JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused [A1 & A2] passed in C.C.No.114/2011 (Old C.C.No.15/2008) dated 31.10.2013 by the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai and convict the respondents/accused [A1 & A2] for the offences framed against them.) 1. The State is the appellant. 2. Against the order of acquittal passed in CC No.114 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, the State has preferred the appeal. 3. On behalf of the respondents, notice served and advocate has entered appearance. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) K.Venugopal, aged 57 S/o.T.Kannan, is the defacto complainant [PW2]. K.Madhavan-A1, is the Sub-Inspector of Survey and R.Shanmugam-A2, is the Field Assistant, both working in the office of the Tahsildar, Purasaiwakkam-Perambur Taluk Office, Chennai. (ii) The defacto complainant presented an application in the name of his son Arun kumar at Purasaiwakkam-Perambur Taluk Office on 03.04.2007 for name transfer of patta in favor of Arunkumar. A1 inspected the site and closed the application by stating that the extent of the Plot was less than the actual extent mentioned in the revenue records and further instructed Arunkumar to submit a fresh application. Accordingly, the same was submitted on 26.07.2007. (iii) On 14.11.2007, when the defacto complainant met A1 and requested the patta, A1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- for processing the application to issue patta and instructed the defacto complainant to give the said bribe amount to his assistant A2. (iv) On 23.11.2007 at about 16.00 hrs, when defacto complainant went to A1's office to meet him, A1 demanded the bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- and as he was not willing to give bribe to get patta, he preferred a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, which was registered in V & AC, Chennai, C.C.1 Crime No.10/2007, under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and taken up for investigation. (v) A trap was organized by adopting all the procedures and formalities. The respondents/accused 1 and 2 were caught red handed, while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- from the defacto complainant-PW2. (v) A trap was organized by adopting all the procedures and formalities. The respondents/accused 1 and 2 were caught red handed, while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- from the defacto complainant-PW2. The phenolphthalein test was conducted over the right and left hand fingers of A2 who received the bribe amount and sent for judicial custody. (vi) On completion of investigation, the respondents/accused 1 and 2 were charged for offences under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai and the same was taken on file on 03.12.2008 and made over to IV Additional Court, Chennai in C.C.No.15 of 2008. (vii) In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents and marked 5 material objects. (viii) After full fledged trial, the Special Court for the cases under Prevention and Corruption Act, Chennai, vide judgment dated 31.10.2013, acquitted both the accused. 5. Challenging the above said order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. The case of the prosecution in brief is that in connection with issuance of patta in the name of his son, PW2 has met A1 on several occasions and on three occasions, demand has been made. The first demand was on 05.11.2007 and the second demand was on 14.11.2007 when PW2 met the A1, a demand of Rs.2,500/- with a direction to pay to A2. On the third occasion, the said demand was reiterated on 23.11.2007 by A2 on behalf of A1 and complaint was on 27.11.2007 and the trap was on the same day. Before the trap proceedings, the A1 has again demanded the same amount. 7. Noticing that it is improbable for the accused to make a demand in the presence of other staff members and prosecution has not chosen to examine the other staff members who were present, to substantiate the alleged demand made by A1 and failure to produce the patta and Ex.P10 are ambiguous, the Special Court has granted an acquittal and these findings are put to challenge in this appeal. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would draw my attention to Exs.P4 and Ex.P5, the application for the transfer of patta and issuance of revised patta along with the challan. 9. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would draw my attention to Exs.P4 and Ex.P5, the application for the transfer of patta and issuance of revised patta along with the challan. 9. Yet another point with regard to the date of the demand, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused could contend that the very charge itself is defective. The first and second demand made was not properly put to the accused and hence he was in a handicapped position. As per Ex.P4, the official duty of A1 is completed as on 26.06.2007, and no work remains to be carried out by him. Hence the alleged demand has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court and also states that on 23.11.2007, there was no demand and hence there was no complaint according to the P.W.2 in his cross examination also lends support to the suggestive case of the defence. 