JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C. No.34/2008 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, have filed this appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against them as per the judgment dated 05.10.2010. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge, the records of the Special Court as well as the decisions placed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter. 4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, accused Nos. 1 to 3, while working as Sub-Registrar, Joint Sub-Registrar and Peon respectively in Sub-Registrar office, Alappuzha and as such being public servants entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.4, who is a document writer and in pursuance of that conspiracy, accused No.4 demanded Rs.3000/- as illegal gratification from the witness John Varghese for himself and for accused Nos.1 to 3 on 04.08.2004 as a motive for registering a document with respect to a property purchased by John Varghese. In pursuance of the demand, on 19.08.2004 at about 3.10 P.M. John Varghese gave the bribe amount of Rs.3000/- to accused No.4 which he accepted for himself and for accused Nos.1 to 3. Thus, accused Nos.1 to 4 obtained pecuniary advantage by illegal means and accused Nos. 1 to 3 abused their official position with dishonest intention to obtain undue pecuniary advantage. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8, 9 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred ‘IPC’ for short], by the accused. 5. After framing charge, the Special Court recorded evidence and completed trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 7 were examined, Exts.P1 to 14 and MOs 1 to 9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C , DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.D1 was marked on the side of accused as defence evidence. 6. During trial, PWs 1 to 7 were examined, Exts.P1 to 14 and MOs 1 to 9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C , DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.D1 was marked on the side of accused as defence evidence. 6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that accused Nos.1 to 3 were guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The Special court also found that, accused Nos.1 to 4 were guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC. Further, the 4 th accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the P.C. Act and he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the P.C. Act. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 4 were convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under: Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are convicted for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years each and fine Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months each and convicted for the offence under Sec.13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years each and fine Rs.10000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months each. Accused No.4 is convicted for the offence under Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and fine Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months. Accused No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are convicted for the offence under Sec.120-B I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years each and fine Rs.5000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months each. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The accused are entitled to set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C . from 19.08.04 to 22.08.04. 7. While impeaching the verdict impugned, it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that, in this case, the allegation of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- is not proved substantially. The accused are entitled to set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C . from 19.08.04 to 22.08.04. 7. While impeaching the verdict impugned, it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that, in this case, the allegation of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- is not proved substantially. According to the learned counsel for the accused, regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe, there is an omission in the evidence of PW1. It is also pointed out that, the specific case of the defence was that, accused Nos.1 to 3 never demanded any amount as bribe from PW1 and it was the 4 th accused, who demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe on 04.08.2008 as his document writing fee in respect of the document registered in the name of the complainant, for which he had paid registration fee of Rs.1405/- as per Ext.P1. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused further that, in order to prove the case of the defence that, Rs.1,500/- was accepted by the 1 st accused towards registration fee of the document produced by the 4 th accused before the Sub Registrar, DWs 1 and 2 were examined. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that, the evidence of DW1, supported by the evidence of DW2 would substantiate the fact that Rs.1,500/- paid by the 4 th accused to the 1 st accused, which in turn given to the 2 nd accused and the 3 rd accused, was towards the registration fee of the document in respect of DW1's property, highlighting the evidence of DW1, who spoke about the fact that registration fee of the document was Rs.1,405/-. Thus, the sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that, the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, the vital ingredients to attract the offences alleged by the prosecution, at the instance of the accused. He further disputed the identification of accused at the dock by the witnesses. Therefore, the accused would deserve the benefit of doubt is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused. 8. Per contra, it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, PW1 identified the accused at the dock and accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested as part of trap. Therefore, the said identification alone is sufficient in this case. Therefore, the accused would deserve the benefit of doubt is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused. 8. Per contra, it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, PW1 identified the accused at the dock and accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested as part of trap. Therefore, the said identification alone is sufficient in this case. