JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is against the judgment of sentence and conviction dated 22.01.2008 in Special Case No.1 of 2006 on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagarcoil. 2. The appellant, the sole accused, while working as Assistant in the office of Executive Engineer, PWD/WRO, Poigaiyar Reservoir Project Division, Aralvoimozhi was found guilty of demand and receipt of Rs 200/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from one Anandam, retired Jeep Driver of PWD on 19.07.2005 to process his papers relating to payment of sixth pay commission arrears. Accused was sentenced to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'] in default in payment of fine, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 3. The brief facts leading to the appeal: (i) The de facto complainant Thiru. Anandam, former Jeep driver at the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Water Resources, retired from service on 31.08.2001. Anandam was entitled to get 60% of Sixth Pay Commission arrears held in his GPF account. The Accountant General(A&E), Tamil Nadu Circle issued authorisation for drawal of the amount, vide his proceedings dated 11.07.2005. Anandam was informed about it and he was asked to exercise his option whether the money has to be paid by way of National Savings Certificate (NSC) or to be deposited in the Postal Department under Time Deposit. In response to this communication from the office of the Executive Engineer, Aralvaimohzi, Anandam requested in his letter dated 26.07.2005 to give the money through Postal Time Deposit. On receipt of his option, the Executive Engineer, PWD/WRO issued order dated 03.08.2005 for release of Rs.14,416/-. The EE/PWD/WRO also authorised Assistant Thangam (accused) to receive demand draft from sub-treasury. When the matter was pending with Thangam, Anandam contacted Thangam over phone on 06.08.2005 and enquired about the bills. Thangam told him to meet on 07.08.2005 at 06.00 p.m. at the Co-op Tex Shop near Nagarcoil Kullathu Bus Stand. (ii) When the de facto complainant met the accused near Co-op Tex shop on 07.08.2005 at 06.00 p.m., the accused demanded Rs.500/-. The de facto complainant expressed his difficulty in giving Rs.500/-. Thangam told him to meet on 07.08.2005 at 06.00 p.m. at the Co-op Tex Shop near Nagarcoil Kullathu Bus Stand. (ii) When the de facto complainant met the accused near Co-op Tex shop on 07.08.2005 at 06.00 p.m., the accused demanded Rs.500/-. The de facto complainant expressed his difficulty in giving Rs.500/-. The accused reduced the amount to Rs.200/- and told the de facto complainant that only if Rs.200/- is paid, he will prepare the bills. Also instructed the de facto complainant to bring Rs.200/- on 19.08.2005 at 02.00 p.m. to his office at Arulvaimozhi and left the place. Not willing to pay bribe to process his bills, the de facto complainant Anandam lodged complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, at Nagercoil on 19.08.2005. (iii) Mr. Kannan, Inspector of Police, registered the complaint of Anandam and organized trap to catch the accused if he receives the bribe. Accordingly, pre-trap proceedings were conducted at the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department Office in the presence of independent witnesses. Entrusted 4 fifty rupee notes to Anandam after it being smeared with phenolphthalein. At about 01.45 p.m., the de facto complainant, the shadow witness and the trap team left Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department Office. Reached the office of EE/PWD/WRO at 02.15 p.m. Anandam and Boslin Winstom Sam met the accused at his office. The accused reiterated his demand of bribe. Anandam gave the tainted money to the accused. The tainted money was received by the accused in his right hand and he kept it in his table receipt of the pre- arranged signal the trap team entered and recovered the tainted money from the accused after conducting phenolphthalein test in his hands. (iv) To prove the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. 28 exhibits and 2 material objects were marked. The Trial Court held charges under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of PC Act proved. 4. The judgment of the Trial Court is challenged on the grounds that: (a) The complaint dated 19.08.2005 alleging that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.500/- and reduced to Rs.200/- on 07.08.2005 is belated and no satisfactory reason is given by the prosecution for this inordinate delay. (b) The de facto complainant wrongly suspected that his bill is delayed by the appellant. (b) The de facto complainant wrongly suspected that his bill is delayed by the appellant. Due to that animosity, he picked up quarrel with the appellant on 15.08.2005. He challenged the appellant that he will fix him and make him to loose his job. With that bad intention, he had given the belated false complaint alleging that he demanded illegal gratification to process his 6th pay commission arrears. (c) The appellant is only an Assistant. The bills of the complainant is dealt by the Establishment Section. He was in-charge cashier only for few days. Except between 08.08.2005 and 12.08.2005, he never dealt the bills of the de facto complainant. The bills were given to him on 08.08.2005 for presentation at Sub-treasury by Malliga of Establishment Section. On the same day, he presented the bill. It was audited with endorsement 'AG's letter not received'. He received back the bills on 12.08.2005 and handed over to Malliga at Establishment Department. (d) The prosecution has failed to record the statement of Malliga and examine her as a witness. The trap laying officer failed to give him an opportunity to explain. The explanation found in the seizure mahazar is incorrect and contrary to record. No accused will give a false statement detrimental to his interest, while the truth will disprove the case of the complainant. (e) It is also contented that the sanction to prosecute is not issued by person competent to grant sanction. P.W.1 was only an in-charge officer. He is not competent to remove the accused from service. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent refute the above submission of the appellant's counsel on the ground that: (a) The de facto complainant made his option to deposit the pay commission arrears in Postal Department Term Deposit through his letter dated 26.07.2005. When he called the accused over phone on 06.08.2005 and enquired about the status of his bill, the accuse told him to meet near Co-op Tex shop, Kulathu Bus Stand, Nagercoil on the next day. When P.W.2 met the accused on 07.08.2005, he demanded bribe of Rs.500/- later reduced to Rs.200/- and instructed to give the money on 19.08.2005 at 02.00 p.m. in his office at Aralvaimohzi. The complaint given on 19.08.2005 at 10.00 a.m. need not be disbelieved or suspected for delay. The complainant is a former staff of EB and the accused is the present incumbent. The complaint given on 19.08.2005 at 10.00 a.m. need not be disbelieved or suspected for delay. The complainant is a former staff of EB and the accused is the present incumbent. After much contemplation, he has filed the complaint and set the law into motion on the day when the accused has asked him to meet and give bribe. (b) The fact about the demand of Rs.500/- as bribe to process the bill on 07.08.2005 is deposed by the de facto complainant (P.W.2). The bribe amount was reduced to Rs.200/- after bargain. The accused/appellant specifically instructed the de facto complainant (P.W.2), to meet him on 19.08.2005 with money. The complaint Ex.P.4 contains these facts and the Trial Court had no reason to disbelieve it. (c) The second demand on the day of trap i.e., 19.08.2005 is proved through the ocular evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The conduct of the accused/appellant welcoming them on 19.08.2005, offered seat and enquired whether he has brought money. Both P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye witnesses of the second demand and receipt of the bribe money. There evidence is un- impeached. There is no ill will or motive between the shadow witness (P.W.3) and the accused. While so, the evidence of P.W.2 as corroborated by P.W.3 clearly establishes the factum of demand and obtaining illegal gratification, which has been later recovered from the table drawer of the accused and marked as M.O.1 series. (d) P.W.5 Ramamoorthy, has deposed that after the retirement of the cashier Ponnaiah on 31.05.2005, under the proceedings marked as Ex.P.11, the accused was entrusted with additional charge of cashier from 01.06.2005. The accused was discharged the duty of cashier in addition to the duty of Assistant. Prosecution through P.W.4 and P.W.5 had proved that the accused had role in processing the arrear bill of the de facto complainant. Through these witnesses, prosecution has proved that from Establishment Section the accused has received the MTC 70 Register along with the bill relating to the de facto complainant on 08.08.2005, he has presented it in the Sub-Treasury on the same day. On 12.08.2005, he got back the papers from the treasury after the bill being audited and handed over it Malliga of Establishment Section. Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.20 marked through these two witnesses disprove the plea of the accused that he had no role in processing the bills of the de facto complainant. On 12.08.2005, he got back the papers from the treasury after the bill being audited and handed over it Malliga of Establishment Section. Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.20 marked through these two witnesses disprove the plea of the accused that he had no role in processing the bills of the de facto complainant. (e) The defence explanation for the money in his possession is neither true nor probablised through evidence. Mere denial of receipt or recovery of the tainted money without discharging the reverse burden, the accused is not entitle for the benefit of acquittal. Therefore, the Trial Court's Judgment is to be confirmed. 6. Point for consideration: "Whether the Trial Court is correct in holding that the prosecution has proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused to presume against him that the money he obtained is illegal gratification other than legal remuneration?" 7. The challenge about the sanction to prosecute on the ground that P.W.1 who accorded sanction order Ex.P.1 was only holding additional charge as Executive Engineer of PWD, WRO/Poigaiyar Reservoir Project Division, Aralvaimozhi is liable to be rejected outright in view of the Judgment of the Madras High Court Full Bench in A. Savariar v. The Secretary, TNPSC, Chennai - 600 002 and another reported in 2008(3) LW 760 . The Full Bench of this Court in unequivocal term had held that, unless contrary intention is expressed by the Government either by way of a statutory provision or by way of an executive instruction, a Government Servant who holds the post as in-charge has got power to discharge the statutory functions and responsibilities of the said post. In this case, during the relevant point of time, the accused was Assistant in the office of Executive Engineer PWD/WRO/Poigaiyar, Aralvaimozhi. P.W.1, who was the Executive Engineer of PWD/WRO/Nambiyar put in charge of Poigaiyar project. He being the officer competent to remove the accused from service has accorded sanction Ex.P.1 after perusing the documents. Hence, the validity of Ex P-1, is unassailable. 