, it is true that P.W. 1 had turned hostile and he had not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. But, on that score, according to him, the entire case of the prosecution, cannot be rejected. He would point out that the evidence of P.W. 2 is very cogent, wherein he has stated that money was received by the accused, counted by him and then the accused kept the same in his pant pocket. Thus, according to him, the receipt of the tained currency notes from P.W. 1 by the accused, has been duly proved by P.W. 2 and the same has also been duly corroborated by the phenolphthalein test. Thus, according to him, the fact that the accused had received the amount from the accused, has been clearly established. If once it is so clearly proved, according to him, it is the burden of the accused to explain the reasons for the receipt of tainted currency notes. In this case, according to him, the motive for P.W. 1 to make a false complaint and to insert the money into the pant pocket of the accused, has not been established at all. In those circumstances, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, has to be raised and since there is no rebuttal of the same, it should be held that the accused has received the said amount only as illegal gratification, making out an offence punishable under Section 7 and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. I have considered the above submissions. 14. Admittedly, P.W. 1, from whom, the accused had allegedly demanded illegal gratification, has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1 would not go to the help of the prosecution to prove the alleged demand for illegal gratification made by the accused. Similarly, P.W. 9, who is stated to have accompanied P.W. 1, when the alleged demand was made for illegal gratification, has also turned hostile. His evidence is also not in any manner helpful for the prosecution. Similarly, P.W. 9, who is stated to have accompanied P.W. 1, when the alleged demand was made for illegal gratification, has also turned hostile. His evidence is also not in any manner helpful for the prosecution. So far as the evidence of P.W. 2 is concerned, during trap, it is not at all his evidence that the accused made any demand for gratification, muchless, illegal gratification. Thus, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that there was demand made by the accused for illegal gratification for forwarding the bill claimed by Mr. Thilakraj for the purpose of passing by his superiors. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that according to P.W. 2, the tained currency notes were received by the accused and they were handled by him and that is why it was kept in his pocket. He would further submit that the Chemical Analysis Report would clearly prove the same. Of-course, it is true that the Chemical Analysis Report would go to only prove that the accused had handled the currency notes. But that would not go to prove that he received the same. The receipt of money is spoken to only by P.W. 2. But, P.W. 1, though turned hostile, has stated that the money inserted into the pant pocket of the accused by him without his knowledge. Now, the question is whether to believe P.W. 2. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would rely on the evidence of P.W. 5, who is none else than an official working in the office of the Panchayat Union, Orathanadu and his seat was next to the side of the seat of the accused. According to him, at the crucial time, P.W. 1 came into the office, spoke to the accused for some time and then he went out. The accused rushed out of the office and followed him. At that time, he was caught by police officials. This witness has not been treated as hostile. His evidence would naturally go to probabilise the defence taken by the accused. The defence taken by the accused is that the tainted currency notes were inserted into his pant pocket. The accused rushed out of the office and followed him. At that time, he was caught by police officials. This witness has not been treated as hostile. His evidence would naturally go to probabilise the defence taken by the accused. The defence taken by the accused is that the tainted currency notes were inserted into his pant pocket. This fact has been spoken by P.W. 1 and the same is duly corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 5, which clearly goes to probabilise the defence taken by the accused by way of explanation given under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused received the tainted currency notes from P.W. 1. 16. Assuming that the accused had received the tainted currency notes from P.W. 1, the immediate next question is as to whether that would go to prove the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this regard, I may refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Purushotham's case referred to above, on which, much reliance was made by the learned counsel for the appellant. That was also a case of demand for illegal gratification and acceptance of the same subsequently, during trap proceedings. In that case also, the witness from whom, the demand was made and the illegal gratification was received, turned hostile. Thus, in that case, there was no proof for demand of illegal gratification made by the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the said fact, referred to an earlier Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 : LNIND 2014 SC 144 : (2014) 2 MLJ Crl 358 wherein in paragraph No. 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ex. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established" 17. After referring to the same, falling in line with the said view taken in paragraph-8 of the Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Purushotham's case has held as follows: "8. The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. When PW 1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Ext. P-1 before PW 4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Ext. P-1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. P-1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are liable to be set aside". 18. Applying the said principles, if we look into the facts of the present case, admittedly there is no evidence for the alleged demand for illegal gratification by the accused and in the absence of proof of such demand, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not possible to hold the accused guilty under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 19. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that from the fact that the accused has received the money, presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, could be raised against him to the effect that he received the same as illegal gratification. In my considered view, it is not at all possible in the absence of demand for illegal gratification. It is to be noted that the presumption under Section 20of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also not applicable to a case falling under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, absolutely there is no scope to presume that the accused had received tainted currency notes only by way of illegal gratification. In short, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment, I have to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had received the tainted currency notes as illegal gratification. Similar view has been taken consistently by this Court in many Judgments, more particularly, in T.M. Shanmughavelu and Another v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore 2011-2-L.W.(Crl.)450 : LNIND 2011 MAD, (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 481 as referred to above. For all these reasons, I have to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore 2011-2-L.W.(Crl.)450 : LNIND 2011 MAD, (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 481 as referred to above. For all these reasons, I have to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Judgment passed by the trial court is set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid, shall be refunded.