ORDER 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.194 of 1999 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also reducing the sentence of imprisonment of one year and one and a half year respectively. 2. During the relevant time, the appellant was working as a Phone Inspector in MTNL Exchange at Okhla. On 7th January, 1994, complainant-PW-2 contacted SDO/PW-9 for installation of new telephone connection for the residence of his brother who was in abroad. PW-9 referred PW-2 to the appellant who was then the phone inspector. The appellant for ensuring early installation of the telephone connection, the appellant is said to have demanded Rs. 3,000/- and asked PW-2 to come to his office on 10th January, 1994 at 11.30 a.m. PW-2 complainant lodged the complaint, based on which the trap was arranged by PW-8 (Trap Laying Officer). On 10th January, 1994, PW-2 complainant accompanied by PW-3 (Shadow witness) went to the office and paid bribe money of Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant on showing the pre-arranged signal PW-8 Trap Laying Officer and his team went inside the office when the left hand fingers and the pant pocket of the accused was dipped in the solution, the same turned pink. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellant guilty under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In appeal, the conviction of the appellant was was confirmed; however, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced as aforesaid. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of witnesses and submitted that the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 suffers from material contradictions and the same was not considered in proper perspective. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of witnesses and submitted that the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 suffers from material contradictions and the same was not considered in proper perspective. Learned counsel further submitted that when the accused was charged for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Trial Court as well as the High Court was not right in placing the burden of proof upon the accused. It was also submitted that the Courts below ought not to have raised the presumption against the appellant under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. 6. Insofar as the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the contradictions are not so material affecting the credibility of the witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. Further the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings accepting the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 as to the demand and acceptance of the bribe. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below as to the demand and acceptance of the amount upon consideration of the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. 7. Insofar as the arguments advanced regarding presumption raised under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the statutory presumption to be raised wherein any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act will be raised, the moment the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or obtained any gratification or valuable thing. When the law makes a presumption of guilt and throws upon the accused the burden of proving his innocence, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption. By the Sodium Carbonate solution turning pink, it is proved that accused has accepted or obtained illegal gratification. 8. In this case, by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 and also based on sodium carbonate solution and dipping the hands and pant pocket of the accused turning pink, the acceptance of the amount has been proved. The appellant-accused has not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption. 8. In this case, by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 and also based on sodium carbonate solution and dipping the hands and pant pocket of the accused turning pink, the acceptance of the amount has been proved. The appellant-accused has not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption. It is true that the burden which rests on the accused to rebut the presumption is not onerous as that cast on the prosecution to prove its case. Nevertheless, this burden cast upon the accused is to be discharged by bringing evidence which establishes with reasonable probability that the money was accepted by the accused other than as an illegal gratification. Mere explanation attempting to create doubt on the prosecution case may not be sufficient to rebut the presumption raised under Section 20 of the PC Act. The Courts below have not committed any error in raising statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C Act is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and we do not find any good ground warranting interference with the verdict of conviction. 9. Insofar as the sentence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), prior to the amendment (w.e.f 16/01/2014) for the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) the minimum sentence was one year. Considering the passage of time and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence of imprisonment of one and a half year is reduced to the period of one year and under Section 7, the sentence of imprisonment of one year is reduced to six months. 10. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C Act is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment for the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) is reduced to one year and the sentence of imprisonment under Section 7 is reduced to six months. The appeal is partly allowed. Both the sentence will run concurrently. 11. The appellant shall surrender himself within a period of four weeks from today to serve the remaining sentence, failing which, he shall be taken into custody.