JUDGMENT : G. Jayachandran, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No. 2/2005 on the file of learned Special Judge, Cuddalore, dated 14.10.2011. 2. The appellant is M. Rajendran, Former Additional Extension Officer [Panchayats], Cuddalore Panchayat Union. The Trial Court has found him guilty for demand and receipt of Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification for disbursing the group Insurance policy benefit of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Kuppammal wife of late Kannan, Overhead tank operator. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief One Thiru. Kannan, who served as Overhead tank operator at Pathirikuppam Panchayat, Cuddalore District died on 07.03.2004. He was a member of the group Insurance Scheme and in view of his death, his wife Kuppammal was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as Insurance benefit. The President of Pathirikuppam Panchayat, Cuddalore one Thiru. Kuppasamy through his letter dated 08.03.2004 had informed the Block Development Officer, Cuddalore about the demise of Thiru. Kannan and had requested for disbursement of the group Insurance benefit. On receipt of the request letter, the Block Development Officer had wrote back to the Panchayat President to furnish documents such as service records, Death Certificate, detail regarding the payment of Insurance subscription, legal heirs certificate and Affidavit from the legal heirs. On submission of all these documents the Panchayat Union Office on 30.08.2004 had forwarded the request to Insurance Company for issuance of cheque. Accordingly, the Life Insurance Corporation has issued a cheque dated 28.09.2004 in favour of K. Kuppammal for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. 4. During the relevant point of time, the appellant herein M. Rajendran was the Additional Extension Officer [Panchayats]. On 17.10.2004, the appellant M. Rajendran had gone to the house of Kuppammal and informed her that cheque is ready and told her son should meet him on the next day at Panchayat Office. So, on 18.10.2004 her son Kanaga Vijayan [the defacto complainant] met the appellant at about 12.00 pm in the Panchayat Office. At that time, the appellant herein had demanded Rs. 5,000/- for disbursement of the cheque. He had agreed to receive Rs. 3,000/- at the time of issuing cheque and the balance of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid after encashment of the cheque. At that time, the appellant herein had demanded Rs. 5,000/- for disbursement of the cheque. He had agreed to receive Rs. 3,000/- at the time of issuing cheque and the balance of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid after encashment of the cheque. Since, Kanagavijayan was not inclined to give bribe for receiving the insurance benefit, he went to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office, Cuddalore and given a complaint on 18.10.2004 informing about the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore had received the complaint and registered the case under Crime No. 16 of 2004 for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, the trap was arranged on the next day i.e., 19.10.2004 at about 8.00 am in the Cuddalore, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office. The pre-trap proceedings was conducted in the presence of two witnesses namely Siva Kumar [P.W. 3] Fisheries Department, Cuddalore and Sedhuraman, staff of Hand loom Department. Four five hundred currencies and Ten hundred rupees currencies totally Rs. 3,000/- were smeared with phenolphthalein and handed over to the defacto complainant Kanagavijayan [P.W. 2]. He was asked to take out the money and give it to the appellant Mr. Rajendran if he demands. One of the decoy witness SivaKumar [P.W. 3] was asked to accompany the defacto complainant and his mother to oversee the transactions. Rest of the trap team followed the defacto complainant and waited for pre arranged signal outside the Panchayat Office, Cuddalore. 5. At about 11.10 am, Kanagavijayan [P.W. 2], Siva Kumar [P.W. 3] and Kuppammal [not examined] met the appellant Rajendran. When Rajendran demanded whether they have brought the money, P.W. 2 [Kanagavijayan] took out the tainted money of Rs. 3,000/- and gave it to the appellant. On receiving the money, the appellant counted the money, took out a black colour purse from his right side pant pocket; kept the tainted money inside the money purse; kept the purse inside his pocket and thereafter, told P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijayan] and others to wait outside, he will prepare the cheque and give it to them. 6. P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijyan] came out from the appellant room and gave the pre arranged signal to the trap team. On seeing the signal, the trap team entered into the room of the appellant. 6. P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijyan] came out from the appellant room and gave the pre arranged signal to the trap team. On seeing the signal, the trap team entered into the room of the appellant. They conducting phenolphthalein test in the hands of the appellant by dipping his hands in the sodium carbonate solution. The colourless solution turned pink. The appellant/accused M. Rajendran was enquired about the money received by him from P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijayan]. The appellant/accused took out the purse from his pant pocket and handed it over to the trap team which was later seized under mahazar. 