JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 28.12.2011 rendered by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai in CC No.4 of 2009. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent, when he was working as an Assistant Superintendent of Post at Sivakasi, Sub Division, demanded Rs.5,000/- on 09.06.2009 from the d e facto complainant (PW.2-Ganeshpandi) out of Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification for forwarding charge report to bill section for drawal of time related continuity allowance in respect of PW.2 and for want of charge report, PW.2 was not paid salary, though he joined duty on 16.04.2009 and releasing his salary, which was due for more than a month and for having appointed PW.2 as Gramin Dak Sevak/Mail Carrier and Deliver Power [in short 'GDS/MC/DP'], on 10.06.2009, the respondent had accepted the illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration in his office premises from PW.2 and thereby the respondent committed offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [herein after referred to as 'PC Act'] and further being a public servant or otherwise misusing his official position the respondent himself obtained for pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.5,000/- as a first installment out of the total demand of Rs.20,000/- on 10.06.2009 from PW.2 as a reward for releasing his salary, which was due for more than a month and for having appointed him as GDS/MC/DP thereby the respondent committed an offence under Section 13(2) r/w13(1) (d) of PC Act. 3. The case of the de facto complainant [PW.2] is that he applied for the post of GDS/MC/DP and he attended interview on 16.04.2009 and the respondent had conducted interview and PW.2 got selected in the interview. After completion of the interview the respondent called PW.2 and demanded Rs.20,000/- and stated only if pays the amount, he could continue his job peacefully. Further respondent demanded money several times and at last on 09.06.2009, when PW.2 enquired the respondent about his salary he demanded Rs.20,000/- and only after he paid the money, he would forward his charge report to bill section for preparation of bill. When PW.2 expressed his inability, respondent asked him to pay Rs.5,000/- as advance on the next day. Further respondent demanded money several times and at last on 09.06.2009, when PW.2 enquired the respondent about his salary he demanded Rs.20,000/- and only after he paid the money, he would forward his charge report to bill section for preparation of bill. When PW.2 expressed his inability, respondent asked him to pay Rs.5,000/- as advance on the next day. As he was not willing to pay any bribe, PW.2 through phone contacted the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, who instructed PW.2 to contact the Trap Laying Officer [herein after shall be referred to as TLO] the Inspector of Police and he contacted the TLO, who instructed to meet him in a Lodge namely Palaniyappa Palace at room No.114 and accordingly, PW.2 went there and preferred a complaint against the respondent for allegedly demanding money. There the TLO introduced him two independent witnesses namely Ashokan and Muniansamy. TLO explained about the complaint to the independent witnesses and pre trap demonstration was conducted. After coating the currencies, which was meant for giving to the respondent as bribe with phenolphthalein power, the money was given to PW.2. Further PW.2 had deposed about the preparation of entrustment mahazar and they noted the currency numbers in the mahazar. PW.2 along with PW.3 left the lodge and went to the office of the respondent at 11.17 am. After 15 minutes only the respondent came and on seeing PW.2, the respondent asked whether he had brought Rs.5,000/- and asked him to come to the terrace and PW.2 went to the terrace, where the respondent asked PW.2 how much money he had brought and he replied that he had brought Rs.5,000/- and when he gave the same to the respondent, he asked him to place it inside a carry bag and accordingly, PW.2 had dropped the money inside the bag. Then he came down to the ground floor and showed the pre arranged signal to the TLO. He immediately came to the office of the respondent. PW.2 identified the respondent and came out of the office of the respondent. Subsequently, the Trap Laying Officer PW.13 asked the respondent to dip his fingers in the solution and the colour did not change and the carry bag was dipped into the solution and the colour lightly changed. He immediately came to the office of the respondent. PW.2 identified the respondent and came out of the office of the respondent. Subsequently, the Trap Laying Officer PW.13 asked the respondent to dip his fingers in the solution and the colour did not change and the carry bag was dipped into the solution and the colour lightly changed. Thereafter he took the money from the carry bag and counted and also compared the currency numbers with the entrustment mahazar, the same were matched and the tainted money was recovered from the respondent through recovery mahazar and observation mahazar was also prepared. After that the TLO recovered certain documents from the office of the respondent. 4. TLO placed the matter before the Investigating Officer - PW.14. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation laid a charge sheet against the respondent for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, before the, Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai. 5. On the side of the prosecution 14 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 were examined, 49 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.49 were marked. 6. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before the respondent and the same was denied as false. On the side of the respondent one witness was examined as DW.1 and 6 documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6. 