JUDGMENT : N. SESHASAYEE, J. 1. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of a certain Pandiaraj who was convicted by the Special Court for V & AC Cases (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Dharmapuri in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2012, for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and imposed with a sentence of one year simple imprisonment and with a fine of Rs.2,500/- for each of the charges, and on his failure to pay the fine, Pandiaraj was directed to undergo a default clause of one month simple imprisonment. 2.1 The case of the prosecution unfolds as below : a) On or before 13.05.2010, Pandiaraj was working as the Inspector of Police at Karimangalam Police Station in Dharmapuri District. b) On his file, P.W.2 faced investigation for two independent crimes based on Ext.P21 FIR in Crime No.649/2010 dated 20.07.2010 and in Ext.P7 FIR in Crime No.751 of 2010 dated 25.08.2010. In the second mentioned case, P.W.2 was arraigned as accused along with P.W.4 and others, and the nature of accusation against him involveed commission of cognizable crimes. c) In this circumstances, P.W.2 and some of the accused persons in Crime No.751 of 2010 moved the Sessions Court, Dharmapuri in Crl.MP.No.1290/2010 for anticipatory bail. P.W.4 had been arrested in that case, and he had filed Crl.MP.No.1287 of 2010 before the Sessions Court for bail . The Sessions Court vide Ext.P23, order dated 14.09.2010 granted anticipatory bail to P.W.2 and vide Ext.P39, order dated 08.09.2010 granted bail to P.W.4, subject to certain conditions which inter alia included that P.W.2 and P.W.4 should sign at Kariamangalam Police Station daily. d) It is in this circumstances, on 21.09.2010, P.W.2 and P.W.4 appeared before Pandiaraj, who, to repeat, was the Inspector of Police. The time was around 10 a.m. in the morning. It was at that time, Pandiaraj was said to have demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe from P.W.2 and P.W.4, with a rider that if the money was not paid, he would implicate the other close relatives of P.W.2 and P.W.4 in the case. e) Pandiaraj is alleged to have cellphonically contacted P.W.2 at around3.15 p.m., on the same day and reminded him of the bribe money, which the prosecution tries to establish with Ext.P.30, the Call Data Record (CDR for short) marked through P.W.16, the Nodal Officer of the cellphone service provider. e) Pandiaraj is alleged to have cellphonically contacted P.W.2 at around3.15 p.m., on the same day and reminded him of the bribe money, which the prosecution tries to establish with Ext.P.30, the Call Data Record (CDR for short) marked through P.W.16, the Nodal Officer of the cellphone service provider. During this call, Pandiaraj required both P.W.2 and P.W.4 to come to the police station at 8 p.m. in the night. f) P.W.2 had gone to the police station and this time, the bribe amount was scaled down from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7,000/-. g) On 22.09.2010, at around 10.00 a.m., Pandiaraj was alleged to have again made another call to P.W.2, and informed the latter that he had been transferred from Kariamangalam Police Station, and reminded him of the bribe money. h) On the following day, i.e., 23.09.2010 at around 12.30 in the noon, Pandiaraj was relieved from Kariamangalam Police Station. And at around 3.15 p.m., he had made yet another cellphonic call to P.W.2 and reminded him of the bribe money yet again, and was alleged to have promised that he would require his successor to do favours to P.W.2. i) After this 3.15 p.m. call, P.W.2 preferred Ext.P5 complaint, receiving which at around 4.30 p.m., P.W.18 registered Ext.P31 FIR. j) P.W.18 was the Trap Laying Officer (TLO), and he soon geared himself for the trap, and went through the pre-trap protocol. He landed at the quarters of Pandiaraj at 9.45 p.m., with his team comprising of P.W.2 and two other official witnesses namely P.W.3 and a certain Kannan. k) P.W.2 met Pandiaraj at his quarters, and Pandiaraj had enquired if P.W.2 had brought the money and nodding affirmatively to the same, P.W.2 tendered Rs.7,000/- (Rs.1,000 x 7 notes), all smeared with phenolphthalein powder. l) P.W.3 was a shadow witness for the occasion. Soon P.W.2 would alert P.W.18, and he would descent on the scene along with the other shadow witness Kannan and he completed the rest of the trap procedure. The trap indeed was successful, and Pandiaraj was arrested at 12.55 in the midnight. m)The investigation was taken over by P.W.19 and after completing his investigation, he laid his final report. 