JUDGMENT Sadhana S Jadhav, J. - The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I. for 15 days vide judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Gadhinglaj dated 15th October 2001. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :- (i) The appellant herein was working as Village Development Officer in the year 1995. In December 1997, one Kashibai Krishna Suryawanshi had filed an application seeking claim under Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana since her husband had expired. It appears from the records that due to paucity of funds the claim could not be passed forthwith. The said application had to be submitted to the Tahsildar through Village Development Officer. On 3rd January 1998 the present appellant had forwarded the said application to the Tahsildar and the claim was accepted in April 1998. However, the same could not be released till January 1999. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time, it was mandatory for the claimant to be identified by the Talathi of the village or Village Development Officer and therefore, the son of the claimant viz. Vishnu had requested the appellant to accompany him to Tahsildar Office. That on 11th February 1999 the appellant had allegedly accompanied the complainant, the claimant, his mother Kashibai since an intimation was given to them on 10th February 1999. It is alleged that after appellant identified Kashibai she had received the money of Rs.5,000/- and while leaving the office of the Tahsildar the appellant demanded Rs.200/- as gratification for the work that was done by him. That there was a discussion that the appellant shall visit tea stall of Vishnu Suryawanshi and take money from him and therefore, according to prosecution, on 11th February 1999, the appellant had visited tea stall and reiterated his demand. It was then agreed that the money should be paid on 18th February 1999 at the tea stall of Vishnu Suryawanshi. That there was a discussion that the appellant shall visit tea stall of Vishnu Suryawanshi and take money from him and therefore, according to prosecution, on 11th February 1999, the appellant had visited tea stall and reiterated his demand. It was then agreed that the money should be paid on 18th February 1999 at the tea stall of Vishnu Suryawanshi. On 18th February 1999, Vishnu Suryawanshi had approached the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau at Kolhapur and had disclosed about the demand of Rs.200/- by the Village Development Officer and had further informed that the money was to be paid to him at the tea stall on the same day. Anti-Corruption Bureau has recorded his report and has taken action as per Rules. Two independent public servants were summoned to act as panchas for the trap. Pre-trap panchanama was prepared and after giving instructions it was decided to lay a trap at about 8.00 pm at the tea stall. Shadow witness Sarjerao G. Shinde was in the tea stall. The appellant had reached the tea stall at about 8.00 pm. After the initial interaction demand was made from the complainant on the ground that he had done his work and Vishnu Suryawanshi was to complete his obligation. Soon thereafter, predetermined signal was given, trap was laid. Traces of anthracene powder were found on the fingers and the inner side of shirt of the pocket of the appellant. PW5- Sudhir Ramchandra Chougule had lodged a report on behalf of the State and the same is marked at Exh.39. 4. The papers of investigation were sent to the Collector, Kolhapur i.e. Raj Gopal Gurawaiya Devara, Collector, Kolhapur for seeking sanction for prosecution. In fact, the appellant by letter dated 3rd May 1999 i.e. prior to filing of the charge sheet had informed the Collector through the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aajra that he was appointed as an agent for investment in the Government Small Savings Scheme and was given a target of 5 Lakhs. Hence, he had requested Kashibai K. Suryawanshi to invest Rs.200/- by taking Kisan Vikas Patra after she gets claim of Rs.5,000/- through Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. She had agreed to the same. He had filled in the form. She had affixed her thumb mark on the said form in presence of Mr. Hence, he had requested Kashibai K. Suryawanshi to invest Rs.200/- by taking Kisan Vikas Patra after she gets claim of Rs.5,000/- through Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. She had agreed to the same. He had filled in the form. She had affixed her thumb mark on the said form in presence of Mr. Joshi from Tahsildar office who was working as Clerk in Tahsildar office which was counter signed by the present appellant. The amount was paid on 30th January 1999 and the form for Vikas Patra was also filled in on the same day and was affixed with the thumb mark of Kashibai on the same day in presence of Mr. Joshi, who was working in the office of Tahsildar. The form is marked as Exh.31. He had also informed the Collector that son of the claimant was against investing the said amount. He was insisting upon the appellant to spend it on his own and thereafter had agreed to pay the said amount but had falsely implicated him in a case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The said letter is marked at Exh.68/C. At the trial, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. 