7. After completion of the trial and after hearing the arguments on either side, the Additional District Judge held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and acquitted the respondent from the charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 8. The CBI has filed the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal. 9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI submitted that PW.2 has preferred a complaint stating that he completed 10th standard and he was appointed as GDS/MC/DP. The respondent only interviewed the de facto complainant. He was selected and appointed on merits as his score was high. Soon after his appointment, the respondent demanded money from PW.2 on several occasions and the last occasion was on 09.06.2009. The respondent only interviewed the de facto complainant. He was selected and appointed on merits as his score was high. Soon after his appointment, the respondent demanded money from PW.2 on several occasions and the last occasion was on 09.06.2009. Since PW.2 was not willing to pay any amount, the de facto complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB Chennai and as per the instructions given by him, he contacted the TLO-PW.13, who in turn gave instructions to proceed further. As instructed on 10.06.2009, PW.2 made a complaint, before the PW.13 at the lodge where he was staying. After receiving the complaint, PW.13 planned for a trap, he summoned two witnesses and conducted pre trap demonstration and instructed PW.2 to meet the respondent and only on demand, he could give the tainted money and instructed the independent witness to accompany him. As instructed, PW.2 met the respondent in his office on the same day and after ascertaining that PW.2 has brought the demanded money, he had taken him to the upstairs and asked him to drop the money into a bag, which respondent was holding and as demanded by the respondent PW.2 dropped the tainted money into the bag. Then he showed the pre arranged signal to the PW.13 and PW.13 and his team entered into the office of the respondent and introduced himself and conducted phenolphthalein test on his hand, the solution turned to pink in colour and the bag was also subjected to sodium carbonate solution test. The independent witness has also spoken about the demand made by the respondent and recovery of tainted money form the respondent and also the preparation of mahazars. The serial numbers of the currencies had tallied with the entrustment mahazar and therefore, the prosecution through the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.13 proved the demand, acceptance and the recovery of the money which is also corroborated by the entrustment mahazar, recovery mahazar and chemical analysis report. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the appeal needs to be allowed. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2009 at 10.00 to 11.00 am the respondent demanded money, but which is not proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the appeal needs to be allowed. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2009 at 10.00 to 11.00 am the respondent demanded money, but which is not proved by the prosecution. The respondent had examined D.W.1 namely P.Sundarajan, who was the then Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Rajapalayam Sub Division, he has stated that respondent was on other duty at the D.W.1's office, which is 30 kilometers away from his office, on 09.06.2009 in respect of scrutinizing certain applications. Therefore, when the respondent was available in other office, which is 30 kilometers away from his office, there is no possibility for him to demand the money at his office. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the initial demand alleged to have made on 09.06.2009. Therefore, the respondent was able to prove that he was not available at his office on 09.06.2009 and thus he could not have made the demand on that day as stated by PW.2, when he was far away from his office and available at DW.1's office. Once the very initial date of demand is not proved and the acceptance of money is doubtful, because it is the case of the prosecution that on 10.06.2009 the respondent did not accept the money in his office and according to PW.2 it is on the terrace and no one except PW.2 was present and the respondent did not obtain the money and the PW.2 had dropped the money into the carry bag. Therefore, the alleged acceptance is also not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Sine qua non, the demand and acceptance are not proved by the prosecution, mere recovery is not sufficient to find the respondent guilty. There are material contradictions among the prosecution witnesses. PW.2 is not a reliable witness, since during the cross examination to most of the questions, he had answered that he did not know. PW.2 himself had stated that PW.3 was in the ground floor, therefore, PW.3 had not witnessed the alleged demand and acceptance. Therefore, he is not an eye witness to the incident. Further, complaint given time is contradicted by the PW.13 and PW.2. Therefore, the complaint itself is very doubtful. Further PW.14 the Investigating Officer has not investigated the matter properly. PW.2 himself had stated that PW.3 was in the ground floor, therefore, PW.3 had not witnessed the alleged demand and acceptance. Therefore, he is not an eye witness to the incident. Further, complaint given time is contradicted by the PW.13 and PW.2. Therefore, the complaint itself is very doubtful. Further PW.14 the Investigating Officer has not investigated the matter properly. Prosecution has not recovered necessary documents from the office of the respondent. Further the recovered documents themselves are doubtful. There are conflicting evidences in respect of preparation of entrustment mahazar by PW.3 and PW.2. So the entrustment mahazar is also doubtful. 11. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that PW.2 asked PW.3 to wait in the ground floor of the office of the respondent on 10.06.2009, this unnatural conduct of PW.2 creates suspicion. PW.2 gave signal to the TLO after giving money. But, the alleged acceptance of money is not seen by the PW.3. So the acceptance of money is also doubtful. However, the respondent has not accepted the money, but it is the PW.2 who went inside the office of the respondent and kept the money in the plastic bag in the absence of the respondent. It is submitted that it is the duty of the Postmaster concerned to forward the charge report to the concerned officials. The respondent has no role in forwarding the charge report to the concerned Officer. It should be sent through proper channel and not through the respondent. Ex.P.5 charge report does not contain the seal of the Post Office where PW.2 joined. Also when other two persons, who had joined along with PW.2 got salary, then the allegation that the respondent demanded money from PW.2 alone is not acceptable. The charge report of the PW.2 was not sent through proper channel and therefore the salary was not paid to PW.2 and there is no role of the respondent in forwarding the charge report. 12. It is further submitted that there are many material contradictions among the prosecution witnesses. On the alleged initial demand on 09.06.2009, the respondent was not at all present at his office, which is proved form the evidence of D.W.1 and the alleged acceptance is not seen by the PW.3, since it is stated that the acceptance of money took place on terrace, whereas PW.3 was waiting in ground floor. On the alleged initial demand on 09.06.2009, the respondent was not at all present at his office, which is proved form the evidence of D.W.1 and the alleged acceptance is not seen by the PW.3, since it is stated that the acceptance of money took place on terrace, whereas PW.3 was waiting in ground floor. So there is no evidence to show the alleged acceptance of money. The right hand of the respondent did not change its colour when phenolphthalein test was conducted. Only after the Police asked to take out the money from the polythene bag, the left hand alone changed. So, the demand and acceptance and also the recovery are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. When two views are possible, the view which favours the respondent has to be taken into account. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the respondent. The learned trial Judge has appreciated the entire evidence in a proper perspective and rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges. 13. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1. Gorle S. Naidu Vs. State of AP and others reported in, (2003) 12 SCC 449; 2. Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and another reported in, (2010) 2 SCC 333 , wherein it is held that the appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside the trial Court's judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial Court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law. In this case the respondent was not present on that date of alleged demand. 3. Murugesan Vs State reported in, (2012) 10 SCC 383 , wherein it is held that the Appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of the trial Court unless any perversity in appreciation of evidence or in findings. 4. V. Sejappa Vs. State reported in, (2016) 12 SCC 150 ; 5. Banna Reddy and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in, (2018) 5 SCC 790 ; 6. Arulvelu and Another Vs. State and another reported in, (2009) 10 SCC 206 ; 7. State of Punjab Vs. 4. V. Sejappa Vs. State reported in, (2016) 12 SCC 150 ; 5. Banna Reddy and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in, (2018) 5 SCC 790 ; 6. Arulvelu and Another Vs. State and another reported in, (2009) 10 SCC 206 ; 7. State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in, (2013) 14 SCC 153 , wherein it is held that when the shadow witness was informed even before registration of complaint, the case of the prosecution itself is doubtful. 8. G.Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala reported in,2015 4 SCC(Cri) 415 wherein it is held that demand of illegal gratification by the accused in sine qua non for constituting an offence under the provisions of the Act. 9. N.Sukkanna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in, (2016) 1 SCC(Cri) 544 and 10. Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in, (2017) 8 SCC 136 , wherein it has been held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not attract Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and unless there is a proof of demand of illegal gratification, the proof of acceptance will not follow. 11. Rangarajan Vs State reported in,2017 3 MWN(Cri) 596 wherein it is held that only if the demand and acceptance has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution, then presumption under Section 20 of PC Act will apply. 14. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the records. 15. The case of the appellant is that the respondent had demanded Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification for having appointed the de facto complainant and received Rs.5,000/- as a token advance on 10.06.2009 from the de facto complainant other than legal remuneration to forward the charge report of the de facto complainant in order to prepare the salary bill and the respondent was caught red handed in the trap by the TLO and his team and the tainted money was recovered from the respondent. From the evidence of PW.2, PW.3, PW.13 and from Ex.P.6 - Complaint, Ex.P.7 - Entrustment Mahazar, Ex.P.8 - Recovery Mahazar and Ex.P.28 Chemical Analysis Report, the prosecution has proved the demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubt. All these aspects have not been considered by the trial Court. 