10. As per Ex.P2-complaint given by P.W.2 with P.W.11 Investigation Officer, there was a demand on 14.11.2007 by A1 and 23.11.2007 by A2. However the version of P.W.2 in the witness box is only with respect to the A1 and there is no whisper regarding alleged demand amount by A2 and hence, in view of the slated situation, there is defect in the charge with regard to alleged date of the demand and further contended that the job of A1 has been completed as could be seen from Ex.P4 dated 26.06.2007 and answer elicited in the cross examination with regard to the act of the A1 alone, the learned counsel for the respondents could contend that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and hence prayed for the confirmation of the said order. 11. The case of the defence is that they do not have any main role to play, it is Tahsildhar and Revenue Inspector who plays a role. There are two applications; one is for the transfer of Patta and other one is the copy of the revised patta. Ex.P10 is not clear about what PW2 wants. The benefit of doubt is already granted by the Trial Court and hence, the plea of the accused for acquittal gets strengthened. 12. The A1 and A2 are public servants. PW1 is the sanctioning officer. PW2-defacto complainant is working as a Vigilance Officer in the Port Trust. PW3, is the trap witness/ shadow witness. The benefit of doubt is already granted by the Trial Court and hence, the plea of the accused for acquittal gets strengthened. 12. The A1 and A2 are public servants. PW1 is the sanctioning officer. PW2-defacto complainant is working as a Vigilance Officer in the Port Trust. PW3, is the trap witness/ shadow witness. PW4 to PW8 are staff and officers in the Revenue Department , PW9 is the Scientific officer in the Forensic Science Department, Chennai, PW10 is the Trap Laying Officer while PW11 is the investigation officer. 13. Ex.P1- is the sanction letter. The complaint given by PW2 is marked as Ex.P2. Entrustment Mahazar is Ex.P3. Application for request of patta is Ex.P4. So also Ex.P5 [application for revised patta]. Ex.P6 is the Seizure Mahazar. Ex.P12 is a chemical analysis report issued by PW9- Scientific officer regarding test results as 'positive' and the amount recovered from the A2 is M.O.1 series [Rs.500/- x 5 = Rs.2500/-]. 14. The case of the prosecution is that the owner of the building Vasu has given Power of Attorney to his brother Venugopal, the defacto complainant [PW2] in this case for selling his plot in Survey No.8/2 to the extent of 3557 square feet in Kolathur Village, Perambur Taluk. On 05.11.2006, PW2 has sold the plot to his son Arunkumar. Subsequently, PW2 had presented an application, marked as Ex.P4, in the name of his son to the Perambur Taluk Office at Purasaiwalkam on 03.04.2007 for name transfer in patta in favour of his son Arun Kumar. On receipt of the said application, A1, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Survey, surveyed the land and filed his report on 26.06.2007. PW6-Santharuban scrutinised the report and had made an endorsement that there was a difference of 113 square feet with respect to the sale deed and permanent land register. Hence, there was a necessity to revise the sale deed. Based on the report by PW6, the copy application marked as Ex.P4 was returned to PW2. Once again PW2 filed another application marked as Ex.P5 and requested to issue patta in respect to the measurement mentioned in the sale deed. The said application was forwarded to A1 who submitted his report based on his first inspection of the land. 15. Based on the report by PW6, the copy application marked as Ex.P4 was returned to PW2. Once again PW2 filed another application marked as Ex.P5 and requested to issue patta in respect to the measurement mentioned in the sale deed. The said application was forwarded to A1 who submitted his report based on his first inspection of the land. 15. According to PW2 in the witness box, he could narrate the events by which he had approached the A1 for issuance of patta and the transaction of conversation between the PW2 and A1 and A2, relevant for determination of this appeal are to the effect that on 14.11.2007, when PW2 met A1 at his office and requested for patta in the name of his son Arunkumar, A1 had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- for himself as a motive or reward for processing the application for issue of patta in the name of Arunkumar. A1 had instructed the defacto complainant to give the money to A2-Field Assistant who was sitting by the side of A1. Once again PW2 went to Purasaiwalkam Taluk Office on 23.11.2007 and met A2 at 16.00 hours. A2 who was present at that time demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- on behalf of A1 and had stated that the patta was ready. PW2 had replied that he does not have the money ready. Hence, A1 directed PW2 to pay the money to A2. PW2 was not inclined to pay the money. 16. As per the prosecution, PW2-defacto complainant gave the complaint on 27.07.2011. Ex.P2 is the complaint. PW3-Ashok Kumar and one Tamil Selvan were taken as decoy witnesses. The evidence of PW2- defacto complainant, PW3-decoy witness and PW10-Trap Laying Officer, in respect of pre-trap proceedings and Ex.P3-Entrustment Mahazar are intact. 