5. PW1 - Vishnu Suryawanshi has deposed in consonance with the first report that he had given to the Anti-Corruption Bureau. He was running Aajra Station canteen in between 1997- 1998. He has admitted that he was acquainted with the accused person since he had co-operated with the complainant at the time of borrowing the loan from the bank against his property at Suleran. According to him, when they had been to the office of the Tahsildar the appellant had initially demanded money and had reiterated the said demand while leaving the office of the Tahsildar. Although the demand was made on 11th February 1999 he was unable to go and report the same to the Anti-Corruption Officer, Kolhapur and therefore, had gone to the office of 18th February, 1999. He has further clarified in the cross-examination that in fact the demand was made on 30th January 1999 itself but the date 11th February 1999 was wrongly told by him to Anti-Corruption office. According to him, while lodging report Mr. Chougule corrected the said order after it was pointed out. He has further clarified in the cross-examination that in fact the demand was made on 30th January 1999 itself but the date 11th February 1999 was wrongly told by him to Anti-Corruption office. According to him, while lodging report Mr. Chougule corrected the said order after it was pointed out. The complainant has given evasive answers in the cross-examination as far as filling up of the Kisan Vikas Patra by his mother. 6. PW2 Sarjerao Shinde was working in the Forest Department of District Kolhapur. He had agreed to act as pancha for the trap under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. According to him, after raiding party reached tea stall at about 8.00 pm he had accompanied the complainant as shadow witness whereas the other panch Mr. Nigvekar was with the raiding parties. He had heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. According to him, after exchanging salutations the accused had told the complainant that he had done the work of his mother''s claim under the Sanjay Gandhi Helpless Persons Scheme and that he had not obliged them till date. Thereafter, Suryawanshi had handed over tainted currency notes to the accused. He had counted the same and kept in his left chest pocket of his shirt and then the complainant had given pre-determined signal. PW2 - Sarjerao Shinde has proved the post trap panchanama and his signatures upon the same. His evidence would be sufficient to show that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the accused-appellant given by the complainant. 5 PW3- Dattatray Kamble happens to be Tahasildar who had disbursed claim under the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana and had paid Rs.5,000/- to Kashibai Suryawanshi on 30th January 1999. According to him, he had not suggested Kashibai or her son to invest any money in any of the Government Scheme or purchase of Savings Certificate. According to him, no instructions were given to the Village Development Officer to inform the people about the investment of money in saving certificate. He had obtained receipt for payment of Rs.5,000/- which is marked as Exh.30. It is elicited in the cross-examination that Exh.30 is in the handwriting of Senior Clerk Shri Joshi and that he can identify his signatures and initials. He was confronted by the form filled in by Kashibai intending to invest in Kisan Vikas Patra. He has evaded to answer as to whether Mr. It is elicited in the cross-examination that Exh.30 is in the handwriting of Senior Clerk Shri Joshi and that he can identify his signatures and initials. He was confronted by the form filled in by Kashibai intending to invest in Kisan Vikas Patra. He has evaded to answer as to whether Mr. Joshi had counter signed the said form too. He has admitted that identity card number is written on the receipt (Exh.30) in the handwriting of Shri Joshi. As far as the small savings scheme is concerned he has feigned ignorance. He was confronted with a letter of appointment in favour of appellant thereby authorising him to implement investing in small savings. The said authorisation letter is at Exh.33. The same is issued by Assistant Collector (Small Savings), Kolhapur. The appellant has been authorised since 10th November 1997. 6 PW4 - Kashibai Suryawanshi is the claimant. She has denied filling in form of Kisan Vikas Patra. She has identified her thumb impression at Exh.29, 30 however, has denied her thumb impression at Exh.31. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the prosecution has not examined Mr. Joshi. However, the accused had got thumb impression of Kashibai identified on Exh.31 by comparing same with Exh. 29 and Exh.30. It is more than clear that Kashibai was attempting to save her son Vishnu. 7. PW5 -Sudhir Chougule is the first informant and investigating officer. He has corroborated the evidence of PW2 to the extent that soon after the trap the accused had uttered words "he had committed mistake and he be excused for the same". Needless to say that accused was in a disturbed state of mind. PW5 has proved pre-trap panchanama and posttrap panchanama which is at Exh.19. He has deposed before the Court the steps taken by him in the course of investigation. He has denied that complainant had shown him the error in date, i.e. 11th February 1999 is wrongly mentioned and it should be 30th November 1999. 