16. From the evidence of PW.2, PW.3, PW.13 and from Ex.P.6 - Complaint, Ex.P.7 - Entrustment Mahazar, Ex.P.8 - Recovery Mahazar and Ex.P.28 Chemical Analysis Report, the prosecution has proved the demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubt. All these aspects have not been considered by the trial Court. 16. A reading of Ex.P.1, Sanction Order issued by PW.1, shows that he has accorded sanction only after carefully going through the materials placed before him and he has also deposed that only after perusing the materials placed on record and applying his mind, after satisfying that prima facie case is made out against the respondent, he has issued sanction order. 17. A reading of the evidence of PW.2, who is the de facto complainant shows that he was interviewed by the respondent on 16.04.2009 and got selected in the interview and immediately after completion of the interview, the respondent told him that only if he pays Rs.20,000/-, appointment would be made and when the inability was expressed by the de facto complainant, the respondent asked him to join in the Poovanathapuram Post Office on the next day and laid condition that he should pay Rs.20,000/- within three weeks. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.2 the initial demand of Rs.20,000/- made by the respondent is clearly proved. Subsequently on 09.06.2009 when the de facto complainant met the respondent at his office between 10.00 am and 11.00 am claiming his salary, which is due from his date of joining, the respondent again demanded Rs.5,000/- as an advance amount out of Rs.20,000/-. Though the defence taken by the respondent that the respondent was not available at his office and he was present at the D.W.1's office and though DW.1 has deposed that the respondent was at his office, the distance between the respondent's office and the D.W.1's office is thirty kilometers and the demand is not possible, thirty kilometers is not a very long distance and it cannot take more time to cross such distance. The respondent being a Group B officer can very well cross the distance in a short span of time by using the facilities provided to him. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondent is not acceptable and rejected. The respondent being a Group B officer can very well cross the distance in a short span of time by using the facilities provided to him. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondent is not acceptable and rejected. Even assuming that he was not at the office of the respondent as contended by him, the prosecution through evidence of PW.2 proved the demand made by the respondent after completion of the interview and the subsequent demand and acceptance, which will be discussed in this judgment at the subsequent paragraphs. 18. Further reading of the evidence of PW.2 shows that PW.2 not willing to pay the bribe had contacted the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai through phone and got instructions and accordingly contacted PW.13 on 10.06.2009 at Palaniyappa lodge at 10.00 O' clock and gave the written complaint and he further deposed about the presence of shadow witnesses and explained about the pre trap demonstration. He had clearly stated that when he met the respondent at his office around 11.15 am, the respondent asked him whether he had brought Rs.,5000/- and he replied yes and he asked the PW.2 to come to the terrace, where he opened a carry bag and asked the PW.2 to drop the money into the bag and accordingly, he dropped the tainted money into the bag, which was held by the respondent and after the money was accepted by the respondent, when both of them came down, PW.2 showed the pre arranged signal to the trap team and they came into the office of the respondent and conducted sodium carbonate solution test on his left hand and the test proved positive and the independent witness one Ashokan compared the serial numbers of the currency notes with the entrustment mahazar and the numbers of the notes tallied and they have also signed in the recovery mahazar. Hence, from the evidence of PW.2, it is clear that the respondent had demanded money on 10.06.2009 and only after ascertaining that the de facto complainant had brought the money, he took the de facto complainant to the upstairs and he accepted the money. Further PW.2 had denied the defence that he had placed the money inside the bag on the table. Therefore, the respondent himself alone had accepted the money. 19. Further PW.2 had denied the defence that he had placed the money inside the bag on the table. Therefore, the respondent himself alone had accepted the money. 19. Pw.3, namely Ashokan, who is shown as independent witness had stated that he was instructed by his Senior Manager, he went to Hotel Palaniyappa on 10.06.2009 and met the TLO at 10.00 O' clock in room No.114, where, the TLO had explained him about the complaint preferred by the PW.2 and he conducted the pre trap demonstrations and the serial numbers of the currency notes were noted down by preparing entrustment mahazar and the phenolphthalein powder coated money was given to the PW.2 and the TLO instructed PW.3 to accompany PW.2 and to watch at the time when PW.2 meets the respondent. Accordingly, they went to the office of the respondent and when they were waiting outside for the respondent's arrival, the respondent came in a bike as pillion rider and on seeing the de facto complainant, respondent asked whether he had brought the money and PW.2 told yes. Then, they three went to the first floor, but the respondent took the PW.2 to the second floor and PW.2 asked him to wait in the first floor itself. After 3 minutes they come down and PW.2 told him that he had given the money to the respondent and