17. During the trap proceedings, the Inspector instructed the PW2- defacto complainant to hand over the alleged bribe money to the accused only on his demand. PW3-Ashok Kumar and another decoy witness Tamilselvan have accompanied and it is the specific evidence of PW2 that when PW2 and PW3 went inside the taluk office, on meeting A1- Madhavan, PW2, asked as to what had happened to the patta and A1- Madhavan directed PW2 to pay the alleged bribe amount of Rs.2,500/-, to A2-Shanmugam and on behalf of A1 on the instructions of A1, A2- Shanmugam received the same. After counting the amount, A2 kept it in his right pant pocket and handed over the patta to PW2 and thereafter, the PW2 came out of the Taluk office and had given the pre-arranged signal to the Inspector, by wiping his face with his kerchief. Thereafter, the trap laying officer went inside and recovered the amount from the A2, conducted the phenolphthalein test which is turned to be positive, as per the evidence of PW3, PW10-Trap laying Officer and PW11-Investigation officer coupled with the Chemical Analysis Report-Ex.P12, issued by PW9-Scientific Officer. 18. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence of the PW8- Thasildar, who is working as a P.A. (General) to the Collector has deposed that A1 and A2 are not competent authorities to issue the revised patta and further it is the specific evidence of PW5-Nalini that patta was made ready by her and submitted to the Deputy Tahsildar on 14.11.2007 and PW6 has forwarded the second application to A1-Madhavan on 02.08.2007 and as per PW8-Tahsildar, he has ordered the issuance of revised patta in the name of the de facto complainant on 16.11.2007. At this juncture, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/accused assumes significance. 19. As per the complaint PW2 had met Madhavan [A1], Revenue Inspector on several occasions and finally on 05.11.2007. On 05.11.2007, Madhavan [A1] had directed Pw2 to come on 14.11.2007 on which date he has demanded Rs.2,500/- as bribe and directed it to be paid to his assistant Shanmugam [A2]. Even on 14.11.2007, PW2 was not inclined to pay the bribe amount. Subsequently, PW2 had met Shanmugam[A2] (and not Madhavan[A1]), who has demanded Rs.2,500/- and has stated that the patta was ready. 20. However in the cross examination, PW2 has admitted that on several occasions, i.e., on 05.11.2007, 14.11.2007 and 23.11.2007, he has met and spoken to Madhavan [A1] alone. He did not speak to Shanmugam [A2] on 23.11.2007 as stated in the complaint. 21. In the cross examination, PW2 had admitted that since there was no demand on 23.11.2007, he has not made any complaint on that day with the Vigilance police. He did not speak to Shanmugam [A2] on 23.11.2007 as stated in the complaint. 21. In the cross examination, PW2 had admitted that since there was no demand on 23.11.2007, he has not made any complaint on that day with the Vigilance police. However, contrary to the same, an averment regarding the demand in Ex.P2-complaint is found and hence the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the averment regarding demand in Ex.P2 and the admission in the cross examination of PW2 are running contrary with regard to the alleged demand on 23.11.2007. Further, the trial Court has observed that the FIR becomes false since the occurrence date in FIR is mentioned as 23.11.2007. If there was no demand on 23.11.2007, then what is the necessity for PW2 to give a complaint on 27.11.2007 alleging that Shanmugam [A2] demanded money at 4.00pm on 23.11.2007. 22. From the evidence of PW2, the trial Court has rendered a categorical finding that there is a delay of 13 days and PW2, who is a Vigilance officer in the Port Trust has not offered any valid explanation for the delay in preferring the complaint. 23. A1 is working as a Sub Inspector of Survey in the office of the Taluk Office, Purasaiwalkam and A2 is working as a Field Assistant in the very same office. From the evidence of PW4-Muralidharan, the trial Court has rendered a finding that neither A1 nor A2 has an authority to issue patta or process the issuance of patta. In this aspect, on a combined reading of the evidence of PW2, cross examination of PW2 and the evidence of PW4, this Court finds that PW2 himself has admitted that on 03.04.2007, vide Ex.P4, he had submitted an application to the Tahsildar to issue patta in his name. That application was forwarded to Madhavan [A1] for enquiry and report on 09.04.2007. Accordingly, Madhavan [A1] inspected the plot and submitted his report on 26.06.2007. The application was returned since there was a difference in the measurement and hence, the defacto complainant was directed to submit a fresh application after registering a rectification sale deed. The defacto complainant had received back his application for issuance of patta on 24.07.2007. PW2 had submitted his second application wherein A1 had endorsed to pay the necessary fee through a challan. The defacto complainant had received back his application for issuance of patta on 24.07.2007. PW2 had submitted his second application wherein A1 had endorsed to pay the necessary fee through a challan. The said application was initialled by PW6 on 02.08.2007 and forwarded to A1 for further action. 