8. PW6 - Raj Gopal Devara is the Sanctioning Authority. He has admitted in the cross-examination that Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana is implemented by the Revenue Department. Tahsildar is the Sanctioning Authority for the implementation of the Scheme. According to him, the directions were issued through him to Village Development Officer to give identification of the claims claiming under the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. He has admitted in the cross-examination that Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana is implemented by the Revenue Department. Tahsildar is the Sanctioning Authority for the implementation of the Scheme. According to him, the directions were issued through him to Village Development Officer to give identification of the claims claiming under the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. He has admitted document at Exh.33 which is an authorisation letter by which he was appointed an agent for the sale of Small Savings Certificates. The Revenue Authority encourages the subordinates to collect maximum Small Savings and Talathi or Village Development Officer who achieves the target are honoured by giving certificates. Upon perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the documents produced by the accused in defence, it appears that the appellant was an authorised agent for implementing Small Savings Scheme. He had requested Kashibai to invest Rs.200/- for buying Kisan Vikas Patra to enable him to fulfill his targets. She has accepted the same and fixed her thumb mark on the application affirmed which was further countersigned by Mr. Joshi. There is no doubt that the accused - appellant had accepted an amount of Rs.200/- from the complainant Vishnu. However, the same was neither a bribe nor a gratification for the work which he had done. The said amount was demanded and accepted in order to issue Kisan Vikas Patra in the name of Kashibai. Fairly enough the accused had intimated to the Collector through the Block Development Officer within three months from the date of the incident that he has been falsely implicated by Vishnu and that he had accepted the said amount towards purchase of the Small Savings Certificate. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it was a defence taken at the trial. PW6 i.e. Sanctioning Authority had also accepted contention that directions were issued to Village Development Officers to implement the same Scheme. In his statement under section 313 while answering Question No.95, the appellant had stated as follows:- "I accepted that amount for purchasing Kisan Vikas Patra for Kashibai Krishna Suryawanshi". 9. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act contemplates the presumption where Public Servant accepts any undue advantage. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as follows : "20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage. 9. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act contemplates the presumption where Public Servant accepts any undue advantage. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as follows : "20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage. -- Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11." 10. It is incumbent upon prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and onus upon the accused is only to demonstrate preponderance of probabilities in order to establish or make out a case that the amount which was accepted was not towards bribe or gratification. However, in the present case, it is more than clear that Exhs.30 and 31 would show that an amount of Rs.200/- was accepted towards issuing Small Savings Certificate. Moreover, the accused had intimated to the Block Development Officer and the Collector even prior to the trial that he has been falsely implicated. It is clear from the evidence on record that the accused in the present case has not only demonstrated preponderance of probabilities but has rebutted the presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by placing on record sufficient evidence to show that intention for accepting Rs.200 was only to enable him to issue Kisan Vikas Patra in the name of Kashibai. The learned APP submits that in the said eventuality, it was not necessary for the accused to admit his mistake before raiding party. The said reaction would be in a disturb state of mind when the accused who was innocent was being falsely implicated. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. The learned APP submits that in the said eventuality, it was not necessary for the accused to admit his mistake before raiding party. The said reaction would be in a disturb state of mind when the accused who was innocent was being falsely implicated. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao, (2009) 15 SCC 200 has observed as follows:- "For arriving at conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of the offence i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of amount of the illegal gratification have been satisfied or not the Court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record in their entirety. ..... Even while invoking the provisions of section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any." 11. The fact that PW4 Kashibai has denied her thumb impression on Exh.30 the same is proved by the accused by submitting a report of the hand writing expert. 12. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The appeal succeeds. Hence, the following order is passed:- ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed; (ii) The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Gadhinglaj dated 15th October 2001 is quashed and set aside; (iii) The bail bond stands cancelled; (iv) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded; (v) Consequential benefits to follow forthwith; (vi) Writ be issued expeditiously; (vii) Appeal is disposed of accordingly.