2.2 The Special Court framed necessary charges against Pandiaraj and tried him.During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P42 and M.O.1 to M.O.5. The trap indeed was successful, and Pandiaraj was arrested at 12.55 in the midnight. m)The investigation was taken over by P.W.19 and after completing his investigation, he laid his final report. 2.2 The Special Court framed necessary charges against Pandiaraj and tried him.During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P42 and M.O.1 to M.O.5. The appellant on his part had examined a head Clerk of a Magistrate Court as D.W.1, and also produced Ext.D1 to Ext.D5. 2.3 On appreciating the evidence, the trial Court found Pandiaraj guilty of the charges that were framed against him and sentenced him in the manner as outlined in the opening paragraph of this judgment. This judgment is now under challenge. 3.1 During the pendency of the appeal, Pandiaraj passed away, and his heirs impleaded themselves to prosecute this appeal. Arguing for the appellants, their counsel Mr.N.Manoharan submitted that for constituting an offence under Sec.7, the prosecution must have to provide evidence to establish the foundational facts constituting the triple criteria prescribed therefor: the demand, the payment and the acceptance of bribe money. And, in terms of Sec.7 the triple criteria is inseverably connected to a motive: to do the bribe-giver official favours. In other words, it is not just sufficient for the prosecution to establish the simultaneous existence of the triple criteria for constituting the offence, it must also establish that the receipt of alleged bribe money is accompanied by a possibility for extending official favours as a quid pro quo for receiving the bribe. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to establish either the demand for bribe, or the possibility for Pandiaraj to do P.W.2 any official favours. Therefore, proof of receipt of money through the trap-test by itself does not take the prosecution efforts anywhere. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to establish either the demand for bribe, or the possibility for Pandiaraj to do P.W.2 any official favours. Therefore, proof of receipt of money through the trap-test by itself does not take the prosecution efforts anywhere. Developing his arguments on evidence, the learned counsel argued: a) According to the prosecution, Pandiaraj had demanded bribe first at10.00 a.m., on 21.09.2010 at the police station, and again at 8 p.m. p.m., on the same day, and in between at 3.15 p.m., the accused made a cellphonic call to P.W.2 requiring him to appear before him at 8.00 p.m. However, in Ext.P5 complaint, there is no reference either to the date on which the first demand was said to have been made, nor is there a reference to the cellphonic call which the appellant was alleged to have made from mobile no. 9942755038. This would imply that the date of demand either personally or cellphonically are later invention and improvement by P.W.2, and hence his case is plainly unreliable. b) While in the complaint P.W.2 has alleged that the demand for bribe was made in the Police Station, in his chief examination, he has testified that the alleged demand was made in the quarters of the appellant. c) The second version of the prosecution is that on 22.09.2010, at around8.00 p.m. Pandiaraj was said to have made another cellphonic call from the aforesaid number. And P.W.2 in his testimony would depose that on 23.09.2010, even as the TLO was gearing up for laying the trap, he had received a call from Pandiaraj from the same cellphone number. Indeed, he was with the rest of the members of the trap team then. However, as per the Ext.P30 CDR entries which came to be marked by the prosecution through P.W.16 show that on 22.09.2010, a call from the aforesaid cellphone number to the cellphone number of P.W.2 was seen to have been made at 10 a.m. and not at 8 p.m., and no call was received at 8 p.m., an hour or so, before the trap. These facts are proved to be a lie, which implied, that P.W.2 was given to speak to falsehood. And, it highlights he should have a motive to fix Pandiaraj in a crime. These facts are proved to be a lie, which implied, that P.W.2 was given to speak to falsehood. And, it highlights he should have a motive to fix Pandiaraj in a crime. d) And, so far as the cellphone calls said to have been made by Pandiaraj are concerned, the cellphone number attributed to him does not stand in his name, but in the name of one Mukundan. P.W.16, the nodal officer of the