he had accepted and he was having the money in the bag. Subsequently, he had spoken about the recovery money that TLO came inside the office of the respondent and the phenolphthalein test on his left hand, which proved positive and the comparison of the recovered of money with the entrustment mahazar. He had spoken about the preparation of recovery mahazar also. So, from the evidence of PW.3, it is clear that the respondent had demanded and accepted the money and the same was also recovered. Therefore, demand, acceptance and recovery are proved from the evidence of PW.3 also. He had spoken about the preparation of recovery mahazar also. So, from the evidence of PW.3, it is clear that the respondent had demanded and accepted the money and the same was also recovered. Therefore, demand, acceptance and recovery are proved from the evidence of PW.3 also. Though the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that since PW.3 was at the first floor and the alleged acceptance of money is said to have taken place on the open floor, PW.3 could not have witnessed the same, PW.3 had clearly corroborated the evidence of PW.2 that both went to the office of the respondent after seeing them, the respondent asked whether he had brought the money when he said yes, he took him to the upstairs, after sometime both together came down. After receiving the pre arranged signal, TLO came and conducted phenolphthalein test and recovered the money as narrated by PW.2. From the evidence of PW.3 - independent witness, the respondent after demanding the money, took the PW.2 to the upstairs. Subsequently, immediately after reaching the office in the office the money was recovered from the respondent along with certain documents. The respondent had accepted the money. So the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is rejected. Further evidence of PW.2 shows he informed CBI on 09.06.2009 night itself, it is nothing wrong to make arrangement to inform the independent witness to be made ready for the trap therefore, the evidence of PW.3 cannot be disbelieved because of the reason he was informed prior to the receiving of the written complaint, when oral complaint was already received from the de facto complainant. 20. 20. Pw.13 - TLO, who had deposed that as per the instructions from the Superintendent of Police, CBI, he had gone to Madurai on 10.06.2009 and where he met the de facto complainant at Hotel Palaniayappa and received the complainant Ex.P.6 where it was mentioned that the respondent demanded money on various occasions and finally on 09.06.2009 and after verification and getting instructions from his superior he planned for a trap and summoned two independent witnesses and held pre trap demonstrations in front of the PW.2, PW.3 and the independent witnesses and gave the phenolphthalein coated money to the PW.2 and instructed him to meet the respondent and to give the money, only if demand is made by the respondent and asked PW.3 to accompany him and to watch the happening when they would meet and prepared the entrustment mahazar and they left the place and assembled near the office of the respondent. Further, PW.2 and PW.3 went inside the office of the respondent and later received the pre arranged signal from P.W.2 around 11.55am. He along with his team went inside the office, PW.2 identified the respondent then PW.13 introduced himself and he conducted phenolphthalein test on both his hands and the test on the left hand proved positive and he recovered the tainted money and the money was compared with the entrustment mahazar and the same was matched and he recovered the tainted money through recovery mahazar and placed the matter before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, from his evidence the recovery of the tainted money is proved. 21. It is contended that the respondent has denied the acceptance of money from the de facto complainant and the tainted money is a borrowed money from one Govindan, which was borrowed for his daughter's marriage. But, the said Govindan was examined as PW.10, whereas the evidence of the said Govindan shows that he had no money transaction with the respondent and he had never given money to the respondent. Therefore, the defence taken by the respondent in respect of the possession of the tainted money, is not proved in the manner known to law. It is the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act that the tainted money is bribe money, unless it is rebutted in the manner known to law. 22. Therefore, the defence taken by the respondent in respect of the possession of the tainted money, is not proved in the manner known to law. It is the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act that the tainted money is bribe money, unless it is rebutted in the manner known to law. 22. Further Ex.P.28, the Chemical Analysis report shows that the presence of the sodium carbonate, which is also corroborated by the evidence of the Scientific Assistant PW.12. 23. In fine, from the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.13 along with Ex.P.1, Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.28, this Courts finds that the prosecution has proved its case that the respondent had demanded illegal gratification and accepted it and the same was recovered from the respondent. In other words, the demand, acceptance and recovery are proved. 24. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there are many contradictions among the prosecution witnesses. 