24. Thus, the trial Court has rightly held that there was no demand of bribe amount on 03.04.2007 when the first application was given and as per the evidence of PW2 and PW6, the revenue witness, the second application was given on 24.07.2007, whereas it is alleged in the FIR that the demand was made on 23.11.2007 and hence there is a discrepancy with regard to the date of the demand. 25. In order to maintain the prosecution for the charge under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand by the accused has to be established firmly. In this regard, as per Ex-P1-Sanction, the accused said to have demanded the money for issuance of patta. According to Ex.P2-complaint, A1 and A2 have demanded money for issuance of revised patta. As per the final report by the investigation officer, PW11-, A1 had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- for himself as a motive or a reward for processing application for issuance of patta and directed the PW2 to pay to the A2. 26. On perusal of Ex.P1-Sanction report, evidence of PW1 sanctioning authority and the charge framed by the trial Court, I find that there is a clear discrepancy in the framing of the charge. As per the charge framed by the trial Court, the bribe was demanded by A1 for transfer of the patta in the name of Arunkumar and not for processing the application for issuance of patta. While the evidence of PW1 is for issuance of revised patta, the evidence of PW2 is for the issuance of patta and hence, I find that the proper charge was not put to the accused and hence, there is a defect in the prosecution. 27. Further, as observed by the trial Court, the charge reads that pursuant to the demand of bribe by A1 on 27.11.2007, PW2 had met A2 on 23.11.2007 and paid the money. 28. From the revenue witnesses it is seen that A1 and A2 had inspected the property and A1 had submitted his report on 26.06.2007. 27. Further, as observed by the trial Court, the charge reads that pursuant to the demand of bribe by A1 on 27.11.2007, PW2 had met A2 on 23.11.2007 and paid the money. 28. From the revenue witnesses it is seen that A1 and A2 had inspected the property and A1 had submitted his report on 26.06.2007. Since A1 and A2 had already inspected the property and pointed out that a rectification deed was necessary, the question of inspection on the second application by PW2 did not arise. The second application was submitted by PW2 to PW6 on 26.07.2007 and he has forwarded the same to A1, who has endorsed to pay the charges through a challan on 13.10.2007. The challan is paid and signed by V.Arunkumar, S/o.PW2, on 12.11.2007. On 26.09.2007 itself Arunkumar had left for London. 29. Subsequent to the payment of the charges, PW7-Gajalakshmi had received the application on 14.11.2007 and had forwarded the same to the drafting section on 14.11.2007. On 15.11.2007, the Deputy Surveyor had signed and forwarded to PW7. On 16.11.2007, the application and connected papers were placed in the permanent land register and submitted it to the Tahsildhar. After verification, the Tahsildhar had signed and patta was ready on 16.11.2007. 30. The learned defence counsel draw my attention to Ex.P10, which was marked with objection. On perusal of Ex.P10, it is an application said to have been submitted by PW2 for issuance of copy of the patta. But Ex.P10 shows that it is not signed by anyone and in the cross examination, PW2 has stated that he made one application for transfer of name in the patta and another application for revised patta, but he never made any application for copy of the patta and hence, I find that Ex.P10 was not given and instituted by PW2. Since there is a marked contradiction on vital factors, the evidence of PW7 has been dealt with by the trial court and subsequently, has come to the conclusion that A1 didn't give patta copy and signed on the reverse of Ex.P10. In the cross examination, PW7 had categorically admitted that Ex.P10 series was not seized by the trap laying officer from her and it is not known from whom the investigation officer has collected the Ex.P10 and thus, PW10-Trap Laying officer did not see Ex.P10 at the time of the trap. In the cross examination, PW7 had categorically admitted that Ex.P10 series was not seized by the trap laying officer from her and it is not known from whom the investigation officer has collected the Ex.P10 and thus, PW10-Trap Laying officer did not see Ex.P10 at the time of the trap. Even the patta was not seized by him. Hence, based upon the evidence of PW1 and PW7, the trial court arrived at a conclusion that Ex.P10 series is the vital document upon which the entire case is based. If Ex.P10 series is alleged to have been seized from PW2, then the evidence of PW7 and PW8 fails and the contentions of the accused that Ex.P10 was not at all instituted has to be accepted. If neither the patta nor Ex.P10 series was seized from the accused at the time of trap and Ex.P10 was available with PW7 and in the event of the file not being closed, A1, A2 cannot be held liable. 