JUDGMENT G.Jayachandran, J. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment passed in Special Case No.5 of 2002 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Special Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: (i) The appellant herein while working as Assistant in the Sub Registrar's Office, Radhapuram, on 11.01.2001 demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification to return the document registered on that day bearing No.33/2001 and a further sum of Rs. 300/- as motive other than legal remuneration to issue encumbrance certificate. Kannan (P.W.2), not inclined to give bribe, had given a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department at Tirunelveli on 17.01.2001 informing about his application for seeking encumbrance certificate on 09.01.2001. (ii) The accused gave a receipt after receiving Rs. 250/- towards the charge and also noted that the encumbrance certificate will be ready by 17.01.2001, however instructed Kannan to come on 12.01.2001 and if the certificate is ready, he can collect the same. Accordingly, Kannan went to the Sub Registrar's Office on 12.01.2001 at 10.00 a.m. and met the accused. At that time, he informed that certificate is not ready and he can collect the same on 17.01.2001, Wednesday after paying Rs. 300/-. At that time, one Rajendran, the maternal aunty son of Kannan came to the Registrar's Office to register a sale deed. Rajendran, gave the document to the accused for registration. He also requested the accused to hand over the document after registration to Kannan, since he is supposed to leave for outstation. In the receipt, the name of Kannan was entered as person authorised to collect the document presented by Rajendran for registration. (iii) At 05.30 p.m., the accused called him and after obtaining his signature demanded Rs. 500/- to return the document of Rajednran. When Kannan told that he is not having Rs. 500/- with him, the accused struck-off the entry in the register and told him to give Rs. 500/- on 17.01.2001 and collect the document. When he went back to his village and informed Rajendran about the illegal demand of the accused, they both decided to give complaint to the Vigilance Cell. (iv) Based on the complaint of Kannan (P.W.2), A.Joseph, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department registered First Information Report and arranged for trap. 500/- on 17.01.2001 and collect the document. When he went back to his village and informed Rajendran about the illegal demand of the accused, they both decided to give complaint to the Vigilance Cell. (iv) Based on the complaint of Kannan (P.W.2), A.Joseph, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department registered First Information Report and arranged for trap. Isacc Antony, Blue Print Operator and M.Ganesan, Junior Assistant, Agriculture Department, were requested to witness the trap proceedings. In their presence, entrustment mahazar was prepared at about 12.30 hours at Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Office, Palayamkottai. One 500 rupee note and three 100 rupee notes were smeared with phenolphthalein and entrusted to the de facto complainant (Kannan). He was asked to go to Sub Registrar's Office at Radhapuram along with the trap team. (v) At 03.30 p.m., they reached near Radhapuram Sub Registrar's Office. P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to the office to meet the accused. While the trap team headed by Joseph took position and waited for pre-arranged signal, at about 04.30 p.m., Kannan (P.W.2) and Isaac Antony (P.W.3) came out of the Sub Registrar's Office and gave the pre-arranged signal. The trap team entered the Sub Registrar's Office and introduced themselves to the accused. On seeing the trap team, the accused got refluxed. The accused hands were tested with sodium carbonate solution. Both his right and left hands wash turned into pink proving positive the presence of phenolphthalein. (vi) P.W.12 enquired the accused where he has kept the money received from Kannan (P.W.2). The accused took out the tainted currency kept in his left side shirt inner pocket and placed it on his table. The currency numbers compared with the numbers noted in the entrustment mahazar and the same found to be tallied. The shirt of the accused was recovered after giving an alternate shirt. The pocket portion was tested with sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned into pink. Sample solutions were collected and sealed. From the possession of the accused apart from Rs. 800/- the tainted notes, Rs. 1176/- was also recovered. The receipt books, key account note, attendance register, encumbrance certificate register were recovered from the accused under a mahazar. (vii) On completion of investigation and after obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused from the Inspector General of Registration, the respondent has filed final report. 800/- the tainted notes, Rs. 1176/- was also recovered. The receipt books, key account note, attendance register, encumbrance certificate register were recovered from the accused under a mahazar. (vii) On completion of investigation and after obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused from the Inspector General of Registration, the respondent has filed final report. (viii) Based on the final report, the Trial Court has framed charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'] for demand of Rs. 300/- as illegal gratification to issue encumbrance certificate and Rs. 500/- for return of document. Further, the accused was also charged for offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act for obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means. (ix) To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Through these witnesses, 31 exhibits and 6 material objects were marked. In defence, 2 witnesses were examined and 3 exhibits were marked. (x) The Trial Court considering the evidence placed before it, has held the accused guilty of both the charges and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for each of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. The Trial Court also ordered to run the substantive sentences concurrently. The remand period was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. (xi)Aggrieved by the above said Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused would submit that the Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The very framing of charge and the evidence as found by the prosecution clearly belies the case of the prosecution. The entire trap proceedings and investigation bristles with infirmity and contrary to law of evidence. The explanation offered by the appellant/accused for the receipt of the money, which has been clearly proved through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. 