service provider, has testified to it in his cross examination. The prosecution however, did not focus its investigation to ascertain who this Mukundan was. e) With no believable materials to establish that Pandiaraj had either made a demand for bribe either personally on 21.09.2010 or cellphonically, thereafter the case travels to 23.09.2010, the date on which complaint was preferred, FIR was registered and the trap was laid. According to P.W.2, he went to the office of V & AC only at 5.30 in the evening and this is corroborated by P.W.3, the shadow witness planted by TLO, but Ext.P31 FIR shows that FIR itself had been registered at 4.30 p.m., Has then the FIR come to be registered even before the complaint was received from P.W.2? f) P.W.2 in his testimony had contradicted himself on a material aspect.While in his chief examination he had deposed that after receiving the tainted money Pandiaraj had kept it in an almirah in his quarters, he later varied it when in his cross examination he had deposed that he did not know where Pandiaraj had kept the money. g) The next aspect is whether Pandiaraj was in a position to do any official favours to P.W.2 when the trap was laid. It will be established by the following facts/evidence: i. It is true that P.W.2 was involved at least in two criminal cases (Exts.P7 and P21 are the FIRs) which are under investigation. However, Pandiaraj was not investigating these crimes, and they were being investigated only by P.W.6 and P.W.9, both of whom concede to this fact. This would indicate that there is no possibility for Pandiaraj to do official favours. ii. And, at any rate, Pandiaraj was relieved from the Kariamangalam P.S. at around 12.30 in the noon, some 8 hours before the trap, as he had by then been transferred. This would indicate that there is no possibility for Pandiaraj to do official favours. ii. And, at any rate, Pandiaraj was relieved from the Kariamangalam P.S. at around 12.30 in the noon, some 8 hours before the trap, as he had by then been transferred. In effect, the complaint was laid against an officer who had already been transferred, and since he was transferred there was no possibility to extend any official favours as a quid pro quo for the receipt of bribe money. 3.2 But, why should P.W.2 try to fix Pandiaraj falsely in an offence under the PCA Act? P.W.18, the TLO, had nurtured certain amount of displeasure over his inability to persuade Pandiaraj to help couple of his relatives who were facing investigation in certain criminal cases. And P.W.2 had played right in the hands of P.W.18, argued the learned counsel. 3.3 Summing up his argument, the learned counsel submitted that while the money planted by P.W.18 was recovered from the almirah of Pandiaraj, the same was planted by him, when at the time of trap Pandiaraj was in the bathroom. 4. Per contra, the learned Prosecutor submitted as below: a) It is undisputed that the planted currencies used for trapping Pandiaraj was recovered from the alimirah of Pandiaraj at his quarters. When bad money was seized from his house, and with trap-test proving to be positive, Sec.20 of the PC Act comes to play instantly, and the burden will be only on Pandiaraj to explain how the money came to his hands. Here he had colossally failed. Indeed, he had taken out two inconsistent line of defences, and they mutually kill each other. In Ext.P12 seizure mahazar, P.W.18, the TLO records the statement of Pandiaraj, which may be treated as one recorded under paragraph No.47 of V&AC Manual, wherein the appellant had stated that P.W.2 insisted the appellant to receive the money and thrusted it in his hand, and it was P.W.2 who showed where the money was kept. However during the cross-examination of P.W.2 as well as P.W.18, the appellant modified his line of defence that when P.W.2 entered his quarters along with P.W.3, that Pandiaraj had gone to the toilet, and P.W.2 had used this opportunity to leave the cash in the almirah/cupboard of the appellant, and thereafter P.W.2 held the hands of the appellant to save him from the case. But this theory was strongly refuted by P.W.3, the shadow witness, during his cross examination. While Pandiaraj had not pointedly discredited the statements attributed to him in Ext.P12, his second line of defence where he claimed that P.W.2 might have left the cash in his almirah/cupboard without his knowledge, appears like a comics-story. Secondly while it might be true that P.W.2 knew that Pandiaraj had been transferred at the time when the trap was laid and had also been relieved of his duty, there was no need for him to hold the hands of the appellant and beg for his help. Thirdly, if P.W.2 had left the money without the knowledge of the appellant, then the appellant could not have identified the almirah where the money was kept when P.W.18 landed in his quarters. Therefore, the appellant knew where the money was kept. In essence the second line of defence which Pandiaraj had adopted during trial is more a rear guard action, desperately attempted by him to exculpate himself from the charges that he faced. b) So far as proving the demand for bribe is concerned, it is nigh difficult to prove it through direct evidence, and it can only be gathered as an inferential finding from the proof of payment and acceptance. Here in this case, payment and acceptance of the planted currencies has been proved through a positive trap-test. Necessarily the presumption under Sec.20 operates to create a reverse burden on Pandiaraj, but here he had miserably failed to offer a believable explanation. Reliance was placed on Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) , (2023) 4 SCC 731 . Discussion & Decision: 5.1 It is a case of successful trap. The trap-test result was positive and the currencies (Rs.1,000 x 7) planted by the TLO to trap Pandiaraj were also recovered from a cupboard inside his quarters. They are not disputed by the defence. Instantaneously, the statutory presumption under Sec.20 of the PC Act inviting itself for application to the situation at hand has now become more than a lingering possibility. The efforts of the appellants' counsel has been to create a dent in the prosecution case by rebutting the statutory presumption. They are not disputed by the defence. Instantaneously, the statutory presumption under Sec.20 of the PC Act inviting itself for application to the situation at hand has now become more than a lingering possibility. The efforts of the appellants' counsel has been to create a dent in the prosecution case by rebutting the statutory presumption. 5.2 The appellants' line of argument is that, for establishing a charge under sec.7 of the PC Act, the prosecution must make available the minimum evidence that would establish the foundational facts for constituting the triple criteria, namely, the demand for, followed by payment and acceptance of the bribe money, and that in the absence of any of these constituent factors, the seizure of the bribe money merely, does not take the prosecution case anywhere. 6.1 Let the law be stated. For proving a crime under Sec.7 of the PC Act, the prosecution should establish the minimum facts which constitute the tripod – the demand, payment and acceptance of bribe money on which the crime rests. Even if one leg is not established then the offence cannot be said to have been committed. 6.2 While a successful trap gives an opening credence to the accusation in the FIR as to prompt further investigation into it, it is not conclusive. What does a trap-test establish? It can at the best prove that an accused person has either received the planted currencies, or he has just touched it, for the moment the accused-person touches the planted currencies or an article without even completing the act of receiving it, the trap-test will produce positive results. Therefore notwithstanding its functional utility in providing an opening for investigation, a trap-test carries a weak evidentiary value to bring home the guilt of the accused person on its own strength, for it is neither capable of proving a demand for and the acceptance of bribe-money. At the best it may serve to prove payment of bribe, which perhaps is the easiest of the triple criteria to prove, since the bribe-giver himself is a decoy of the investigating agency. 6.3 How then to prove demand for bribe? It must be stated that it will be fiendishly difficult for any prosecuting agency to prove demand for bribe through direct evidence, for no person given to his senses will ever make a demand for bribe, leaving a trail for an investigating agency to track. 6.3 How then to prove demand for bribe? It must be stated that it will be fiendishly difficult for any prosecuting agency to prove demand for bribe through direct evidence, for no person given to his senses will ever make a demand for bribe, leaving a trail for an investigating agency to track. In many cases, the prosecution tries to establish it by producing the CDR details of cellphone to cellphone call details, but its efforts invariably stop there. Unless the text of the cellphonic conversation, duly authenticated by a certificate issued under Sec.65B of the Evidence Act (now Sec.63 of BSA) is produced, no useful purpose would be served by mere production of the CDR. Necessarily, a demand for bribe must be inferred only from proof of payment and acceptance of bribe money. 6.4 The next aspect is proof of acceptance. As stated earlier, a trap-test is inconclusive to hold that the accused is guilty of accepting bribe, for it, at the best of times establishes that either the accused has received the planted article or has just touched it. In the context of proving the crime under Sec.7, what then constitutes acceptance, and how it is different from receipt of a planted article? Receipt involves a mere act of receiving, and it need not be accompanied by an intent to hold on to what is received. Therefore, acceptance requires a shade of intent more than that which is required for receiving. And, even acceptance of the planted currencies or article need not always lead to a conclusion that there is an intent to accept what is received. In other words, notwithstanding the fact that the bribe-giver may have paid anything as bribe, the alleged bribe-taker need not have received it with an intent that he is receiving what he receives as bribe. This implies that in a given case, there can be a mismatch between the intent of a bribe-giver in giving the bribe and the intent of the accused person in receiving it. Therefore, proof of acceptance of bribe depends on the purpose or the intent behind the acceptance of the tainted article. This implies that in a given case, there can be a mismatch between the intent of a bribe-giver in giving the bribe and the intent of the accused person in receiving it. Therefore, proof of acceptance of bribe depends on the purpose or the intent behind the acceptance of the tainted article. Hence, for completing an act of acceptance for proving the offence under Sec.7 or Sec.13(1)(d), the purpose or the intent for receiving the tainted or planted article should be incapable of being explained, which given the circumstance in which it is set, is acceptable to a reasonable man of law in the ordinary course of human conduct. It could therefore be concluded that while a simple act of receipt need not carry mens rea, acceptance of the planted article does require mens rea. The distance between a receipt and aceptance of bribe may be slender, but it is critical. 6.5 However, the intent behind accepting the planted article, often the sinned- currencies, will be only within the personal knowledge of the accused person. It is hence, when a trap-test is proved positive, the presumption under Sec.20 of the PC Act gets activated. But the intent behind holding on to what is received by an accused during the trap will be only within the personal knowledge of the accused, and in terms of Sec.106 of the Evidence Act (now Sec.109 of the BSA) the burden will be on him to establish it. It is hence, the statute has imposed a reverse burden on him to explain. Ultimately, it is the quality of explanation that will decide whether the accused will enjoy his freedom or not. If the explanation and the evidence in aid of it, appears believable and reasonably be accommodatable within the conscience of the Court, then no act of acceptance of bribe can be said to have been established. This is essentially a question of fact. 6.6 Therefore, mere proof in aid of a self-serving act of payment of bribe-money, unaccompanied by poof of its acceptance (or should it be non-acceptance, since acceptance depends largely on the quality of the explanation offered for receiving the planted currencies or article), no demand for money can be deduced as an inferable fact. 6.6 Therefore, mere proof in aid of a self-serving act of payment of bribe-money, unaccompanied by poof of its acceptance (or should it be non-acceptance, since acceptance depends largely on the quality of the explanation offered for receiving the planted currencies or article), no demand for money can be deduced as an inferable fact. In other words, even though a demand for money is capable of being proved mostly inferentially, still unless the factum of acceptance of bribe could be ascertained from the quality of explanation offered by the accused, a demand for bribe cannot be inferred. 6.7 In cases, where the prosecution attempts to prove demand for bribe as an independent fact but through shaky evidence, it may not carry much weight if the reverse burden cast on the accused person is adequately discharged. If however, if the accused person is able to offer tenable and believable explanation as to the possession of planted currencies in his hand adequate enough to persuade the court to arrive at a conclusion that at the best there could be only receipt of planted article but not its acceptance, then a shaky evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the demand for bribe as an independent fact will accelerate the advantage of the accused person. Indeed, in a given case, it may also go to prove that the entire case against the accused was either fixed by the complainant, or that the trap itself was afflicted by malafides. 6.8 To this it may be added that while law requires all the three acts of demand, payment and acceptance of bribe must be simultaneously proved, it does not require that they must be established in the same order. Ordinarily, it will start from proof of payment of bribe (by default), followed by proof of acceptance (by evaluation from a plane of ordinary course of human conduct), from which flows the proof of demand (by inference). 6.9 The arguments of the appellants' counsel is now required to be tested on this plane. 7. Ordinarily, it will start from proof of payment of bribe (by default), followed by proof of acceptance (by evaluation from a plane of ordinary course of human conduct), from which flows the proof of demand (by inference). 6.9 The arguments of the appellants' counsel is now required to be tested on this plane. 7. An analysis of the arguments discloses: (a) that the allegation of demand itself has a shaky start; (b) Poof in aid of demand is inconclusive; (c) bribe money though recovered from the quarters of Pandiaraj and the trap-test was also positive, still at the time when the trap took place, Pandiaraj was in not in any position to do official favours to P.W.2; and (d) the quality of explanation which Pandiaraj had offered, perhaps the most critical factor from his standpoint, as to how the tainted money had found its way into his cupboard. 8.1 Turning to demand part, as stated above its proof could largely be inferential, but in a given case a shaky start coupled with a plausibly believable explanations for receiving the tainted money may tilt the balance against the prosecution heavily. The prosecution version in this case is that the purpose for which the demand for bribe was made has changed between day one and day two. On day one, i.e. on 21.09.2010, the demand for bribe was alleged to have been accompanied by a threat (and not offer of any favour) that if the bribe money was not paid, Pandiaraj would implicate the close relatives of P.W.2 in the criminal cases which were then under investigation in his Police Station. By the night of day two, it was altered as one for making arrangements with his successor to do P.W.2 favours, since Pandiaraj was transferred. Therefore there, is no inconsistency in the stands of the prosecution. 8.2 If the evidence on demand for bribe is scrutinized, according to P.W.2 there were two personal demands, first on day one (21.09.2010) and the next on day two (22.09.2010). This apart there were two cellphonic demands from cellphone no: 9942755038. The cellphonic demands however, might have to be rejected for two reasons: (a) According to P.W.16, the nodal officer of the service provider the cellphone no. 9942755038 belonged to certain Mukundan and not Pandiaraj. This apart there were two cellphonic demands from cellphone no: 9942755038. The cellphonic demands however, might have to be rejected for two reasons: (a) According to P.W.16, the nodal officer of the service provider the cellphone no. 9942755038 belonged to certain Mukundan and not Pandiaraj. And the I.O. did not bestow adequate care to ascertain who this Mukundan was; and (b) To prove cellphonic demands, the prosecution has produced Ext.P30 CDR, but it was not accompanied by a certificate under Sec.65B of the Evidence Act. Turning to testimony of P.W.2, it was self serving, and therefore, it may have to be gathered inferentially after ascertaining if Pandiaraj had accepted the bribe money. 