31. Admittedly, the disputed patta is not marked before this Court. PW3-shadow witness and Tamilselvan, the official accompanying the witness have stated that the A1-Madhavan has not asked the de facto complainant 'whether he had brought the money' and accused after receipt of the amount handed the patta to the de facto complainant by taking the patta from the table of the A2. As to the presence of the table in front of A2 in the office, the investigation officer based upon the sketch, would state that no table is placed in front of the A2 in the office set up and hence, it creates a doubt as to whether PW3, actually accompanied PW2 to meet A1 and A2 on the trap date. 32. In this regard, PW2 could depose that when he questioned the A1, as to whether the patta is ready, the A2 opened the bureau and gave the patta from the bureau and hence from the evidence of PW2 and PW3, the respective seat position of A1 and A2 in the office environment appears to run contrary to each other and the place from where the patta is said to be taken and handed over to PW2 by A2, is also contrary to each other and the evidence of PW1 regarding the position of the table and the accused seat also runs contrary to the evidence of PW2 and PW3. 33. 33. On the above material contradiction as to whether the patta was taken from the table of A2 or bureau of A1 and also taking note of the fact that the A1 had never made any demand of money with the PW2 as admitted by PW3 in the cross examination, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that it creates a lot of doubt in the mind of Court as to whether PW3 had accompanied PW2 on the alleged trap day. 34. It is well settled proposition of law that de hors the presumption clause under section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even where the burden is on the accused, it is well known that the prosecution must prove the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt and when it is possible to have both the views, one view in favour of the prosecution and other in the favour of the accused, the latter shall prevail. Even in a case where burden is on the accused, as per section 20 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove the foundational facts. 35. In the instant case, application for patta, application for revised patta, application for copy of the patta and patta made ready are all foundational facts which is not found to be proved by the prosecution and the Ex.P10 series is rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. Seizure of Ex.P10 was not proved by the prosecution in the manner known to law. The alleged endorsement on the reverse of Ex.P10 was not proved in the manner known to law and on the date of alleged first demand, the patta is already made ready and further there is a delay in filing the complaint especially when the de facto complainant himself is a Vigilance Officer in the Port Trust and hence, the trial court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution evidence and ordered acquittal. 36. Based upon the answer elicited from the cross examination of PW7 and PW8 the application for revised patta has left the hands of A1 as early as on 06.11.07 and on 12.11.07 Tahsildhar had signed the patta. 36. Based upon the answer elicited from the cross examination of PW7 and PW8 the application for revised patta has left the hands of A1 as early as on 06.11.07 and on 12.11.07 Tahsildhar had signed the patta. Therefore, the patta was made ready as early as on 12.11.07 and hence, the alleged demand viz 14.11.07 and 23.11.07 said to have been made subsequent to the date of patta being made ready is also taken note by the trial Court and the trial Court has given a clear and categorical finding that though the patta was seized by the investigation officer, the same was not produced before the Court and seizure of Ex.P10 series is ambiguous for the reasons stated supra. 37. In the absence of any explanation as to the marking of the patta and lapse and inadmissibility of Ex.P10 series, the trial court rendered the finding that prosecution has failed to prove the foundational facts and alleged demand and acceptance and the recovery of the amount. 38. In a decision reported in CDJ 2006 Mad HC 2942 [Ramakrishna Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police, DVAC, Chennai], this Court has observed as follows: 9....mere proof of receipt of the money by an accused in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification will not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused in a corruption case. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India has held in T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 401 that: 'Mere proof of receipt of money by accused, in absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification, not sufficient to establish guilt of accused - If accused offers reasonable and probable explanation based on evidence that the money was accepted by him, other than as an illegal gratification, accused would be entitled to acquittal'. 10. The Apex Court has also held in State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan & Anr. reported in VII (2000) SLT 266 that: 'the version of planting the amount by the prosecution witness is probalised coupled with the fact that the prosecution version of demand of bribe and the circumstances under which the said demand was made is suspect'. 11. 10. The Apex Court has also held in State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan & Anr. reported in VII (2000) SLT 266 that: 'the version of planting the amount by the prosecution witness is probalised coupled with the fact that the prosecution version of demand of bribe and the circumstances under which the said demand was made is suspect'. 