JUDGMENT : G. Jayachandran, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Trichy in Spl C.C.No.7/2002 dated 06/06/2008. Raja Chidambaram (A-1) and Settu (A-2) were tried for offences under section 7 and 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pending trial A-2 died. A-1 was found guilty by the trial court. He was sentenced to under go one year RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- In default, to undergo 3 months SI for offence under section 7 and one year RI and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo 3 months SI for offence under section 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13 (2) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the appellant herein while serving as Village Assistant Officer at S. Ayyampalayam village at Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District was trapped by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption team on 23.03.2001 when he demanded and received Rs. 300/- from C. Murugan for issuance of surety certificates. The money was received by his assistant Settu (A-2, who died pending trial) on the instruction of the appellant. 3. The trap was laid based on the complaint dated 23.03.2001 given by Murugan (PW-3), wherein, he had informed to the Inspector, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Trichy that about two and half months ago, his brother's wife died. Suspecting his brother for her death, his brother was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. To move bail for his brother he approached a lawyer. On his advice, to get solvency certificate for the sureties (V. Saminathan and V. Murugesan) he met the Village Assistant Officer Mr. Raja Chidambaram (appellant herein) at his office on 19.03.2001. To issue surety certificates, the appellant demanded Rs. 600/-. When he pleaded that he have no money to give, the appellant refused to issue surety certificate without bribe. Not inclined to give bribe, he left the VAO office. 4. On 22.03.2001, at 10.00 a.m. again P.W.3 went to VAO office and met the appellant. He gave the family cards for the sureties and requested the appellant to issue certificates. The appellant prepared the certificates and demanded Rs. 600/-. When he pleaded, the appellant reduced the bribe amount from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 4. On 22.03.2001, at 10.00 a.m. again P.W.3 went to VAO office and met the appellant. He gave the family cards for the sureties and requested the appellant to issue certificates. The appellant prepared the certificates and demanded Rs. 600/-. When he pleaded, the appellant reduced the bribe amount from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 300/- and gave the certificate to his Assistant Settu and instructed to get the signatures of the sureties V. Saminathan and V.Murugesan in the certificates. The appellant retained the family cards with him and asked the complainant to meet him on 23.03.2001 with bribe money of Rs. 300/-. 5. The trap laying officer, Rathinakumar (P.W.13), who received the above complaint Ex P-3, registered FIR against Raja Chidambaram under section 7 of P.C Act. He arranged two witnesses for the trap. In the presence of the witnesses, he has demonstrated sodium carbonate phenolphthalein test. The denominations and numbers of the bribe money Rs. 300/- (Rs 50 x 6) were noted in the entrustment mahazar (Ex P-5). The money smeared with phenolphthalein was entrusted to the de facto complainant Murugan (PW-3) and he was asked to go to the VAO office along with the shadow witness P. Ramachandran (PW-4) and give the tainted money, if he demands. 6. On 23.03.2001 at 12.45 p.m. the de facto complainant/ PW-3 and the shadow witness PW-4 went to the office of the Village Administrative Office S. Ayyamplayam and met A-1 at first floor. When PW-4 asked surety certificate, A-1 demanded bribe of Rs. 300/-. The de facto complainant took the tainted money Rs. 300/- from his shirt pocket and offered it to the accused. The accused directed PW-3 to give the money to the Village Assistant Settu (A-2) who was standing near him. A-2 received the money and kept it on the table of A-1. Soon after, as directed by A-1, Settu (A-2) took the money and kept it in his shirt pocket. A-1 gave back the family card and certificates to PW-3. 7. Pw-3 and PW-4 came down from VAO office and gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap team waiting in disguise. They went to the office of A-1. PW-3 identified A-1 and A-2 to the trap team. The trap team led by Ratnakumar, (P.W.13), Inspector Vigilance & Anti Corruption entered the VAO chamber. Seeing the trap team, both the accused became nervous. They went to the office of A-1. PW-3 identified A-1 and A-2 to the trap team. The trap team led by Ratnakumar, (P.W.13), Inspector Vigilance & Anti Corruption entered the VAO chamber. Seeing the trap team, both the accused became nervous. Thereafter, Phenolphthalein test was conducted on the hands of A2. It answered positive. Hand wash was collected in two separate bottles and the same was sealed. When enquired about the tainted money received from P.W.3, the second accused confessed about receiving the money on the instructions of A1 and handed over the tainted money of Rs. 300/- marked as Ex.MO-1 series. The shirt of A2 was recovered after giving an alternate shirt. The pocket portion of A2 shirt was tested with sodium carbonate solution. The shirt of A2 marked as MO- 4. The solution answered positive for the presence of phenolphthalein. Therefore, sample was collected in a bottle and the same was marked as MO-5. The trap laying officer P.W.13 enquired A1, who denied receiving money from P.W.3. The trap laying officer, P.W.13, on further investigation recovered the two surety certificates issued to P.W.3 and other relevant revenue records. 8. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has laid the final report along with sanction to prosecute A1 and A2. The trial Court has framed charges under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses, marked 23 exhibits and 5 materials objects. On the side of the defence, one witness and one exhibit were marked. The trial Court, after considering the material evidence convicted A1, whereas the charge against A2 got abated due to his demise pending trial. 9. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused has preferred an Appeal on the ground that the money received from P.W.3 Murugan was for the purpose of tax due to the mother of P.W.5 and another person. The money recovered from A2 was offered by P.W.3 not on demand of any illegal gratification but voluntary payment of land tax which P.W.3 paid on behalf of the sureties. 10. D.W.1 has spoken about the practise of issuing advance receipt of payment of kist and collecting money at a later point of time from the farmers. Ex.D1, the kist paid by Saminathan, one of the sureties for whom certificate was issued. 10. D.W.1 has spoken about the practise of issuing advance receipt of payment of kist and collecting money at a later point of time from the farmers. Ex.D1, the kist paid by Saminathan, one of the sureties for whom certificate was issued. Marked to show that the sureties were liable to pay land arrears and without payment of land tax arrears, surety certificate will not be given. Therefore, tax receipt was prepared in advance enabling to issue surety certificate. But the trial Court failed to consider the explanation given for the receipt of the money. 11. Further, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the surety certificate was required for P.W.3 to get bail for his brother, who was arrested on the charge of murder. In the said murder case, A1 was the first informant. Therefore, in order to wreck vengeance, at the instigation of one Ramachandran, false complaint has been given against him. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointing out the explanation given by the accused in the course of Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning would submit that he asked A2 to receive the money offered by P.W.3 under the impression that Rs. 300/- is offered for the land tax arrears to be paid by Saminathan, Rangammal, mother of Murugesan and Veeramani, mother of Murugan. 13. Pointing out Section 20 of Prohibition of Corruption Act, the learned counsel would submit that the rebutted presumption of acceptance of illegal gratification through the evidence of D.W.1, Ex D1 as well as through the evidence of P.W.8, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant, but erroneously without considering the merits of the case, the trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant. 14. Learned counsel also submitted that the trap laying officer has failed to adhere the guidelines of Vigilance and Anti Corruption mandatory Rule 47 which contemplates recording of the accused statement immediately after the trap. Admittedly in this case, the trap laying officer failed to record the statement of A1 and A2, which has lead to the miscarriage of justice. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the matter of State vs. M.L. Rajan, Assistant Educational Officer, Thimiri, (2013) 3 LW(Cri) 157. 15. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the matter of State vs. M.L. Rajan, Assistant Educational Officer, Thimiri, (2013) 3 LW(Cri) 157. 15. The learned counsel would also submit that the sanction to prosecute the accused accorded by P.W.1 is defective. He has not applied his mind before according sanction and therefore, the cognizance taken by the trial Court itself is improper. To support the said submission, the learned counsel for the appellant referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 6 JT 473. 16. The learned counsel would submit that proof of demand and acceptance is sinequanon in the case of a trap. Whereas, in this case, neither the demand nor the acceptance as against the appellant has been proved by the prosecution. Neither, the tainted money recovered from the appellant nor the money was given to the appellant, by P.W.3. In the said circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have convicted him. To buttress this point, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of State of Karnataka through CBI vs. C. Nagarajaswamy, (2005) 8 SCALE 280 . 17. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond doubt, whereas, the reason for receiving the money towards land arrears and not an illegal gratification otherwise than legal remuneration is well proved by the defence. The persons who have sought surety certificates were in arrears of land tax. When the appellant as VAO, demanded them to clear the arrears and get the certificate, Ramachandran (P.W.4) insisted to issue surety certificate without payment of tax. Since the appellant refused to concede his request, Ramachandran has engineered false complaint through Murugan/P.W.3. Ramachandran openly threatened the appellant and the same was witnessed by D.W.1. Having probabalised the defence through these witnesses, the judgment of the trial Court ought to be set aside. 18. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the grounds raised by the appellant are not sustainable under the law and fact. The sanction for prosecuting the appellant is in order and sustainable. P.W.1, who is the Revenue District Officer is the Authority to remove VAO. 18. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the grounds raised by the appellant are not sustainable under the law and fact. The sanction for prosecuting the appellant is in order and sustainable. P.W.1, who is the Revenue District Officer is the Authority to remove VAO. Therefore, he has accorded sanction after applying his mind and satisfied that the appellant is guilty of receiving illegal gratification. Just because this witness would not explain the expression "whereas" it cannot be construed that he has accorded sanction without application of mind. So far as demand of illegal gratification, P.W.3 Murugan has clearly deposed that to issue surety certificate, A1 specifically demanded Rs. 600/- and later reduced to Rs. 300/- On 23.03.2001, when A1 demanded the money and that was offered by P.W.3. 