7. The hand wash solution was collected and sent to chemical analysis. The analysis found presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. On completion of investigation, sanction to prosecute under Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained and final report was laid. 8. The Trial Court on considering the materials placed before it by the prosecution which was collected during the investigation framed charge under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and tried the accused. 9. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and had marked 21 Exhibits and 5 material Objects. On the side of the defence, one document was marked. 10. The Trial Court held the accused guilty, after considering the evidence placed by the prosecution and the defence explanation. The trial Court found the explanation of the accused that he received the money from Kanagavijayan [P.W. 2] towards small savings deposit scheme which he was instructed to collect by the Government, was not a plausible or probable. 11. The Trial Court had sum up its conclusion as the sanction to prosecute is valid, the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are reliable and trustworthy, the prosecution has proved the demand and receipt of bribe by the accused through the complaint marked as Ex. P.2 and the entrustment mahazar marked as Ex. P.3. The communication between the Panchayat President and Block Development Officer which are marked as Ex. P.14, Ex. P.15 and Ex. P.16 along with Ex. P.7, the office note made by P.W. 4 [Velmurugan] to issue the cheque to the beneficiary on 11.10.2004 proves the accused guilty and rejected the defence version as explained by the accused during Section 313 Cr.P.C. as unbelievable and against natural conduct. 12. P.14, Ex. P.15 and Ex. P.16 along with Ex. P.7, the office note made by P.W. 4 [Velmurugan] to issue the cheque to the beneficiary on 11.10.2004 proves the accused guilty and rejected the defence version as explained by the accused during Section 313 Cr.P.C. as unbelievable and against natural conduct. 12. As a result, the trial Court has held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced the accused to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default one month S.I. for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default one month S.I. for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused contented that the rejection of defence explanation by the Trial Court is not supported by any reason. The appellant has probabilised through P.W. 7 and Ex. D.1 the fact that the money was received by him not as illegal gratification. He bona fidely received it towards small saving scheme. The Trial Court has erred in holding that the said version and explanation is against natural conduct. While the defence has explained through P.W. 7 and Ex. D.1 that each Panchayat has given a target to collect small saving and so far as Pathirikuppam Panchayat, for which the appellant is in-charge, Rs. 5 Lakhs has been fixed as small savings target to be achieved by the end of the year [2004]. Therefore, the Panchayat President Kuppasamy was co-ordinating with the Additional Extension Officer [the appellant herein] in collecting small savings from the villagers. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- which was recovered from the appellant on 19.10.2004 was the money received towards the small saving deposit. The defacto complainant P.W. 2 had a grudge against the appellant for not arranging for the disbursement of insurance amount immediately after the death of his father and to avoid depositing the money in the small saving which the appellant compelled to do, had given a false complaint, as if, the said money was demanded as gratification other than legal remuneration. 15. 15. The trial Court based on uncorroborated evidence of P.W. 2 had erroneously held the appellant guilty of offence. The non examination of beneficiary and the witness to the trap namely Kuppammal and Panchayat President Kuppusamy who recommended for disbursement of insurance amount is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Had they been examined by the prosecution, the falsehood of P.W. 2 would have come to light. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that while plausible explanation is given by the appellant for the receipt of the money and it is probable in the light of Ex. D.1 and evidence of P.W. 7. The Trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would also relying upon the following judgment in (i) State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede reported in (2009) 15 SCC 200 , (ii) T.M. Shanmughavel vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Coimbatore reported in 2011 (2) MWN (Cr.) 90 (iii). S.P. Paulraj vs. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Ramanathapuram. To emphasis upon the legal position that, it is sufficient for the accused to offer probable explanation of defence for the receipt of the money and strict proof beyond all reasonable doubt need not be expected or emphasized. 17. Further, it is also contended by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua for the constitution of an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act to presume against the accused. In this case, except the interested witness P.W. 2 there is no other corroborative evidence that the accused had demanded any illegal gratification either on 18.10.2004 or on 19.10.2004 when the money received by the appellant. What is said by both P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 is that the accused asked whether he had brought the money. What is demanded is not the bribe money as alleged by the prosecution but it is the money towards the small savings deposits. Had the Panchayat President Kuppusamy who in fact communicated with the Panchayat Union for the disbursement of insurance money had been examined, the real fact would have come to a light. Kuppusamy who is the vital witness for the prosecution and party to Ex. Had the Panchayat President Kuppusamy who in fact communicated with the Panchayat Union for the disbursement of insurance money had been examined, the real fact would have come to a light. Kuppusamy who is the vital witness for the prosecution and party to Ex. P's. 14, 15 and 16 deliberately been kept away from giving evidence by the prosecution. When two views are possible, the view in favour of defence ought to have accepted by the Trial Court. The trial Court had failed to take note of the lacuna in the prosecution case as well as the failed to accept the explanation given by the accused therefore interference of the appellate Court is eminent and the trial Court judgment is liable to be set-aside. 18. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the explanation offered by the appellant was rightly rejected by the trial Court since the appellant except marking Ex. D.1 and relying upon the evidence of P.W. 7 had not produced any evidence to show that really he had been entrusted with the collection of small saving deposit or he had collected any money for small saving. If really the appellant has received the tainted money towards small savings scheme, he should have asked P.W. 2 to remitted it to the concern person dealing with cash or he should have arranged for issuance of deposit receipt. Having failed to do neither of that, the bald statement as explanation cannot be considered in favour of the accused. Since there is no preponderance of probability in the version of the appellant/accused. The trial Court has rejected the same and therefore, there is no necessity to interfere the judgment of the trial Court. 19. Points for consideration Whether the trial Court has failed to give due consideration to the explanation offered by the appellant for the receipt of money from P.W. 2? 20. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to prove the case. Through these witnesses 29 Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution and 1 Exhibits on behalf of the defence have marked. Five material objects namely the tainted currency of Rs. 3,000/-, the sodium carbonate solution collected from the right hand and left hand wash and solution collected from the money purse wash are marked as M.O. 1 to M.O. 4 respectively. Through these witnesses 29 Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution and 1 Exhibits on behalf of the defence have marked. Five material objects namely the tainted currency of Rs. 3,000/-, the sodium carbonate solution collected from the right hand and left hand wash and solution collected from the money purse wash are marked as M.O. 1 to M.O. 4 respectively. The purse in which the accused has kept the tainted money is marked as M.O. 5. The recovery of Rs. 3,000/- which is smeared with phenolphthalein is spoken by P.W. 3 [M. SivaKumar] and P.W. 11 [E. Venkatesan] and the same is also reflected in the seizure mahazar marked as Ex. P.4. It is admitted fact by the accused/appellant that Rs. 3,000/- which is marked as M.O. 1 series was recovered from his possession and the same was received by him from P.W. 2 [Kanagavijayan]. Therefore, the short point involved in this case is whether the receipt of the money was towards any illegal gratification or for legal remuneration as explained under the law. 21. The case of the prosecution is that when P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijayan] met the accused/appellant at Panchayat Union Office regarding the insurance claim, the appellant/accused has demanded Rs. 5,000/- from Kanaga Vijayan [P.W. 2] on 18.10.2004 at about 12.30 pm. The written complaint in this regard has been lodged by P.W. 2 Kanaga Vijayan to the Inspector of Police on 18.10.2004 at 14.00hrs and the same has been received by P.W. 11 E. Venkatesan, Inspector Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore. The complaint copy marked as Ex. P.2. In the said complaint, P.W. 2 has alleged that the accused/appellant had informed him that the cheque for Rs. 1 lakh is ready and he can bring his mother on next day to the Office and after taking photography with the Officers he