JUDGMENT : The appellant Rangarajan (deceased) is the accused in S.C.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput and he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with 13 (2) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.350/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.350/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant/accused Rangarajan died. Therefore, his legal heirs were brought on record as per the order of this Court dated 08.11.2003 in MP.No.1 of 2013. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) The deceased Rangarajan was working as the Revenue Supervisor, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Cheyyur for the period emanates from 31.12.2003 to 06.01.2006. P.W.2 has purchased 3 acres 52 cent along with well, electricity Motor and pump set from one Rajeswarai Ammal and patta has also been obtained in his name. For name transfer of electricity service connection, he gave an application to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Cheyyur village on 29.12.2005. The accused, who was working as Revenue Supervisor at that time, demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- from P.W.2, i.e. Rs.200/- towards fees for the name transfer and Rs.800/- for himself. When P.W.2 expressed his inability to pay the amount, the accused reduced the amount to Rs.900/-, i.e. Rs.700/- for himself and Rs.200/- towards fees, and stated that unless the amount is paid, he will not process the application and saying so, he returned the application. Thereafter, on 05.01.2006, P.W.2 went to the Vigilance Department and lodged First Information Ex.P2 to P.W.5, Inspector of Police, Vigilance Department, who, on receipt of the same, registered FIR, Ex.P7. They also arranged for bringing shadow witnesses, P.W.3 from the Veterinary Department and one Ranganathan from Khadi Department and thereafter, a trap was arranged and necessary procedures were also explained to them and prepared mahazar, Ex.P3. (b) P.W.5 along with P.W.2, P.W.3 and another shadow witness Ranganathan went to the office of the accused. They also arranged for bringing shadow witnesses, P.W.3 from the Veterinary Department and one Ranganathan from Khadi Department and thereafter, a trap was arranged and necessary procedures were also explained to them and prepared mahazar, Ex.P3. (b) P.W.5 along with P.W.2, P.W.3 and another shadow witness Ranganathan went to the office of the accused. P.W.2 and P.W.3 went inside the office of the accused and at that time, the accused was not there. P.W.2 came out from the office and informed P.W.5 that the accused was not there and he was informed that the accused will come back only in the morning hours on 06.1.2006. Thereafter, Ex.P4 mahazar was prepared by P.W.5 in that regard. (c) On 06.01.2006, again P.W.2 along with trap team proceeded to the office of the accused at about 8.00 a.m. P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to the office of the accused and gave the application to the accused and at that time, the accused asked P.W.2 whether he has brought money. P.W.2 handed over the tainted money to the accused, who received the same and kept it on the right side drawer. Thereafter, the accused prepared receipt for Rs.200/- and told P.W.2 that he took Rs.700/- for himself. He also corrected the date in the application. (d) After handing over the tainted money, P.W.2 came out and gave signal to P.W.5 and immediately, the trap team went inside the office of the accused and conducted phenolphthalein test and seized tainted money of Rs.700/- (M.O.1) under Mahazar. After phenolphthalein test found to be positive, he collected samples M.O.2 and M.O.3 and seized Ex.P5 mahazar. P.W.4, scientific officer, who examined the solution sent from Court, on examination, found that phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate are present in it and in this regard, he gave Ex.P.6, report. P.W.5, in continuation of investigation, after seizure of tainted money and after collecting solution, arrested the accused and also prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P.10 and forwarded M.Os to the Court and handed over the investigation to P.W.6, one Vijayabaskaran. P.W.6, who took further investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After obtaining sanction order from P.W.1 and after completing the investigation, P.W.6 filed the charge sheet under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. P.W.6, who took further investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After obtaining sanction order from P.W.1 and after completing the investigation, P.W.6 filed the charge sheet under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty and hence, the case was posted for trial. 5. Before the Court below, 6 witnesses were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked on the side of the prosecution, apart from marking material objects, M.Os.1 to 3. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and no document or material object was marked. 6. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the Trial Court has found the accused guilty and convicted the appellant/accused as stated in first paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal came to be filed. Since the appellant/accused died during the pendency of the appeal, his legal heirs were brought on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire trap proceeding was lodged against the innocent officer, who has demanded legally payable amount due to the electrical Department, which has not been paid by P.W.2. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased appellant/accused was not an authorised officer to effect name transfer. His duty is only to collect the arrears amount from the consumers. According to the learned counsel, the alleged demand made on 29.12.2005 itself is doubtful since the complaint has been filed by P.W.2 only on 05.01.2006. The said delay in lodging the complaint, in fact, probabilise the deceased appellant's theory that the entire trap has been organised only at the instigation of P.W.2. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even as per the prosecution, on 05.01.2006, when the trap team went to the office of the accused, he was not there and hence, the trap team returned back to the office of P.W.5 and stayed there and again, the trap was organised on the next day. The evidence given by the witnesses in this regard would create serious doubt about the case of the prosecution. The evidence given by the witnesses in this regard would create serious doubt about the case of the prosecution. It is contended that the evidence of P.W.2, in the cross examination, clearly shows that, in fact, the accused demanded legally payable amount to the Department, which has been evaded by him. Besides, the accused also demanded original documents and No Objection Certificate from the previous owner. But P.W.2 has not provided all these things and lodged the false complaint based on the amount demanded by the accused, which is legally payable to the Department, towards arrears of electricity charges. Hence, it is submitted that the entire evidence of prosecution is highly improbable and the same would create serious doubt and that the alleged demand of money has not been established. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1) (d) cannot be held to be established. Proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are the vital ingredients, necessary to be established to procure a conviction for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. In the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained. 10. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a delay in forwarding the documents, including FIR, to the Court and the same has not been properly explained by the prosecution. 11. Countering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that the demand of illegal gratification has been clearly established by the prosecution by way of oral and documentary evidence. Similarly, acceptance of tainted money was also established by conducting Phenolphthalein test. Hence, it is submitted that once demand and acceptance have been proved, presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into operation. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. I have heard the rival submission made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. Hence, it is submitted that once demand and acceptance have been proved, presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into operation. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. I have heard the rival submission made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. 14. It is also well settled that mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, but the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act. 15. It is worthy to mention while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. 16. With this background of principles, now this Court has to examine the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. 17. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded a sum of Rs.900/- from P.W.2 i.e.Rs.700/- for himself and Rs.200/- towards fee. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the shadow witnesses and the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 investigating officers, to substantiate the charges. The accused Rangarajan was originally working as a Revenue Supervisor, Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Centre at Cheyyur. This fact is not disputed. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the shadow witnesses and the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 investigating officers, to substantiate the charges. The accused Rangarajan was originally working as a Revenue Supervisor, Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Centre at Cheyyur. This fact is not disputed. P.W.2, in his evidence, has stated that on 29.12.2005, he has given an application for change of electric connection in his name and at that time, the accused originally demanded Rs.1000/- i.e Rs.200/- towards fees for change of connection and remaining sum of Rs.800/- for himself. Thereafter, he reduced the same to Rs.900/- i.e. Rs.200/- towards fees and Rs.700/- for himself. 18. In such circumstances, P.W.2 has given complaint, Ex.P2, on 05.01.2006. Pursuant to the same, FIR has been registered and shadow witnesses were arranged by the Investigating Officer and trap proceedings were explained to them. Thereafter, they went to the office of the accused Rangarajan on the same day, i.e. on 05.01.2006. Since he was not there, they all returned and stayed in the office of P.W.5. Thereafter on the next day, i.e. on 06.01.2006, when the accused was in his office, at 10.15 am, P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to the office of the accused and P.W.2 handed over the application form to him. At that time, the accused asked whether he has brought the money. Immediately, P.W.2 handed over the tainted money of Rs.900/- out of which,the accused gave receipt for Rs.200/- and kept a sum of Rs.700/- in his right side drawer. P.W.2 and P.W.3 came out and gave a signal to the trap team. P.W.5 along with trap team went inside the office of the accused and recovered the tainted money and prepared mahazar and thereafter arrested the accused. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have clearly spoken about the trap proceedings and recovery of tainted money from the accused. P.W.5 investigating officer also supported the version of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.4 would go to show that phenolphthalein test was found to be positive. 19. Now the question is as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 20. It must be proved by the prosecution that the accused has demanded and accepted the bribe amount. The evidence of P.W.4 would go to show that phenolphthalein test was found to be positive. 19. Now the question is as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 20. It must be proved by the prosecution that the accused has demanded and accepted the bribe amount. When these elements are established by the prosecution, then Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act comes into operation, which is a statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution. 21. It is the case of the accused that P.W.2 has to pay a sum of Rs.975/- towards arrears of electricity charges i.e., a sum of Rs.625/-towards arrears of electricity charges, Rs.200/- towards fees for change of name, Rs.60/- towards reconnection and Rs.90/- for delayed payment of electricity charges. When the accused demanded the above charges, which are legally payable by the accused, on 06.01.2006, P.W.2 gave Rs.900/- and when the accused demanded the balance sum of Rs.75/-, P.W.2 came out under the pretext of bringing the money back and informed the trap officer and thereby trap was conducted. 22. Now, in this background, when the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is carefully analysed, their evidence would go to show that as if P.W.2 has given the application on 29.12.2005 for change of electric connection in his name, which was standing in the name of the previous owner, one Rajeswarai ammal, for which, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- in toto, which includes a sum of Rs.200/- towards fees and Rs.800 for himself. Thereafter, he reduced the amount to Rs.900/-, i.e.,Rs.200/- towards fees and Rs.700/- for himself. Their evidence would further go to show that the accused told P.W.2 that unless the amount is paid, he will not effect transfer and saying so, he returned the application. Thereafter, P.W.2 lodged complaint, Ex.P2, on 05.01.2006. 23. Though the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 supported the demand as well as the submission of application on the date of trap i.e. 06.01.2006, on a careful perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, this Court entertain serious doubt about the conduct of P.W.2. It is the specific case of P.W.2 that he gave an application to the accused for change of electricity connection in his name. It is the specific case of P.W.2 that he gave an application to the accused for change of electricity connection in his name. In this regard, when the evidence of P.W.6, the investigating Officer, is carefully seen, P.W.6, in the cross examination, has deposed that the accused Rangarajan's power at the relevant time was only to collect the arrears of fees and with regard to change of electrical connections, the same was entrusted with Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore, the accused demanding amount for change of connection would create serious doubt in this case, more particularly, in view of the delay in lodging FIR. 24. It is the case of the prosecution that the alleged demand was made on 29.12.2005 whereas the First information was lodged only on 05.01.2006 at about 9.00 a.m. As per the evidence of P.W.5, on the date of First information itself, a trap was organised, after calling the shadow witnesses P.W.3 and Ranganathan. Though the investigating officer, P.W.5 was acted swiftly in preparing the trap proceedings and organising the trap on the same day i.e. about 12.00 p.m, FIR is dispatched to the Court only on 06.01.2006, as could be seen from the endorsement made by the Magistrate. The delay in sending FIR and the delay in giving first information by P.W.2 makes the prosecution more doubtful in this case. 25. The conduct of P.W.2 waiting for more than a week to lodge First Information as against the person, who allegedly demanded bribe for doing his lawful act is also against the normal human conduct. Further, on 05.01.2006, the accused was, in fact, not available in his office at 12.00 p.m. Immediately, the trap team went back and all the witnesses were stayed in the office of P.W.5. Thereafter, investigating officer along with trap team came on the next day morning. This fact also creates some doubt about the entire trap proceedings. The evidence of P.W.2, in the cross examination, further probabilised the aforesaid doubt. In the cross examination, P.W.2 has stated that the accused demanded original documents and also No Objection Certificate from the previous owner. But P.W.2 has not obtained any such documents from the previous owner whereas he would say that he has already given No Objection Certificate. The said evidence also falsified as per the documents produced by the prosecution. In the cross examination, P.W.2 has stated that the accused demanded original documents and also No Objection Certificate from the previous owner. But P.W.2 has not obtained any such documents from the previous owner whereas he would say that he has already given No Objection Certificate. The said evidence also falsified as per the documents produced by the prosecution. When Ex.P8 series, which have been seized by the Investigating Officer from the accused at the relevant time, is carefully perused, the same would clearly show that No Objection Certificate, whatsoever, has not been available in the file. In fact, the affidavit sworn by P.W.2 alone is available. Besides he has produced the Deed of Indemnity, which has been duly signed by him. Normally, the Deed of Indemnity will be obtained only when the owner is not available or if the said owner is refused to sign in the prescribed application form for change of connection. Therefore, P.W.2's evidence that he has handed over No Objection Certificate also cannot be believed. Further, original title deeds of the property are also not available in Ex.P8 series. More so, P.W.2's evidence in the cross examination would also clearly show that even before effecting name transfer, he availed subsidy for the motor pump set, which stands in the name of the previous owner, Rajeswari Ammal. 