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted further that, in the instant case, the specific case of the prosecution, right from the very beginning is that, in order to register the document in the name of PW1, the 4 th accused demanded Rs.3,000/- for and on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 3 on 04.08.2008 and when this matter was informed to the Vigilance, Ext.P3(a) FIR was registered based on Ext.P3 statement given by PW1. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, by the evidence of PW1, though the date 04.08.2008 was not specifically disclosed as the date of initial demand, PW1 categorically deposed about the demand of bribe by the accused, as such the FIR was registered. It is submitted that, demand of bribe by the 4 th accused for and on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 3 is sufficient to prove the demand at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3 and in this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor placed decision of the Apex Court reported in [(2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 242] State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi and Others , with reference to paragraph Nos.9 to 11. Paragraph Nos.9 to 11 read as under: 9. In the present case, demand of the money by Accused 1 J.D. Patel and acceptance of the bribe amount by Accused 2 Navinbhai at the behest of Accused 1 J.D. Patel is proved by the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. In his evidence, PW 1 had clearly stated about the demand by Accused 1 J.D. Patel for expediting the matter regarding the approval of revised plan for non-agricultural permission. PW1 further stated that when he met Accused 1 J.D. Patel on 3-4-1991, Accused-1 J:D. Patel told him that it would not look proper if he takes the amount from PW1 in office and showed him Accused 2 Navinbhai and asked PW1 to give the money to him. PW 1 further stated that he went to the gallery and gave muddamal currency notes to Accused 2 Navinbhai. PW 1 further stated that he went to the gallery and gave muddamal currency notes to Accused 2 Navinbhai. Thereafter, Accused 2 Navinbhai had gone near Accused 1 J.D. Patel and sat down. On showing the pre-arranged signal, the police team went inside and questioned Accused 1 and 2. On search of Accused 2 Navinbhai, muddamal currencies were recovered from the left side shirt pocket. Throwing light of ultraviolet lamp had shown presence of anthracene powder in the left side shirt pocket of Accused 2 Navinbhai. Likewise, throwing light of ultraviolet lamp on the hands of Accused 1 J.D. Patel had shown the presence of anthracene powder. From the evidence of PW 1, demand by Accused 1 J.D. Patel and Accused 2 Navinbhai is proved by the prosecution. The same is corroborated by the test of the ultraviolet light showing the presence of anthracene powder on the shirt worn by Accused 2 Navinbhai and the right hand of Accused 1 J.D. Patel. Evidence of PW 1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW 3 Devendra Kumar. The trial court recorded the findings that the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is consistent and they are reliable witnesses. Upon appreciation of evidence, adduced by the prosecution, the trial court convicted Accused 1 and 2. 10. The High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no recovery from Accused 1 J.D. Patel and that the demand by the accused persons has not been established by the prosecution. The High Court took the view that Accused 2 Navinbhai had no idea for what purpose the money was given to Accused 1 J.D. Patel by PW 1 and therefore, it cannot be said that Accused 2 Navinbhai had accepted the bribe amount upon demand to PW 1. The High Court was not right in brushing aside the evidence of PW 1 who has clearly stated that Accused 1 J.D. Patel demanded bribe of Rs 1000 and the same was settled for Rs 500 for expediting the matter for conversion of the plot for non-agricultural purpose. Recovery of the tainted currency notes from Accused 2 Navinbhai and the presence of anthracene powder in the right hand of Accused 1 J.D. Patel and the pocket of the shirt of Accused 2 Navinbhai clearly show that they acted in tandem in the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. Recovery of the tainted currency notes from Accused 2 Navinbhai and the presence of anthracene powder in the right hand of Accused 1 J.D. Patel and the pocket of the shirt of Accused 2 Navinbhai clearly show that they acted in tandem in the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. When the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has been proved by the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, the High Court was not right in holding that the demand and acceptance was not proved. The findings of the trial court did not suffer from any infirmity and the High Court was not justified in setting aside the conviction of the accused. 12. 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-accused for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. In C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI , this Court held as under: (SCC p. 786, paras 21-22) "21. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused 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. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that, if minor discrepancies and contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this may naturally would occur in cases, where the witnesses would be examined after 5 to 6 years of the occurrence. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that, if minor discrepancies and contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this may naturally would occur in cases, where the witnesses would be examined after 5 to 6 years of the occurrence. In this connection, the learned Public Prosecutor placed decision of the Apex Court reported in [(2020) 1 Supreme Court Cases 88] Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) with reference to paragraph No.14. In paragraph No.14, the Apex Court held as under: 14. The contradictions that have crept in the testimonies of Nand Lal (PW 2) and Hemant Kumar (PW 3) noticed above and on the question of the total amount demanded or whether Nand Lal (PW 2) had earlier paid Rs 500 are immaterial and inconsequential as it is indisputable that the bribe was demanded and taken by the appellant on 3-8-1994 at about 10.30 a.m. The variations as highlighted lose significance in view of the proven facts on the recovery of bribe money from the pant pocket of the appellant, on which depositions of Nand Lal (PW 2), Hemant Kumar (PW 3) and Rohtash Singh (PW 5) are identical and not at variance. The money recovered was the currency notes that were treated and noted in the pre-raid proceedings vide Ext. PW 2/G. The aspect of demand and payment of the bribe has been examined and dealt with above. The contradictions as pointed out to us and noted are insignificant when juxtaposed with the vivid and eloquent narration of incriminating facts proved and established beyond doubt and debate. It would be sound to be cognitive of the time gap between the date of occurrence, 3-8-1994, and the dates when the testimony of Nand Lal (PW 2) was recorded, 9-7-1999 and 14-9-1999, and that Hemant Kumar's (PW 3) testimony was recorded on 18-12-2000 and 30-1-2001. Given the time gap of five to six years, minor contradictions on some details are bound to occur and are natural. The witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time. Given the time gap of five to six years, minor contradictions on some details are bound to occur and are natural. The witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time. Picayune variations do not in any way negate and contradict the main and core incriminatory evidence of the demand of bribe, reason why the bribe was demanded and the actual taking of the bribe that was paid, which are the ingredients of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, that as noticed above and hereinafter, have been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. Documents prepared contemporaneously noticed above affirm the primary and ocular evidence. We, therefore, find no good ground and reason to upset and set aside the findings recorded by the trial court that have been upheld by the High Court. Relevant in this context would be to refer to the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh wherein it was held that in a case involving an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may be safe to accept the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction. 10. In view of the rival submissions, the questions arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused Nos.1 to 3 committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988, read with 120-B of the IPC? 2. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, read with 120-B of the IPC? 3. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the 4th accused committed the offence punishable under Section 8 of the P.C. Act, 1988,read with 120-B of the IPC? 4. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that accused Nos.1 to 4 committed the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC? 5. 3. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the 4th accused committed the offence punishable under Section 8 of the P.C. Act, 1988,read with 120-B of the IPC? 4. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that accused Nos.1 to 4 committed the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC? 5. Whether the verdict of the Special Court would require interference? 6. Order to be passed? 11. Point Nos.1 to 4:- In order to address these questions, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence, in this case. PW1, who is the complainant, deposed that he purchased immovable property in Alappuzha from one Kamalanandan and his wife Pushpa, that the sale deed in respect of that property was registered on 04.08.2004 in the Sub-Registry office, that accused No.4 in the dock scribed the assignment deed, that he gave the writing fee Rs.1,000/- on that day itself and Ext.P1 is the receipt obtained for remitting the registration fee of Rs.24,205/-. He further deposed that in spite of demand on several times, he did not get back the registered document and that accused No.4 told him that Rs.3,000/- had to be given to the officers in the Sub-Registry office and since the said amount was not given, accused No.4 could not go to the registry office for other purposes. PW1 further deposed that since he did not like to give bribe, he informed the matter through telephone at the vigilance office on 18.08.2004 and the Dy.S.P. told him to come to the vigilance office with written complaint on the next day. Accordingly, on 19.08.2004 he reached at vigilance office at about 10:00 A.M. and Ext.P2 is the complaint given by him. He further deposed that he was introduced to the Engineers in the Agricultural department by name Sam Mathew and Saju, that he gave 6 notes of the denomination Rs.500/- to the Dy.S.P. in order to give bribe and the Dy.S.P. marked 'p' on the notes. He identified M.O.1 series as the said notes. 