25. A reading of the entire materials placed on record shows that the above said contradictions are not material contradictions, which is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 26. Even though, the respondent need not prove his defence by direct evidence, he can very well establish his defence from preponderance of probabilities or probable evidence. Whereas in this case, the appellant had made an attempt to do so, but failed to prove his defence in the manner known to law. 27. Though there is no dispute or quarrel in respect of the legal proposition in the referred to citations, the citations referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the case on hand, when the demand, acceptance and recovery is clearly proved with cogent oral and documentary evidence. 28. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Gujarat Vs Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi Etc., the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "8.It is well-settled that to establish the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, particularly those relating to the trap cases, the prosecution has to establish the existence of demand as well as acceptance by the public servant. In B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 , it was held as under:- "7. In B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 , it was held as under:- "7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 ." 11. So far as the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act for the offence under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it is settled law that the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption, and that the burden placed on the appellant for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. In C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC 779 , this Court held as under:- "21. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accuse charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence...". 22. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt..." Since it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe." In this case also, from the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and P.W.13, prosecution has established the demand, acceptance and recovery. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.13. The case cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. 29. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.13. The case cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. 29. Considering the above circumstances, this Court finds that the respondent committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act. 30. On reading of the judgment passed by the Special Judge, the learned Special Judge gave importance to the immaterial contradictions and also failed to see that the defence taken by the respondent was not proved in the manner known to law. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are independent witnesses and P.W.12 is official witness. Further, from the evidence of PW.10 Govindan, the defence taken by the respondent is false. Therefore, when the tainted money recovered from the respondent has not been properly explained, the presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act. 31. A reading of the entire materials placed on record, shows that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, through oral and documentary evidence. Even though there are contradictions among the prosecution witnesses, they are not vital contradictions and the same have not vitiated the case of the prosecution and gone to the root of the prosecution case. Therefore, the contradictions are not material contradictions to vitiate the case of the prosecution. When P.W.2 admitted the complaint [Ex.P.3] and spoken about the demand and acceptance of tainted money, independent witness - P.W.3 has spoken about the demand and recovery, P.W.13 has spoken about the recovery, mahazars and scientific report to strengthen the case. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that there are valid grounds and reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 32. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and given credence to unimportant materials. 33. In the result, the present criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 28.12.2011 made in CC No.4 of 2009 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai is hereby set aside. 34. The respondent is directed to appear before this Court on 21.01.2019 for question of sentence. 02.01.2019 As directed by this Court on 02.01.2019, the respondent has appeared before this Court today. 2. 34. The respondent is directed to appear before this Court on 21.01.2019 for question of sentence. 02.01.2019 As directed by this Court on 02.01.2019, the respondent has appeared before this Court today. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2009 and the order of acquittal was passed in the year 2011. The respondent has one married daughter and one unmarried daughter. He is 65 years old now and himself and his wife are sick. Hence prayed for minimum sentence. 3. When the respondent was asked about the sentence to be imposed on him, he has stated that he had not committed any mistake and prayed to show sympathy. 4. Considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent and the respondent/accused. Considering the serious nature of the charges levelled against the respondent, this Court is not inclined to show any leniency and consider the mitigating circumstances. 5. As this Court has already found the respondent guilty and convicted the respondent, the following sentence is imposed: - The respondent is, sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine, in de fault, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for having committed the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.5,000/- as fine, in de fault to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, for having committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and both the sentences shall run concurrently. 6. The appellant is directed to secure the respondent/accused to undergo the punishment imposed on him. The Registry is directed to issue necessary warrant.