4. The entire trap proceedings and investigation bristles with infirmity and contrary to law of evidence. The explanation offered by the appellant/accused for the receipt of the money, which has been clearly proved through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. 4. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, on 11.01.2001, when representative of V.V. Minerals sought to register a document of a property owned by Sankar, the accused informed Jegadeesan, the prospective buyer who presented the document, that there is objection by Sankar and therefore he will not register the same. Aggrieved by that, Jegadeesan and Others have set up Rajendran and Kannan to trap the accused. As a consequence of that, the property of Sankar was purchased through Amaladasan and the sale deed was presented for registration on 11.01.2001. On the very next day, Amaladasan sold the property to Jegadeesan. Towards the registration fee, Amaladasan tendered two old 500 rupee notes, which this appellant/accused refused to receive, as per the instruction from his office. When he asked Amaladasan to give fresh currency, he had only Rs. 50/- with him, which was received from Rajendran, with request to give the balance Rs. 800/- when he comes to collect the document. On 17.01.2001, under the pretext of tendering the registration fee, the money was offered by Kannan, which he received bona-fidely towards registration fees. 5. Relying upon the evidence of Amaladasan (D.W.1) and Fazzil (D.W.2), who are the vendor and witness of Ex.P.11, sale deed of Sankar in favour of Amaladasan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that since the appellant/ accused refused to register the sale deed presented by Jegadeesan, on behalf of V.V. Minerals citing the objection made by the land owner, the entire trap drama has been enacted by the powerful lobby. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the appellant/ accused is an Assistant in the Sub Registrar's Office, Radhapuram during the relevant point of time. In the absence of Sub Registrar, he is supposed to discharge the function of the Sub Registrar as incharge. Kannan (P.W.2) and Rajendran (P.W.4) have clearly deposed that on 12.01.2001, a sale deed (Ex.P.11) was presented for registration. Whereas on 09.01.2001, three applications for encumbrance certificate were made along with requisite fees of Rs. 253/-. In the absence of Sub Registrar, he is supposed to discharge the function of the Sub Registrar as incharge. Kannan (P.W.2) and Rajendran (P.W.4) have clearly deposed that on 12.01.2001, a sale deed (Ex.P.11) was presented for registration. Whereas on 09.01.2001, three applications for encumbrance certificate were made along with requisite fees of Rs. 253/-. Both P.W.2 and P.W.4, no doubt, work for V.V. Minerals. Since both the applications for encumbrance certificate and the presentation of the sale deed (Ex.P.11) were two different independent actions, the accused had demanded Rs. 300/- for issuance of encumbrance certificate and Rs. 500/- for return of sale deed presented for registration on 12.01.2001. Pursuant to the said demand, on 17.01.2001, he received the money from P.W.2 and kept it in his shirt pocket. The same was witnessed by P.W.3 independent witness, who have nothing to do with V.V. Minerals. Therefore, the motive attributed to V.V. Minerals is unfounded. 7. The explanation offered by the appellant/accused for the receipt of the money is unnatural and against prudence. His refusal to receive old 500 rupee notes and paying out of his pocket expecting the same to be repaid after few days is apposed to common sense and does not carry any merit to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act. 8. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and there is no ground to interfere the Judgment of the Trial Court. 9. Point for consideration: "Whether the explanation offered by the appellant/accused for the possession of the tainted money with him probabilises that the money was not received by him as illegal gratification?" 10. The admitted facts in this case are that P.W.5 is the Sub Registrar of Radhapuram Registration Office. In his absence, the accused was discharging the function of Sub Registrar as incharge officer. P.W.2 and P.W.4 are closely known to each other. Further, they worked for a common employer, namely V.V.Minerals. V.V.Minerals for their mining purpose, had purchased larger extent of land in Survey Nos.363/2 and 363/1. The piece of land which is the subject matter of Ex.P.11 owned by Sankar was in need of V.V.Minerals and hence, they were negotiating with Sankar. 11. Further, they worked for a common employer, namely V.V.Minerals. V.V.Minerals for their mining purpose, had purchased larger extent of land in Survey Nos.363/2 and 363/1. The piece of land which is the subject matter of Ex.P.11 owned by Sankar was in need of V.V.Minerals and hence, they were negotiating with Sankar. 11. From Ex.D.1, it appears that Sankar has lodged a protest petition with the Sub Registrar stating that Rajendran from whom he purchased the property is trying to cancel the sale deed behind his back by impersonation and therefore, any document if presented by any third party as his power agent should not be entertained. P.W.5, the Sub Registrar has deposed that Sankar gave the above said petition (Ex.D.1) on 02.01.2001. The said Sankar who has given protest letter (Ex.D.1) has later sold the property to Amaladasan (D.W.1). The evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 goes to show that total extent of 11.14 acres was sold by Amaladasan to one Jegadeesan on 12.01.2001. Amaladasan has purchased the said property from Sankar a day before he alienated the property to Jegadeesan. 