26. The aforementioned fact would clearly indicate that there was a delay in processing the application of P.W.2 for want of several documents. Ex.D1, electricity card, which stands in the name of Rajeswari Ammal, previous owner, shows that there was arrears of Rs.625/-, which has to be paid by her. This fact has been admitted by the investigating officer. It is also the case of the accused that receipt for processing the application is Rs.200/-. Besides, Rs.90/- for delayed payment and another sum of Rs.60/- towards re connection has to be paid by P.W.2. According to the accused, on the date of application, P.W.2 has to pay a sum of Rs. 975/- in toto, which, in fact, was demanded by him. According to him, P.W.2, in fact, evaded the same and gave the complaint as if he demanded the same as bribe. 27. According to the accused, on the date of application, P.W.2 has to pay a sum of Rs. 975/- in toto, which, in fact, was demanded by him. According to him, P.W.2, in fact, evaded the same and gave the complaint as if he demanded the same as bribe. 27. Insofar as the plea of acceptance of bribe is concerned, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that the accused received a sum of Rs.900/- and kept in the right side drawer and told P.W.2 that Rs.200/- towards fees and Rs.700/- for himself. P.W.3, in his evidence has stated that the accused immediately gave receipt for Rs.200/- and kept the remaining sum of Rs.700/- for himself. 28. Though the prosecution claims to have seized the receipt for Rs.200/- on the same day in the presence of one M.Alagesan, Commercial Inspector, the said Alagesan has not been examined by the prosecution. Further, the receipt, Ex.P9, allegedly seized under Ex.P5, has been sent to the Court only on 09.01.2006 and the same has also been not explained by the Investigating Officer. It is further to be noted that though it is alleged by the prosecution that they seized the tainted money of Rs.900/-, a sum of Rs.700/- alone has been recorded and the remaining sum of Rs.200/- has not been recorded by him. The evidence of P.W.3 would also go to show that the tainted money of Rs.900/- was handed over by the accused. Whereas the evidence of Investigating officer would show that he has handed over Rs.200/- to one Alagesan, Commercial Inspector and thereafter he has conducted phenolphthalein test and seized a sum of Rs.700/-. However, the said Alagesan has not been examined by the prosecution, which also create serious doubt. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in not seizing a sum of Rs.200/- which also smeared with phenolphthalein and handing over the same to one Alagesan also creates serious doubt about the case of the prosecution. 29. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 that the application for effecting name transfer was given only for the first time on 29.12.2005 and that the accused has corrected the date on 06.01.2006. 29. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 that the application for effecting name transfer was given only for the first time on 29.12.2005 and that the accused has corrected the date on 06.01.2006. In this regard, when Ex.P8 series has been carefully seen, the application dated 29.12.2005 for supply of power to agricultural pump sets was originally given by P.W.2 in the prescribed format and all other connected documents were also given on 29.12.2005 i.e., on the same day. When the Prescribed form was given on 29.12.2005, there is no question of giving another application that too, on the same day i.e. on 29.12.2005. The aforesaid fact is highly improbable and therefore, the alleged correction said to have been made by the accused on 06.01.2006 would also create serious doubt. Ex.D1 clearly shows that previous owner Rajeswari ammal has to pay a sum of Rs.625/- as arrears towards electricity charges in respect of the motor pump set. P.W.2, in his evidence, has also stated that he has purchased the property in the year 2003 and he has paid the electricity charges in the previous owner's name. It is also admitted that after his purchase, one time he has paid electricity charges. Thereafter, he did not pay any charges towards electricity connection for the pump set. This, in fact, probabilise the defence theory that a sum of Rs.625/- is due from the previous owner. 30. Yet another fact which vitiates prosecution is that though P.W.2, in the cross examination, has stated that he has given the said application on 29.12.2005, the accused did not take any action and that he demanded bribe, admittedly, P.W.2 has not chosen to complain the same to the superior officer of the accused. The said fact also creates serious doubt about the prosecution theory. 