12. PW1 deposed that he along with the Vigilance party reached nearby Sub-Registry office, Alappuzha at about 3:00 P.M. He was instructed to give signal by itching on the head if the bribe was accepted. PW2 and a policeman by name Bhuvanendran were sent along with him to the Sub-Registry office. He went to the document writer's office to meet accused No.4. PW2 and a policeman by name Bhuvanendran were sent along with him to the Sub-Registry office. He went to the document writer's office to meet accused No.4. Accused No.4 asked him whether he brought the money in order to give to the officers and when he answered positively, accused No.4 came along with him to the Sub-Registry office and accused No.4 talked the matter with Sub-Registrar Madhusoodanan, Joint Registrar Fasaludeen and the peon therein. He identified the 3rd accused in the dock as the said peon. He further deposed that accused No.4 asked him to take out the money and when he gave Rs.3,000/- at the hands of accused No.4, that accused No.4 counted it and gave Rs.1,000/- out of it to the 1 st accused. Then, the 1 st accused gave it to the 2 nd accused and the 2 nd accused placed it under a book on the table. He further said that the 4 th accused gave Rs.500/- to the Peon. Thereafter, when PW1 gave the pre-arranged signal, the Dy.S.P., PW3 and other policemen came to the Sub-Registry office. The Dy.S.P. asked to PW1 why he was standing there, he replied that he came there to give bribe demanded by the officers therein and he gave it. Then the Dy.S.P. entered inside the office and asked whether anybody in the office accepted bribe from him, the 4 th accused stated that he obtained Rs.3,000/- from PW1, that out of which, Rs.1,000/- was given to the Subs Registrar and Rs.500/- to the Peon and that balance Rs.1,500/- was in his pocket which was to be given to the other officers. 13. PW6 was working as the Dy.S.P. in Alappuzha vigilance unit. He deposed that on 18.08.2004, the complainant informed him about the demand of Rs.3,000/- as bribe by the officers in order to get back the document from the registry office. Ext.P2 is the complaint given by PW1 on 19.08.2004. M.O.1 series are the notes given by PW1 and he marked 'p' on the notes. PW6 deposed that Ext.P5 is the mahazar prepared by him for the things done at the vigilance office and along with the police party and the witnesses he went to Alappuzha Sub-Registry office. 14. PW6 deposed that, on getting signal at about 3:10 P.M. he along with his party entered in the Sub- Registrar's office. PW6 deposed that Ext.P5 is the mahazar prepared by him for the things done at the vigilance office and along with the police party and the witnesses he went to Alappuzha Sub-Registry office. 14. PW6 deposed that, on getting signal at about 3:10 P.M. he along with his party entered in the Sub- Registrar's office. On asking, PW1 replied that he gave Rs.3000/- to the 4 th accused and out of which Rs.1000/- was given to the Sub Registrar and Rs.500/- to Peon and the balance was in his pocket. He further deposed that he disclosed his identity to the 1 st accused, the 4 th accused stated that he accepted Rs.3000/- and out of which, he gave Rs.1000/- to the Sub-Registrar, he in turn gave the same to the Joint Registrar and Rs.500/- to the Peon and the balance was with him in order to give to the other officers in the registry office. 15. PW6 further deposed that he and the witnesses inspected the body each other (may be in order to convince the accused that there was no money with them) and when they dipped their fingers in sodium carbonate solution, there was no colour change. The 1 st accused replied that the money accepted by him was handed over to the 2 nd accused. When the fingers of the 1st accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, it turned to light pink color. M.O.4 is the bottle containing the said solution which was sealed and labeled with his and the witnesses signature. He further deposed that then both hands of the 4 th accused were dipped in sodium the carbonate solution, it turned to pink color and M.O.5 is the bottle containing the said solution. Then, the fingers of the 3rd accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution and it turned pink color. M.O.6 is the bottle containing the said solution. Thereafter, the fingers of the 2nd accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink color. M.O.7 is the bottle containing the said solution. He further deposed that as per his direction, PW3 took out Rs.1,500/- from the pocket of the 4 th accused, 500/- rupee notes from under the book on the table of the 2 nd accused and it could be found that there was the mark 'p' on the said notes. M.O.7 is the bottle containing the said solution. He further deposed that as per his direction, PW3 took out Rs.1,500/- from the pocket of the 4 th accused, 500/- rupee notes from under the book on the table of the 2 nd accused and it could be found that there was the mark 'p' on the said notes. When the said notes were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the colour was changed to pink and M.O.8 is the bottle containing the said solution. He also deposed that when he and the witnesses entered into the Sub-Registrar's office, he could see the Sub-Registrar and the Joint Registrar in perplexed state and rubbing the hands each other. He also deposed that apart from the bribe money of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.1,070/- found in possession of the accused were taken into custody and the said notes were marked M.O.9 series. He further deposed that he arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 and Ext.P7 is the mahazar prepared by him for the things happened at Sub- Registry office. 