19. A1 directed A2 to receive the same. Later the trap team has recovered the tainted money from A2, which was received by A2 on instructions of A1. The surety certificate Ex.P.7 and P.10 issued in the names of V. Murugesan and V. Saminathan were handed over to P.W.3 only after receipt of illegal gratification of Rs. 300/-. The receipt books, Ex.P12 and the receipt, Ex.P13 clearly show that the appellant had not received Rs. 300/- towards land tax but only as illegal gratification. 20. Therefore, the learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that having proved the demand of illegal gratification through evidence of P.W.3 and recovery of the same from A2 who had received the money on the instruction of A1,which been proved through eye witness, recovery mahazar witness and Phenolphthalein test. Hence, submitted that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 21. Point for Consideration: Whether the explanation offered by A1 in the receipt of money is sufficient to rebut the presumption - The specific case of the prosecution witness P.W.3 is that his brother was arrested, suspecting murder of his wife. To get bail, he was in need of two surety certificates. Therefore, he approached the Village Administrate Officer, who is the authority to issue surety certificate. The specific allegation made by P.W.3 against the appellant in his complaint marked as Ex.P.3 is that on 19.03.2001 at about 10:00 a.m. he met the first appellant to get the surety certificates of V. Saminathan & V. Murugesan. At that time, the appellant demanded Rs. The specific allegation made by P.W.3 against the appellant in his complaint marked as Ex.P.3 is that on 19.03.2001 at about 10:00 a.m. he met the first appellant to get the surety certificates of V. Saminathan & V. Murugesan. At that time, the appellant demanded Rs. 600/- as illegal gratification. Again on 22.03.2001, he made similar request to the appellant. Since the appellant has reiterated his demand of illegal gratification, he has bargained with the appellant and settled for Rs. 300/-. With this fact, he has lodged a complaint on 23.03.2001 alleging the demand of illegal gratification as against the appellant. 22. P.W.13 had registered FIR based on this complaint and arranged for trap. The tainted money has been recovered from A2, who died pending trial. The recovery of money has not been disputed. The said tainted money MO 1 series has been entrusted to P.W.3 under the entrustment mahazar in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Ramachandran and Ratnavadivel. Ramachandran has been examined as P.W.4 who has acted as a shadow witness in this case. He had deposed about his visit to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption office on 23.03.2001 at about 11:00 a.m. His participated in the entrustment mahazar and also witnessed the demand of illegal gratification by A1. He has cogently deposed that A1 demanded the money from P.W.3. 23. When the money was offered to A-1, he has asked A-2, his assistant to receive the same. Thereafter, the two surety certificates issued in the name of V. Murugesan and V. Saminathan have been issued. It has been witnessed by P.W.4. Thus, it is clearly established by the prosecution that only after receiving the bribe money, these two surety certificates Ex.P7 & Ex.P10 were given toP.W.3. Soon after this, the trap team led by P.W.13 has recovered both the money and certificates. While the money was recovered from A2, certificate signed by A1 was recovered from P.W.3, these two certificates are issued in the name of V.Saminathan/P.W.5 and V.Murugesan/P.W.6. They have spoken about the necessity for seeking the surety certificates. They have denied any arrears of land tax payable at that point of time. While the money was recovered from A2, certificate signed by A1 was recovered from P.W.3, these two certificates are issued in the name of V.Saminathan/P.W.5 and V.Murugesan/P.W.6. They have spoken about the necessity for seeking the surety certificates. They have denied any arrears of land tax payable at that point of time. Further the house tax receipts, based on which these solvency certificate has been issued marked as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.11 indicates that the money received by A2 on the direction of the appellant is not towards any land tax but as illegal gratification otherwise than legal remuneration. 24. P.W.10 /Mr. P.A. Omprakash, an advocate has deposed that he had instructed P.W.3 to get surety certificate for getting bail for his brother which has prompted P.W.3 to request VAO for surety certificate. Taking advantage of the dire urgency, the appellant has exploited P.W.3 by pressuring him to give bribe for issuing the surety certificate. The attempt to probabalise the money recovered from A2 is only towards land tax falls to ground because if Rs. 300/- meant for land tax arrears of certain person, he should have first prepared the receipt for Rs. 300/- and thereafter, he should have prepared the surety certificate. Whereas in this case, the surety certificate has already been made ready but not issued to P.W.3 awaiting bribe money. Hence, this Court holds that there is no error in the judgment of the trial Court which requires interference. 25. In the light of the above facts, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does not factually apply to the present case. The Revenue Divisional Officer had applied his mind while according sanction which is explicitly spoken in his deposition. The demand and acceptance of bribe money not only proved by eye witnesses, the appellant himself by way of explanation, where he admits that he had received Rs. 300/- from P.W.3. The explanation offered by him to rebut his presumption cast upon him under Section 20 of the PC Act which is very unlikely for the reasons stated above. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 26. As a result, Criminal Appeal dismissed and judgment and sentence passed in Spl. Case No.7 of 2002, dated 06.06.2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Trichy is confirmed. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 26. As a result, Criminal Appeal dismissed and judgment and sentence passed in Spl. Case No.7 of 2002, dated 06.06.2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Trichy is confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The bail bond if any executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.