11. Therefore the first and foremost ingredient to constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is to prove the receipt of money as illegal gratification is the proof of demand made by the accused. Once the prosecution failed to prove the above said ingredient, in my considered view, the entire prosecution case falls into the ground. .... It is also equally well settled that in order to rebut the presumption contemplated and raised under Section 20 (1) of the Act, the accused can offer a reasonable and probable explanation and the accused is not required to establish his defense by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probabilities. 39. Merely because the tainted amount is recovered from the A2 in the absence of any proof of demand beyond reasonable, the presumption under section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not arise and hence, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the foundational facts. 40. At this juncture, it is also worthwhile to refer to Paragraph No.11 of the decision of the Supreme Court in 2022 (4) SCC 574 in K.Shanthamma Vs. State of Telengana, which reads as follows: “In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, [(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11], this Court has summarised the well-settled law on the subject in paragraph 23 which reads thus: “23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” (emphasis added). 41. In the above judgment, it is held that offence under Sec.7 relating to public servants taking bribe requires proof of: (a) demand of illegal gratification, and (b) acceptance thereof – Proof of demand of bribe by public servant and its acceptance by him, both are a sine qua non for establishing offence under Section 7. 42. It is to be stated that only if the demand as alleged is established, the offence could be complete to call for passing of sentence on the accused. In the instant case, the demand was not established. Only if both demand and acceptance are established, the offence could complete so as to call for passing of sentence of the accused. 43. Therefore, I find that the defence has successfully demonstrated and offered a reasonable and palpable explanation and has also established by preponderance of probability, besides, as the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance, the decisions referred above are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification and mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof de hors the proof of demand and would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections. 44. Accordingly, in view of the material contradiction with regard to the recovery of tainted amount, I find that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2022 (4) SCC 574 in K.Shanthamma Vs. State of Telengana, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case and also takes note of the scope of the appeal against the order of acquittal, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.Nos.100 & 101 of 2021 [N.Vijayakumar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu], which reads as follows: “10... State of Telengana, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case and also takes note of the scope of the appeal against the order of acquittal, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.Nos.100 & 101 of 2021 [N.Vijayakumar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu], which reads as follows: “10... In the said judgment, distinction from that of “possible view” to “erroneous view” or “wrong view” is explained. In clear terms, this Court has held that if the view taken by the trial court is a “possible view”, High Court not to reverse the acquittal to that of the conviction. The relevant paragraphs in this regard where meaning and implication of “possible view” distinguishing from “erroneous view” and “wrong view” is discussed. In the case of Hakeem Khan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2017) 5 SCC 719 ] this Court has considered powers of appellate court for interference in cases where acquittal is recorded by trial court. In the said judgment it is held that if the “possible view” of the trial court is not agreeable for the High Court, even then such “possible view” recorded by the trial court cannot be interdicted. .... 12. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in the case of C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in the case of B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55 . In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 45. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 45. Therefore, in view of the decision stated supra, I find that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and in view of the absence of any other possible view and taking note of the limitation of this Court and the scope of the appeal against the order of acquittal, I hereby hold that the judgment of the trial Court does not warrant any interference at this appellate jurisdiction. 46. In this view of the matter, the judgment of acquittal dated 31.10.2013 made in C.C.No.114 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, is hereby confirmed and the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.