31. That apart, there was a delay in lodging FIR and also there was a delay in despatching FIR and other documents to the Court. Admittedly, the FIR and other documents have been received by the Court only on 06.01.2006. Similarly, though the mahazar, which was allegedly prepared for conducting the trap on the next day, was prepared on 05.01.2006, the same reached the Court only on 09.01.2006. Likewise, the alleged Observation Mahazar prepared at the office of the accused was sent to the Court only on 24.06.2006, with inordinate delay. Similarly, though the mahazar, which was allegedly prepared for conducting the trap on the next day, was prepared on 05.01.2006, the same reached the Court only on 09.01.2006. Likewise, the alleged Observation Mahazar prepared at the office of the accused was sent to the Court only on 24.06.2006, with inordinate delay. The aforesaid inordinate delay has not been explained by the prosecution. All these facts, particularly, unexplained delay, gives an inference that prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Merely on the basis of the interested witnesses who has grievance against the official with regard to the delay in processing the application for change of connection, charge cannot be presumed. 32. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence and documentary materials, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not established the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As stated supra, merely based on the evidence of the decoy and shadow witnesses, the prosecution cannot contend that the demand and acceptance of bribe has been established. 33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments held that mere recovery of money from the accused itself cannot be a proof to convict the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove the payment of bribe or evidence to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. 34. In A.Subair vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "The legal position is no more res integra that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1) (d) cannot be held to be established." It has been further held in the aforesaid decision that sub-section (3) of Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a non-obstante clause. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1) (d) cannot be held to be established." It has been further held in the aforesaid decision that sub-section (3) of Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a non-obstante clause. It provides that where gratification is trivial and the Court is of the opinion that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn, it may decline to draw the presumption as referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In other words, the Court is not bound to draw a presumption under Section 20 where the alleged gratification is too trivial. In this decision, it has been categorically ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any other offence and the accused should be considered innocent till the guilt is established. Proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are the vital ingredients, necessary to be established to procure a conviction for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. 35. In Banari Dass vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2010) 3 MLJ (Crl) 132, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows : "11. To constitute an offence under Section 161 of the IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was demand of money and the same was voluntarily accepted by the accused. Similarly, in terms of Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act, the demand and acceptance of the money for doing a favour in discharge of its official duties is sine qua non to the conviction of the accused..." 36. In Govindasamy vs. State, reported in (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 455, this Court relying on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that culpability of mind of an accused, coupled with actus rea, has to be established by the prosecution, based on the available evidence on record to sustain the conviction against the accused under Prevention of Corruption Act, without any deviation from the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence and the Indian Evidence Act. Mere recovery of tainted money by itself cannot establish the charge of acceptance of illegal gratification in the absence of any evidence to prove the payment as illegal gratification or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted money knowing it as bribe. 37. In V.Venkata Subbarao v. State (2007) 3 SCC 175 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. 38. In the case on hand, on a careful analysis of the entire evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the prosecution version of alleged demand and acceptance of money is highly doubtful. Only if the demand, acceptance has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution, then presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act will apply. When the demand and acceptance of the money itself is doubtful, in view of the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the view that the defence explanation is more probable than the case of the prosecution. Hence, this Court is of the view that the accused is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the accused is liable to be set aside. 39. In fine, (a) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (b) The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.09.2010 made in S.C.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput is hereby set aside. (c) The deceased appellant/accused is discharged from the charges levelled against him. (d) The fine amount, if any, paid by the deceased accused is ordered to be refunded to the appellants herein/legal heirs of the deceased accused. (e) The Bail bond, if any executed by the deceased appellant/accused, shall stand cancelled.