can receive the cheque. At that time, the appellant had demanded Rs. 5,000/- as bribe since, he will be getting Rs. 1 lakh. It is also seen from the complaint that the accused has told P.W. 2 that he need not bribe everyone individually and this Rs. 5,000/- is not only for him but for all other higher officials. When P.W. 2 had pleaded that he is only a labourer [Tailor] and he cannot give Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant/accused has demanded Rs. 3,000/- by cash at the time of giving cheque and the balance Rs. 5,000/- is not only for him but for all other higher officials. When P.W. 2 had pleaded that he is only a labourer [Tailor] and he cannot give Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant/accused has demanded Rs. 3,000/- by cash at the time of giving cheque and the balance Rs. 2,000/- after encashment of the cheque. 22. P.W. 11 [E. Venkatesan] in his evidence has deposed that on 18.10.2004, he received the complaint marked as Ex. P.2 from Kanaga Vijayan [P.W. 2] at 2.00pm and registered the First Information Report. After making discrete enquiry about the accused and the genuineness of the complaint P.W. 11 has contacted his Senior Officials. After obtaining permission has proceeded with trap by arranging two Government Officials as witnesses. The copy of First Information Report which is marked as Ex. P.18 has been despatched to the Court on 19.10.2004 at about 9.00 hours and the same has been received by Chief Judicial Magistrate at 9.15 hours as per the initial found in Ex. P.18. 23. On 19.10.2004, on arrival of the witnesses; entrustment mahazar has been prepared in their presence after demonstrating the significance of the phenolphthalein test to the witnesses and the defacto complainant. The currencies of 500 rupees and 100 rupees denomination totally of Rs. 3,000/- smeared with phenolphthalein has been entrusted to P.W. 2, after noting the currency numbers. The entrustment mahazar marked as Ex. P.3 is spoken by complainant Kanaga Vijayan [P.W. 2], accompanying witness M. Siva Kumar [P.W. 3], the trap laying Officer E. Venkatesan [P.W. 11]. 24. As per the prosecution witnesses, P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijayan] P.W. 3 [Siva Kumar] and Kuppammal the mother of P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijayan] had gone to Panchayat Union Office at Cuddalore. Between 11.05 am to 11.20 am the tainted money M.O. 1 series has been received by the appellant/accused and after counting the money, he has placed the money in the purse which is marked as M.O. 5 and kept it in his pant pocket. 25. As far as demand of illegal gratification is concerned P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijayan] has deposed that on 18.10.2004 at about 12.00 pm, when he met the accused in his Office, he demanded Rs. 5,000/- to gratify himself and other Officers. There was no other person accompanied P.W. 2 at that point of time. 25. As far as demand of illegal gratification is concerned P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijayan] has deposed that on 18.10.2004 at about 12.00 pm, when he met the accused in his Office, he demanded Rs. 5,000/- to gratify himself and other Officers. There was no other person accompanied P.W. 2 at that point of time. There is no corroborative evidence available but the fact that on 17.10.2004 the accused went to the house of P.W. 2 met the mother of P.W. 2 and had obtained the signature of Kuppammal is not denied or disputed. It is also not disputed that when the accused went to the house of P.W. 2, he informed his mother that the cheque is ready and can be collected on the next day. When P.W. 2 went to the Panchayat Union Office on 18.10.2004, the demand of illegal gratification had been made. Since P.W. 2 was not inclined to give bribe, he had immediately gone to DV & AC Office at Cuddalore and had lodged a complaint which is marked as Ex. P.2. 26. The trial Court while considering the explanation given by the defence had split up the explanation into two parts. The first part regarding need for the appellant/accused to collect the money under small savings scheme and the second part is regarding the probability of linking the money received by the accused person to that of small savings scheme. The learned trial Judge has accepted that through Ex. D.1 and P.W. 7, the accused has probabilised that there is a need for the accused person to collect money small savings scheme. However, the second part of the explanation that the said money received by the accused persons was for the small savings deposit not probabilised through material evidence. Therefore, the said explanation is unacceptable. 27. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede reported (2009) 15 SCC 200 . 16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-a-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, 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. Even 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. 