16. PW2 was working as the Assistant Executive Engineer in Agricultural department, Alappuzha. He deposed that Ext.P4 is the order of the District Collector asking him to be present in the vigilance office and accordingly he reached at the office of the Vigilance Dy.S.P., Alappuzha at 8:30 A.M. on 19.08.2004. PW3 was working as the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Alappuzha. He deposed that, as per the direction given by District Collector to the Principal Agricultural Officer and in turn as per the direction of the Principal Agricultural Officer, he reached at the vigilance office on 19.08.2004 at 8:30 P.M. PWs2 and 3 further deposed that the complainant, John Varghese (PW1) reached at the vigilance office at about 9:00 A.M. The Dy.S.P. read over the complaint given by PW1. Then, PW1 gave Rs.3,000/- to the Dy.S.P., and the Dy.S.P. made the mark 'p' on the notes and M.O.1 series are the said notes. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 deposed that demonstration of phenolphthalein test was done at the vigilance office. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on M.O.1 series notes and the same were placed in the shirt pocket of PW1 with direction that the notes should be given, only if there was demand. PW2 and 3 also gave evidence regarding this aspect to the same effect. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on M.O.1 series notes and the same were placed in the shirt pocket of PW1 with direction that the notes should be given, only if there was demand. PW2 and 3 also gave evidence regarding this aspect to the same effect. PW2 made a deviation that he does not remember whether PW1 told to the Dy.S.P. to whom the money was distributed. When he was confronted with the statement given by him under Sec.161 Cr.P.C ., he answered that he might have given the said statement. 17. When opportunity was given to the accused to adduce defence evidence, two witnesses, DW1 and DW2 were examined on their side. DW1 deposed that he had been working as a document writer and he had State license under the Sub Registrar, Alappuzha. According to him, the 4 th accused also had been working along with him and he had scribe license. He deposed that, Ext.P12 and Ext.D1 were prepared by him. His version further is that, he did not receive scribe fee for Ext.P12 and PW1, John Varghese, was familiar to the 4 th accused, agreed to pay the same later. Thereafter, Ext.P12 was taken and handed over by one Kamalanandan to DW1 and he retained the same, as directed by the 4 th accused. Later, he produced the same before the Dy.S.P. Regarding Ext.D1 executed in the name of DW2, he had given evidence that, he had received scribe fee for the same. He deposed further that, Ext.D1 sale deed in the name of DW2 was produced before the Registrar on the date of trap. But, the registration could not be completed because of the arrival of vigilance party. 18. DW2 examined in this case is the purchaser of property as per Ext.D1 sale deed and he deposed that he had purchased the property covered by Ext.D1. According to him, Ext.D1 sale deed was prepared by Salim (DW1) and he entrusted Rs.6,000/- with Salim towards the expenses. At about 2.30 P.M., he went from the document writer's office to the register office, that the P.A. of Salim placed the document in front of the Registrar. The Registrar handed over the document along with money to the person who was sitting nearby. The said person opened the same and said that there was no note of small denomination to give the balance amount. The Registrar handed over the document along with money to the person who was sitting nearby. The said person opened the same and said that there was no note of small denomination to give the balance amount. Then, DW2 gave Rs.400/- from his pocket at the hands of P.A and by that time 5-8 persons came there, asked everybody to go out side and he stood outside. It was told that the document would be registered on the next day and the registration of the document was done only on the next day. 19. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. The same are extracted as under:- Section 7 :- Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. – Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government Company referred to in clause (C) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 13 :- Criminal misconduct by a public servant. – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxxx (d) If he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. xxxxx (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 20. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [ AIR 2023 SC 330 ], Neeraj Dutta v. State , where the Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C.Act to be said to be proved along with ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in paragraph No.68, it has been held as under : "68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1) (d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 21. Thus, the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, is extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay bribe by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. The mode of proof of demand and acceptance is either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. 22. In this context, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 983] , in Crl.Appeal No.323/2020, dated 12.9.2025, wherein in paragraph No. 12, it was held as under: “12. Indubitably in Neeraj Dutta’ s case (supra) the Apex Court held in paragraph No.69 that there is no conflict in the three judge Bench decisions of this Court in B.Jayaraj and P.Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge Bench decision in M.Narasinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or “primary evidence” of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns “hostile” is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns “hostile” is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases. Further in Paragraph No.70 the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary,oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. In paragraph No.68 the Apex Court summarized the discussion. That apart, in State by Lokayuktha Police ’s case (supra) placed by the learned counsel for the accused also the Apex Court considered the ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act,1988 and held that demand and acceptance of bribe are necessary to constitute the said offences. Similarly as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Aman Bhatia ’s case (supra) the Apex court reiterated the same principles. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials to be established to fasten criminal culpability on an accused are demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. To put it otherwise, proof of demand is sine qua non for the offences to be established under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and dehors the proof of demand the offences under the two Sections could not be established. Therefore mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of bribe or as undue pecuniary advantage or illegal gratification or the recovery of the same would not be sufficient to prove the offences under the two Sections in the absence of evidence to prove the demand.” 23. While characterizing DW2 as a witness without any credential, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, during cross-examination, DW2 deposed that he visited the Sub Registrar Office on the date of registration of Ext.D1 and Ext.D1 was admittedly registered not on the date of trap. Therefore, the evidence of DW2 is not reliable. 24. While characterizing DW2 as a witness without any credential, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, during cross-examination, DW2 deposed that he visited the Sub Registrar Office on the date of registration of Ext.D1 and Ext.D1 was admittedly registered not on the date of trap. Therefore, the evidence of DW2 is not reliable. 24. The evidence of PW1 is that, on the date of trap, Bindu (the 4 th accused) asked PW1 as to whether he brought the money to be given to the officials and when he answered in the affirmative, Bindu accompanied him to the Sub Registrar’s office. Then, Bindu talked with the officials viz. V.K. Madhusoodhanan, the Sub Registrar, K.O. Fasaludeen, the Joint Registrar and Haridasan Nair, the peon. PW1 identified them at the dock. According to PW1, he had given money to Bindu and he counted the same and ensured the amount as Rs.3,000/-. Later, Bindu had given Rs.1,000/- to the Sub Registrar and he handed over the same to the Joint Registrar and the Joint Registrar placed the same beneath the book on the table. Then, Bindu had given Rs.500/- and handed over to the Peon. Then, PW1 had given the signal. 25. Regarding the conversation between Bindu and the officials, during cross-examination by counsel for the 3rd accused, he put a question as to whether the 3 rd accused had talked to the officials about the bribe money brought by PW1, PW1 deposed that he had given statement in this regard to the Police in a precise manner stating that Bindu had conversation with the officials and the same was with regard to the bribe money. 26. In this case, the evidence of PW1 has given much emphasis to the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance or bribe by accused Nos.1 to 4 after hatching conspiracy between them. The specific case of the prosecution is that, after hatching conspiracy in between accused Nos.1 to 4, the 4 th accused demanded Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification from PW1 for himself and for accused Nos.1 to 3 on 04.08.2004. At about, 3.30 pm on 19.08.2004, PW1 met Bindu at his office. Bindu enquired as to whether the money was brought. When PW1 answered in the affirmative, he along with Bindu reached the Sub Registrar Office and after some discussion, the money was distributed among the accused. At about, 3.30 pm on 19.08.2004, PW1 met Bindu at his office. Bindu enquired as to whether the money was brought. When PW1 answered in the affirmative, he along with Bindu reached the Sub Registrar Office and after some discussion, the money was distributed among the accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused, the evidence as to demand at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3, as spoken by PW1 is not believable and therefore no convincing materials available to prove the same. But, the prosecution has specific case that the 4 th accused demanded bribe for himself and for accused Nos.1 to 3, after hatching conspiracy. In turn, the 1 st accused accepted Rs.1,000/- from Bindu and handed over to the 2 nd accused. Similarly, Rs.500/- was separately given to the 3 rd accused by Bindu. According to the learned counsel for the accused, accused No.1 accepted Rs.1,500/- as registration fee for registering Ext.D1 document in the name of DW2 and the registration of the said document was not materialized because of the arrival of the Vigilance party. Further, Rs.1,500/- handed over by Bindu was the fee for registering Ext.D1 document and the registration fee was Rs.1,405/-. Although, this argument appears to be so impressive at the first blush, it is relevant to note that, as pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, during cross-examination DW2, he admitted that he visited the Sub Registrar Office only on the date of registration of the document and that was not on the date of trap. Most importantly, as spoken by PW4, the Junior Superintendent of Sub Registrar, Alappuzha during the period between 20.07.2004 to 19.08.2004, when document presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, the fee for the same would be received by the Sub Registrar directly and receipt also would be issued by him. During further cross- examination for accused Nos.2 and 3, PW4 deposed that, if the Sub Registrar would direct, Joint Registrar also would register a document. Here comes the significance of separate entrustment of Rs.500/- to the 3 rd accused by Bindu. During further cross- examination for accused Nos.2 and 3, PW4 deposed that, if the Sub Registrar would direct, Joint Registrar also would register a document. Here comes the significance of separate entrustment of Rs.500/- to the 3 rd accused by Bindu. If Rs.1,500/- handed over by Bindu was the amount as fee for registration of Ext.D1 document, definitely that should have been received by the 1 st accused towards registration fee and there is not even a remote reason for a Peon, who had no power to receive any money towards fee, to receive Rs.500/- from Bindu. When this very vital aspect was pointed out to the learned counsel for the accused, he could not explain this aspect. This vital aspect would throw light on the fact that the story advanced by the defence to justify receiving of Rs.1,500/- towards registration fee of Ext.D1 is not acceptable to prudence. Therefore, the prosecution case as to demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.3,000/- by the 4 th accused for himself and for and on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 3, after hatching conspiracy in between them have been proved, without any iota of doubt and the evidence discussed would show that Rs.1,000/- was received by the 1 st accused and Rs.500/- was received by the 3 rd accused. Thus, following the ratio in Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi 's case (supra) it is held that, the Special Court is right in holding that accused Nos.1 to 4 committed offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Section 120-B of the IPC. 27. In such view of the matter, the conviction entered into by the Special Court is only to be confirmed. Coming to the sentence, I am of the view that some leniency can be shown to reduce substantive sentence imposed for the offences under Sections 7 , 8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Section 120-B of the IPC, by confirming the sentence for payment of fine for the said offences as well as the default imprisonment provided thereof. 28. Before clinching the verdict, a pertinent aspect noticed by this Court needs attention. Invariably, when conspiracy is alleged while committing offences under the P.C. Act, Section 120-B of IPC or Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to be the offence rope in. 28. Before clinching the verdict, a pertinent aspect noticed by this Court needs attention. Invariably, when conspiracy is alleged while committing offences under the P.C. Act, Section 120-B of IPC or Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to be the offence rope in. Then comes the question of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C . or Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as ‘BNSS’ for short). Although, in stricto sensu the offence of conspiracy could not be normally found, as an offence for which sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C . or 218 of the BNSS is necessary, as hatching conspiracy is not something connected with the official acts of a public servant. Divergent views could be seen regarding this legal aspect. Thus, the said contingency also to be resolved. Therefore, this Court feels that a provision to be incorporated in the P.C. Act itself to deal with the offence of conspiracy to commit P.C. Act offences, to avoid the legal conundrum subsisting. Therefore, the Ministry of Law is requested to consider this aspect. 29. Point Nos.5 and 6:- In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the Special Judge is confirmed. The sentence imposed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Section 120-B of the IPC is modified as under: i. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and fine Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months each for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. ii. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year each and fine Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months each for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. iii. Accused No.4 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months for the offence under Sec. 8 of the P.C. Act. iv. iii. Accused No.4 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months for the offence under Sec. 8 of the P.C. Act. iv. Accused No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year each and fine Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months each for the offence under Sec.120-B of the IPC. v. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run separately, after the substantive sentence. vi. The period of detention undergone by the accused in this case will be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment. 30. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stands vacated, with direction to the accused to appear before the Special Court, forthwith, to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail. 31. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and compliance. Registry is further directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Law Secretary and Home Secretary, Government of India, with covering letter to consider the request made in paragraph No.28 of this judgment.