8. The next contention of the appellant counsel that the demand on 07.08.2005 near Co-op Tex shop nor on the date of trap not proved. The learned counsel would point out that, the version of the PW-2 that when he contacted the accused on 06.08.2005, he told to met him the next day at 06.00 pm near Co-op Tex shop, Kulathu Bus stand. The learned counsel would point out that, the version of the PW-2 that when he contacted the accused on 06.08.2005, he told to met him the next day at 06.00 pm near Co-op Tex shop, Kulathu Bus stand. The call details of the respective phones not obtained to prove whether the accused and the de facto complainant contacted over phone on the day prior to the first demand. Therefore, the case of the prosecution about the first demand has to be rejected. As far as the second demand is concerned, the presence of P.W.3 is highly doubtful and hence, his deposition has to be disbelieved. 9. No doubt, the investigating officer has only called for the address and telephone number of the accused from BSNL and nothing more. This will at the most render the prosecution case of first demand not proved with respect to the fact that the accused and the de facto complainant contacted over phone on 06.08.2005 and met on the next day. This does not exonerate the appellant/accused from the charge in respect of the demand and acceptance of money on 19.08.2005 from P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 in unison had deposed that on 19.08.2005 as per the instruction of the Trap Laying Officer (P.W.10), they went to the office of the accused at 02.15 p.m. The accused told he was waiting for them. Demanded money. Received it in his right hand. Kept it inside the table drawer. Later the money has been recovered from the table drawer. 10. The second demand is proved through the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are the eye witnesses of the demand and receipt. Their evidence is unimpeached. There is no ill will or motive between the P.W.3 and the accused. Even the alleged verbal exchange between him and P.W.2 on 15.08.2005 as motive for the complainant not corroborated through any independent witness. In contra, the evidence of P.W.2 as corroborated by PW-3 clearly establishes the factum of demand and obtaining illegal gratification, which has been later recovered from the table drawer of the accused and marked as M.O.1 series. 11. From the prosecution exhibits, we find that the demand of bribe as per prosecution witness was first made on 07.08.2005. Next day the bills have come to the hand of the accused. 11. From the prosecution exhibits, we find that the demand of bribe as per prosecution witness was first made on 07.08.2005. Next day the bills have come to the hand of the accused. He has presented it in the treasury as per the instruction of P.W.5 on 08.08.2005. The Sub-Treasury has audited the bill on 12.08.2005. The accused has received the bills and handed over to Malliga of Establishment section on 12.08.2005. Since that day, the bill was not represented till the day of trap (19.08.2005). From the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, it is clear that it is the duty of the accused as clerk in charge to hand over the bills to Sub-Treasury and follow it up. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the accused had the bills in his control only between 08.08.2005 and 12.08.2005, thereafter he had no role in it to demand and receive bribe on 19.08.2005 has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. 12. In State of Andhra Pradesh v P. Venkateshwarlu reported in 2015 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 225 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed that:- “10. We are aware of the position in law, as laid down in cases involving the relevant provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, that mere recovery of the tainted amount is not a sine qua non for holding a person guilty under Sections 7, 11 and 13 of the Act. This Court has observed in Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 , that there has to be evidence adduced by the prosecution that bribe was demanded or paid voluntarily as bribe. The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts. The same point of law has been reiterated by this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153 . 13. In the present case the factum of demand and acceptance of Rs.200/- by the accused has been proved through P.W.2 and P.W-.3. The same point of law has been reiterated by this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153 . 13. In the present case the factum of demand and acceptance of Rs.200/- by the accused has been proved through P.W.2 and P.W-.3. The recovery of the tainted money from the accused table drawer, presence of phenolphthalein in the hand of the accused are proved through eye witnesses, mahazar Ex.P.7 and chemical analyst report Ex.P.25. The prosecution having proved the essential ingredient of demand and acceptance, it is obligatory to raise the presumption mandated by Section 20 of P.C. Act. It is for the accused respondent to rebut the presumption, by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence, that the money recovered was not a reward or motive as mentioned under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Since the accused had failed to rebut the presumption, the finding of the Trial Court needs no interference. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant while submitting the merits of his case also pointed out that the sentence of imprisonment for four years is disproportionate to the alleged crime of receiving illegal gratification of Rs.200/-. Taking note of the age of the accused and his unblemished service till he was trapped, sought modification of the sentence. 15. This Court finds force in the above submission. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While confirming the conviction, the sentence of 4 years rigorous imprisonment each for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, is modified into one year simple imprisonment for each of the offences. Period of sentence shall run concurrently. No modification in the fine amount. The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be set off. Bail bond if any executed by him, shall stand cancelled. 16. This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.