28. In this case, the proven facts are as below: (i). Thiru. Kannan, Overhead tank operator at Pathirikuppam Panchayat Union, Cuddalore District died on 07.03.2004 and his wife Kuppammal was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1 lakhs under group insurance scheme. (ii). The President of the said Pathirikuppam Panchayat Union Office had taken initiative for the disbursement of the sum assured. Pursuant to his letter, the Panchayat Union had taken the insurance and had obtained the cheque for Rs. 1 lakhs in favour of Kuppammal, the cheque Ex. P.21 dated 28.09.2004. (iii). P.W. 9 [Ayyanar], Junior Assistant in the Cuddalore Panchayat Office had deposed that the above said cheque was received from the Insurance Company on 10.06.2004 and he has shown the cheque to the Block Development Officer and as per the instruction of BDO, he has handed over the cheque to the accused/appellant. (iv). Ex. P.7, the Block Development Officer has made an office note that the cheque should be disbursed to Kuppammal on 11.10.2004 at 11.00 am and necessary arrangement should be made. (v). On 19.10.2004 at about 11.10 to 11.20 am the accused received Rs. 3,000/- from P.W. 2. 29. (iv). Ex. P.7, the Block Development Officer has made an office note that the cheque should be disbursed to Kuppammal on 11.10.2004 at 11.00 am and necessary arrangement should be made. (v). On 19.10.2004 at about 11.10 to 11.20 am the accused received Rs. 3,000/- from P.W. 2. 29. From the deposition P.W. 2 [Kanaga Vijayan], we find that the accused has gone to the defacto complainant house on 10.10.2004 and informed that the cheque is ready and it can be collected within a week. Though, the Block Development Officer has arranged for disbursement of the cheque on 11.10.2004, the cheque was not disbursed to the defacto complainant family on that day. 30. P.W. 4 [Velmurugan] was the Block Development Officer at that point of time, he has made an office note marked as Ex. P.7 for disbursement of the cheque to Kuppammal on 11.10.2004. He had deposed that the cheque was not given to the Kuppammal on that day because the Chairman did not turned up to the Panchayat Union Office on that day. In the cross examination of P.W. 8 [S. Rajaram], Record Clerk of Cuddalore Panchayat Union Office, it has been elucidated by the defence that while disbursing the cheque they will organise a function and through Block Development Officer the cheque will be issued to the beneficiary. 31. It is an admitted fact that the cheque was received from Panchayat Union Office on 06.10.2004 itself and the Block Development Officer was instructed the accused to arrange for disbursement of cheque on 11.10.2004 at 11.00 am but till 19.10.2004 the cheque was not given to the beneficiary. If the explanation for receiving Rs. 3,000/- from P.W. 2 on 19.10.2004 is to be accepted, apart from the circular, fixing target for small saving deposit, the defence ought to have shown some material that how such deposits are collected and how it is accounted for. 32. As a pointed out by the trial Court in this case, no doubt that there is a direction from the Government for collecting small saving deposit. It doesn't mean that this shield the Government servants, to explain the money received from public as illegal gratification and if caught to take umbrage under the said direction. Though cheque was received from the insurance company on 06.10.2004 and 11.10.2004 was fixed for disbursement of the cheque, the cheque was not disbursed to the beneficiary. It doesn't mean that this shield the Government servants, to explain the money received from public as illegal gratification and if caught to take umbrage under the said direction. Though cheque was received from the insurance company on 06.10.2004 and 11.10.2004 was fixed for disbursement of the cheque, the cheque was not disbursed to the beneficiary. The explanation for not handing over the cheque is that the Chairman was not available on that day. If it is so, why should the accused go to the defacto complainant house on 17.10.2004 and inform Kuppammal that the cheque is ready and she along with her son should come to the Office on the next day i.e., 18.10.2004 and collect the cheque. 33. The test for defence explanation need not be proof beyond doubt and preponderance of probability is sufficient but such preponderance should be acceptable to the prudence of any common man. In this case, after receipt of the cheque from the insurance Company on 06.10.2004 the Panchayat Union Office is liable to explain why the cheque was not disbursed to the beneficiary at the earliest. The accused herein being the person in-charge and to whom the cheque had been handed over by the BDO had no explanation for the delay. 34. The presumption is that he has withheld the cheque without disbursement to the beneficiary expecting gratification is well fortified through the evidence of P.W. 2 and the records such as Ex. P.21 cheque and Ex. P.7 office note made by Block Development Officer. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the trial Court does not need any interference. 35. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 2011 is dismissed. The Trial Court Judgment of conviction and sentence is confirmed. The appellant herein is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks, failing which the Trial court shall execute the warrant and secure the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.