9. The fact remained that the tainted currencies were paid, received and recovered from the quarters of Pandiaraj. Now, the issue is whether the explanation offered by Pandiaraj – his line of defence, is believable as to rule out the possibility that he perhaps might have received the currencies, or touched them, but might not have retained them with an intent to hold on to them. Here his first line of defence was that since he had been transferred he was not in a position to do P.W.2 any favours. A corollary-defence was that even though the two cases in which P.W.2 was an accused were pending investigation in his Police Station, he was not the investigating officer, and those cases were handled by P.W.6 and P.W.9. This will be considered after the Court assesses the quality of explanation which Pandiaraj has offered to discharge the reverse-burden cast on him. 10. Now to Pandiaraj's specific line of defence – his rebuttal under Sec.20 of the Act. If the evidence is examined, according to the prosecution, at the appointed moment P.W.2, accompanied by P.W.3, entered the quarters of Pandiaraj and tendered the planted currencies to the latter. And, as stated a few times, the money was eventually recovered from the almirah in his quarters. Pandiaraj's explanation had been that when P.W.2 arrived at his house, leaving him there, the appellant went to the toilet, and when he returned, P.W.2 had held the hands of Pandiaraj and begged him to help him in the cases in which the former had been booked, but before he so held his hands, he might have planted the currencies right inside his cupboard. Ext.P12 seizure magazar gives an entirely different version, where Pandiaraj was stated to have given a statement to the TLO that P.W.2 had thrusted the tainted currencies in the former's hand begging to help him whose evidentiary value is less as it was not. Even if this statement is kept aside, or even ignored, still Pandiaraj has to negotiate the evidence of P.W.3, the independent-shadow witness. When Pandiaraj's line of defence was suggested to him, he strongly refuted it. This testimony of P.W.3 stands solidly against Pandiaraj. After all, why should P.W.3 make a false statement, he being an independent witness? Here it may have to be stated that there is a marginal variation in the testimony of P.W.2 on the point as to where Pandiaraj had kept the tainted money after receiving it. But this is inconsequential when the money had been eventually recovered from his cupboard. 11. The issue is all about the believability of Pandiaraj's line of defence – his version. Despite the fact that P.W.2 seems to display a tendency to exaggerate facts in certain places, on core facts of the prosecution case, his testimony is believable. As part of the trap proceedings, P.W.2 had entered the quarters of Pandiaraj along with P.W.3, that Pandiaraj had enquired P.W.2 if he had brought the money, and when P.W.2 tendered the money, Pandiaraj had received the same. This enquiry is important as it reflects that there should have been a demand for bribe. Otherwise how to characterise this money? A transfer-gift from an accused to a Police Inspector? Now, while from the stand point of Pandiaraj, his argument that he was not in a position to do P.W.2 any favours at the time the trap was staged, the point is did P.W.2 know that Pandiaraj could no more influence the course of investigation of cases in which he was arrayed as an accused owing to latter's transfer? 12. Given the setting, Pandiaraj's explanation as to how the planted money might have reached his almirah appears unbelievably cinematic, seen through the eye of the reasonable man of law, based on the thumb rule of 'ordinary course of human conduct'. Necessarily this Court has to hold that Pandiaraj had accepted the tainted currencies, from which it flows inferentially that there ought to have been a demand for bribe. The dots get well connected, and the prosecution has reached ashore safely. Necessarily this Court has to hold that Pandiaraj had accepted the tainted currencies, from which it flows inferentially that there ought to have been a demand for bribe. The dots get well connected, and the prosecution has reached ashore safely. And it implies that Pandiaraj fails for a second consecutive time in convincing the court of his innocence as his explanation in rebuttal is least convincing. 13. Now to the last line of defence. Pandiaraj accuses that P.W.18, the TLO had some personal grudge to settle as the former did not oblige to help certain accused persons who were related to P.W.18 in some criminal cases. He had suggested the names of these accused to P.W.18 but he denied that he shared any relationship with them. Pandiaraj also produced Exts.D4 and D5 FIRs. Mere suggestion that someone is related to P.W.18 will not take the place of proof unless the same is admitted by the witness. Necessarily this line of defence also fails. 14. In conclusion, this Court finds no merit in this appeal and dismisses it, and accordingly confirms the conviction handed over by the trial court in Spl. C.C.No.1/2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate / Special Judge, Dharmapuri to Pandiaraj.