12. The reason for buying the property from Sankar on 11.01.2001 and transferring the same to Jegadeesan on 12.01.2001 is deposed by D.W.1 in extenso. It is seen from D.W.1's deposition that P.W.4 Rajendran has organized the said transaction through D.W.1 since Sankar was not inclined to sell the property to Rajendran or any other person connected with V.V.Minerals. The sale consideration to purchase the property from Sankar has been given by Rajendran to Amaladasan. The entry in Ex.P.21 Register striking off the presentation of a document on 09.01.2001 indicates that the appellant/accused has refused to register the document presented by one Jegadeesan of V.V. Minerals in respect of the property owned by Sankar in view of his protest letter (Ex.D.1). This property has been later purchased by Amaladasan and through Amaladasan, Jegadeesan has purchased through Ex.P.11. 13. From the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4, it is quite clear that besides these two witnesses, Jegadeesan, who is closely connected with V.V.Minerals, was also involved in the transactions referred in this case. The document (Ex.P.11) registered in favour of Jegadeesan was supposed to be collected by Kannan (P.W.2) as per the endorsement found in the receipt. 14. 13. From the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4, it is quite clear that besides these two witnesses, Jegadeesan, who is closely connected with V.V.Minerals, was also involved in the transactions referred in this case. The document (Ex.P.11) registered in favour of Jegadeesan was supposed to be collected by Kannan (P.W.2) as per the endorsement found in the receipt. 14. The evidence of Amaladasan (D.W.1) explains the reason for he purchasing the property from Sankar from and out of the fund given by Rajendran and transferring the property in favour of Jegadeesan of V.V.Minerals, on the very next day. He has also deposed about two 500 rupees notes tendered by him towards registration charge of Rs. 850/- and the accused refusal to accept the same quoting the direction from the higher officer. This witness has also deposed that the accused agreed to receive the money from the person, who was authorised to collect the document, when he comes to collect the document. D.W.1 has authorised Kannan to receive the document and sign behind the receipt, which is marked as Ex.P.4. 15. Thus, the accused through D.W.1, D.W.2 and Sub Registrar (P.W.5) and the other documents, especially Ex.P.21, had probabilised that the property which is the subject matter of Ex.P.11 was sought to be registered on 09.01.2001 by Jegadeesan of V.V.Minerals. In view of the protest letter (Ex.D.1) from Kannan, the appellant herein who was in charge of the Sub Registrar on that day has refused to register the document. The very same property has been later purchased by Amaladasan (D.W.1) on 11.01.2001 and sold to Jegadeesan of V.V.Minerals on 12.01.2001. The circuitous mode adopted by the purchaser and earlier attempt to transfer the property probabilises that the appellant herein who was vigilant and refused to register the document in the light of the protest letter made by the land owner, has been taken to task by P.W.2 and P.W.4. 16. It is well settled principle of law that mere recovery of tainted money from the possession of the public servant is not sufficient to draw adverse inference against him. It has to be proved that the money obtained by the public servant is with knowledge and intention that the money tendered to him and received by him is towards gratification other than legal remuneration. 17. It has to be proved that the money obtained by the public servant is with knowledge and intention that the money tendered to him and received by him is towards gratification other than legal remuneration. 17. Amaladasan (D.W.1) is party to two documents, one executed on 11.01.2001 in which he is the purchaser and the document registered on 12.01.2001, in which he is the vendor. The subject property of both the documents is one and the same. He in his deposition has categorically stated that he owe Rs. 800/- to the appellant towards registration fee and the appellant agreed to receive the money later when Kannan whom D.W.1 has authorised to receive the document, comes and collects the same. 18. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2001, Kannan went to the Sub Registrar's Office, collected the documents and gave Rs. 800/- as bribe. However, as per the explanation, the money had been received by the appellant on the belief that it is tendered by Kannan towards the registration fee which Amaladasan promised to pay through Kannan. 19. The evidence of D.W.1 does not stand in isolation. It is well fortified by the protest letter of D.W.1, dated 02.01.2001. The attempt to register a document by Jegadeesan and later struck off by the appellant on 09.01.2001 also could be found through Ex.P.2. Amaladasan purchasing the property from Sankar and in turn transferring the same in favour of Jegadeesan, V.V.Minerals, the very next day also lend credence to the defence version and clearly dislodges the presumption cast upon the appellant/accused. 20. That apart, the prosecution could not able to establish that Rs. 800/- was received by the appellant/accused as motive or reward to do any favour or disfavour to Kannan. In the above said circumstances, this Court finds that the finding of the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence let in by the defence to probabilise his defence, is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2009, passed in Special Case No.5 of 2002 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Tirunelveli are set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be refunded forthwith. Bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled.