JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. The conviction and sentence imposed against the 2 nd accused in C.C.No.7/2006 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, as per judgment dated 11.07.2014, are under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the 2 nd accused. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents. 3. In this matter, the allegation of the prosecution is that, accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) as well as under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). After the trap proceedings, final report filed before the Special Court. At the time of trial, the 1 st accused is no more. Accordingly, the Special Court tried the 2 nd accused/appellant alone. During trial, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P15 were marked on the side of the prosecution. MO1 to MO8 were also marked. 4. During cross-examination, Exts.D1 to D6 contradictions were marked on the side of the defence. Apart from Exts.D1 to D6, Ext.D7 document was marked and DW1 and DW2 were also examined on the side of the defence. The learned Special Judge, on meticulous analysis of the evidence, found that the 2 nd accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Section 120B of IPC and sentenced him as under: “1. Under Sec.120B IPC he will suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; 2. Under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; 3. Under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; 4. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently; 5. Under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month; 4. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently; 5. Period of detention undergone by him from 19.11.2003 to 22.11.2003 shall be set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. His bail bond is cancelled. MO1 series shall be returned to PW1. The other items being valueless will be destroyed, after the period of appeal.” 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 2 nd accused/appellant pointed out that, in this matter, PW1 preferred an application, marked as Ext.P4, on 08.10.2003 to restore his rationing licence which had been suspended for irregularities. However, the said application was returned by PW3 on 08.10.2003 as the same was incomplete. On 04.11.2003, he re-presented the application and the same reached before the 1 st accused - Rationing Inspector on 05.11.2003. The 1 st accused did not take any action and in turn, the 1 st accused demanded Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for himself and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the Taluk Supply Officer, who is the 2 nd accused/appellant. Since the complainant was not ready to give bribe, he lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Thrissur. According to the learned senior counsel for the appellant/2 nd accused, on 18.11.2003, after preparing Ext.P11 pre-trap mahazar, trap was arranged. The learned senior counsel submitted further that, even though PW1 had given evidence supporting the demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- by the 1 st accused and the bribe money was recovered from the right side pocket of his pants, the evidence of PW1 regarding the receipt of Rs.2,000/- as bribe by the 2 nd accused accused is not consistent. The learned senior counsel submitted further that, even though PW1 had given evidence supporting the demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- by the 1 st accused and the bribe money was recovered from the right side pocket of his pants, the evidence of PW1 regarding the receipt of Rs.2,000/- as bribe by the 2 nd accused accused is not consistent. The learned senior counsel pointed out that even though during the chief examination, PW1 deposed that when he met the Taluk Supply Officer on the date of trap, he asked about the money, to the said query, he answered in affirmative and thus the accused said to put the money on the drawer of the table, when phenolphthalein test was conducted on the hands of the 2 nd accused, there was no pink colour change as the prosecution case itself is that PW1 put the money in the drawer of the table of the 2 nd accused and the accused had no occasion to come into contact with the bribe money. It is pointed out that as far as the evidence of PW1 regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- by the 2 nd accused is concerned, Ext.P6 contradiction, positing the fact that the 2 nd accused never demanded bribe, would go to show that the evidence given by PW1 regarding the demand as far as the 2 nd accused is concerned is not believable. The learned senior counsel also given attention to Exts.D1 to D6 contradictions extracted while examining PW1 to contend that PW1 is not a wholly reliable witness to act upon his evidence to fasten criminal culpability upon him. According to the learned senior counsel, apart from the evidence of PW1, no other evidence forthcoming to substantiate or corroborate the demand and acceptance of bribe by the 2 nd accused as alleged by the prosecution. Thus, the finding of the Special Court that the 2 nd accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Section 120B of IPC is unsustainable and the same would require interference. 6. Opposing this contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that PW1 categorically given evidence before the learned Special Judge regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- by the 2 nd accused also. 6. Opposing this contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that PW1 categorically given evidence before the learned Special Judge regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- by the 2 nd accused also. She would submit that PW1 was examined after six to seven years of the occurrence and therefore, some contradictions brought on the side of the defence and the same by itself are insufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 where the decoy witness, who examined as PW10, categorically deposed his version in support of the pre-trap as well as the post-trap proceedings without any ambiguity. That apart, the bribe money was recovered and the accused was caught red-handedly. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that on considering the evidence in toto, including the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses, it is well established that, the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and as such, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court are liable to sustain. 7. Having addressed the rival contentions, the points arise for consideration are : 1. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed offence under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988? 2. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988? 3. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC? 4. Whether the verdict would require interference? 5. The order to be passed? 8. Points Nos.1 to 5. In this case, the evidence of PW1 is very relevant as far as the demand and acceptance of bribe is concerned. PW1 is the defacto complainant. The case was registered on the basis of the Exts.P1 complaint lodged by PW1 to the Dy.S.P. on 18.11.2003. PW1 testified that he was the proprietor of ARD No.219 which was suspended by the District Supply Officer on 28.11.2002. Later, its suspension was revoked and the order of revocation was given to the Taluk Supply Officer, the accused for implementation. He had also remitted the penalty imposed by the DSO. Then he met the TSO and the Rationing Inspector. For about 1½ months he continued to meet them till 17.11.2003. Later, its suspension was revoked and the order of revocation was given to the Taluk Supply Officer, the accused for implementation. He had also remitted the penalty imposed by the DSO. Then he met the TSO and the Rationing Inspector. For about 1½ months he continued to meet them till 17.11.2003. Whenever he met them, the 1 st accused told him that mere meeting was not sufficient and he should be met properly. He was told that if Rs.2,000/- each would be paid to himself and the TSO, the shop would be given on the next day. That was said between 3 and 5 P.M. on 17.11.2003. Then he met the TSO; He was asked about the demand, the Rationing Inspector had not told him and TSO asked PW1 to bring him some honey also. Then he met the Dy.S.P. and lodged Ext.P1 complaint. On 19.11.2003, he took MO1 series currencies, eight currencies of Rs.500/-. The Dy.S.P. inscribed letter 'G' on the notes. A constable smeared some powder on the notes and placed in his pocket in two separate lots containing four pieces each. He was also directed to give signal by raising his hands after passing the bribe. They left the vigilance office at about 10.15 - 10.30 AM and reached the Mukundapuram supply office at 11 O' clock. He proceeded to the supply office. The office was very busy. At that time, the 1 st accused had not reached the office; After 2-3 minutes, seeing PW1, the accused asked him whether the amount was brought, He passed Rs.2,000/- to his right hand which was placed on the right pocket of his pants; then he was asked to meet the TSO. Then the TSO was engaging with two ladies. When they left, he entered the room, he also asked him whether the money was brought, when he answered in the affirmative, he was told that public are standing outside, asked him to put the money in the drawer, The TSO opened the drawer and he placed the money inside, then the accused closed the drawer. He was also asked whether honey was brought. Soon PW1 came out and gave the signal. Then he confirmed to the Dy.S.P. that the amount was given. Dy.S.P. and party at first went inside the cabin of the TSO and then proceeded to the seat of the 1 st accused. He was also asked whether honey was brought. Soon PW1 came out and gave the signal. Then he confirmed to the Dy.S.P. that the amount was given. Dy.S.P. and party at first went inside the cabin of the TSO and then proceeded to the seat of the 1 st accused. He confirmed that the money given to the 1 st accused was kept in the pocket of his pants. Then he was asked to remain outside the office. He noticed very many transactions happening inside the cabin and inside the office. According to the witness, even though the District Supply Officer had revoked the order of suspension, in order to get bribe the Rationing Inspector and the TSO delayed the proceedings. 9. PW1 further testified that he had gone to the office of the Dy.S.P on 17 th , 18 th and 19 th November. On 17.11.2003, he had given a signed statement. On the day of giving the complaint, he had left the room of the Dy.S.P. before 3’O clock. On 18.11.2003, he did not produce any document showing the suspension of the shop, its revocation, etc. After revocation, he had filed two applications before the TSO for restoring the shop and for restoring ration cards. He did not remember whether the application for restoring the shop was given only on 08.10.2003. Similarly, he did not remember whether documents were produced only on 10.11.2003. He did not remember on which dates he had visited the supply office. But according to him, he used to go to the office almost every day. He had met the Supply Officer at least 10-11 times. Whenever he had met, the Supply Officer directed him to the Rationing Inspector. According to him, after arresting the accused, his shop was restored within two days. The shop, after revocation of suspension was proposed to be started in new premises owned by one Ummer. He admitted that the application should be accompanied by ownership certificate and consent letter of the landlord. He did not know the procedure for shifting the premises. He did not remember as to how many charge memos were received from the DSO. He had remitted entire fine imposed on him. Delay caused from the side of the TSO was not brought to the notice of the DSO. The Exts.D1 to D6 are contradictions brought out in his oral testimony. He did not remember as to how many charge memos were received from the DSO. He had remitted entire fine imposed on him. Delay caused from the side of the TSO was not brought to the notice of the DSO. The Exts.D1 to D6 are contradictions brought out in his oral testimony. Whenever the 1 st accused was met he used to remind him about the bribe and the vigilance police was informed since the demand was unbearable. He had no money to pay illegal gratification to the accused. Still he was convinced that an order would not be given without giving illegal gratification, he informed the matter to the vigilance office. Before 17.11.2003 he used to visit the supply office on alternate days on his bicycle by pedaling about 14 kilometers. The 1 st accused was sitting in a hall. He pleaded ignorant when it was suggested that on 17.11.2003 the 1 st accused was on leave. Only that day he noticed a board exhibited in front of the office detailing the phone numbers of the vigilance office and that prompted to give the complaint. At first, he contacted the office over phone. That day, he had no money with him. According to him, at the time when the money was passed, the office was over crowded with general public. At first the amount was given to the Rationing Inspector, after giving the signal, he proceeded to the cabin of the TSO. After the two ladies had left the cabin, he went inside, opening the half door. He did not hear the conversation between the TSO and the ladies. At that time, there was a queue of people for meeting the TSO. Seeing him, the TSO opened the drawer and asked him to place the currency inside and after passing the money he gave the signal. He became exhausted and thought that he had become instrumental for such an incident. He denied the suggestion that the amount was put in the drawer of the accused without his consent. PW1 categorically deposed that he had no animosity towards the accused. 10. PW10 was the Accounts Officer in the Education Dept. On 19.11.2003, at about 9:30 AM he had reached the vigilance office as directed by the District Collector. P.A. Unnikrishnan, Scheduled Caste Development Officer also had reached there. PW1 categorically deposed that he had no animosity towards the accused. 10. PW10 was the Accounts Officer in the Education Dept. On 19.11.2003, at about 9:30 AM he had reached the vigilance office as directed by the District Collector. P.A. Unnikrishnan, Scheduled Caste Development Officer also had reached there. While they were sitting with the Dy.S.P., complainant Johny came there and produced MO1 series notes which were received by the Dy.S.P, Dy.S.P. then inscribed letter 'G' on the notes and noted its serial numbers. Then a police constable smeared some powder on the notes and put the same in the pocket of the complainant and then Exts.P11 mahazar was prepared. Dy.S.P., himself and Unnikrishnan conducted mutual body search and found that they were not carrying any money with them. Dy.S.P. had instructed the complainant to give signal after passing the bribe. They reached near the supply office at about 11:15 AM and the complainant was sent to the office. After 20-25 minutes he was told that the signal was received, then all of them reached the office. At first they entered the cabin of the Supply Officer. After arranging to guard him, they proceeded to the seat of the Rationing Inspector. They were introduced to the Rationing Inspector, the complainant was asked whether money was given, then the complainant answered that the accused had received the bribe and put it in his right pocket. When asked, the Rationing Inspector said that he did not demand any money, that the complainant was putting the money purposely in the pocket. Then the hands of the Rationing Inspector was found tainted and the sodium carbonate liquid used for the tests were collected and seized. Rs.2,000/- marked at the office of the Dy.S.P. was recovered from the pocket of the pant worn by the Rationing Inspector. Later they moved to the cabin of the Supply Officer. There, the Dy.S.P. confirmed that the bribe money was placed in the drawer of the table. When asked, the accused said that he did not obtain the money, that PW1 was putting it in his table. Phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of the accused was found negative. Then the witness, on the instructions of the Dy.S.P., opened the drawer of the table and found Rs.2,000/-, the tainted money inside the drawer. Phenolphthalein test conducted on the currency proved positive. Phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of the accused was found negative. Then the witness, on the instructions of the Dy.S.P., opened the drawer of the table and found Rs.2,000/-, the tainted money inside the drawer. Phenolphthalein test conducted on the currency proved positive. Thereafter when his hands were dipped in separate sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink. MOs 7 and 8 are the sample liquid. Then Exts. P2,4 and 6 documents were seized from the office. Both the accused were arrested under Ext.P12 arrest memo and Ext.P13 is the recovery mahazar which he had attested. 11. In cross examination the witness said that he was witnessing a trap case for the first time. The complainant had reached the office after his arrival. The Dy.S.P. had explained the complaint to them. He did not know the handwriting found in Ext.P11 mahazar. He did not remember whether details of the signal to be passed were stated in the mahazar. He did not witness the signal passed by the complainant. It was Dy.S.P. who entered the cabin first, accompanied by them. He did not notice people lining up in front of the cabin. At that time the complainant was not accompanying the Dy.S.P. Then he was found in front of the Rationing Inspector. When he had entered the cabin of the TSO accompanying the Dy.S.P., along with Unnikrishnan and the Circle Inspector, they were introduced to the TSO. After about five minutes, they proceeded to the seat of the 1 st accused. At that time there was nobody else in the room. The 1 st accused was sitting in a hall adjacent to the seats of other Rationing Inspectors. The TSO was questioned, as to whether bribe was received only when they had entered the room again, after recovering money from the 1 st accused. He did not know that PW1 and the Dy.S.P. were relatives. He did not hear the TSO telling the Dy.S.P. that the complainant was putting the money in his drawer without his consent or knowledge. 12. PW11 is the Dy.S.P. who registered the crime after recording the Ext.P1 complaint, received the decoy notes, prepared the entrustment mahazer, laid the trap, arrested the accused, recovered MO1 series notes from the accused and conducted part of the investigation. He also took the material objects and produced the accused before court along with Ext.P15 remand report. 13. 12. PW11 is the Dy.S.P. who registered the crime after recording the Ext.P1 complaint, received the decoy notes, prepared the entrustment mahazer, laid the trap, arrested the accused, recovered MO1 series notes from the accused and conducted part of the investigation. He also took the material objects and produced the accused before court along with Ext.P15 remand report. 13. Apart from this witness, the other witness also supported the prosecution case. 14. Even though the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW1, PW10 and PW11 in support of the prosecution case, according to the learned senior counsel for the 2 nd accused, when the 2 nd accused gone out to attend DW1 and DW2, the ladies present at his office, PW1 voluntarily laid the money without the knowledge and consent of the 2 nd accused, which in turn, was recovered by the Vigilance, in this connection, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the evidence of the investigating officer also. 15. But a perusal of the evidence of DW1 and DW2, nothing could be gathered to substantiate the defence case as contended. The crucial question arise is whether the prosecution evidence through PW1, supported by the evidence of PW10 and PW11, is sufficient to hold that the 2 nd accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.2,000/-. 16. 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. 16. 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”. 17. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [ AIR 2023 SC 330 ], Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. 17. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [ AIR 2023 SC 330 ], Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) , where the Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C Act, 1988 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 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 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. 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. (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. 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.” 18. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C Act, 1988 is extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, 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. 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. 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. 19. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the latest decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. V. State of Kerala, reported in 2025 KHC 983 . In paragraph No.12 of the judgment, this Court observed the ingredients 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. 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. 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.” 20. In this case, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the 2 nd accused/appellant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the evidence of PW1 is available to find the demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- as bribe by the 2 nd accused. It is true that, in Ext.D6 contradiction, his previous statement that the 2 nd accused did not demand the money as bribe along with Exts.D1 to D5 contradictions. At the same time, it is the trite law that mere contradictions by itself are not sufficient to disbelieve a witness in toto, unless the same are so material that would go to the root of the prosecution allegations when evaluated in its entirety. As far as the post-trap as well as the pre-trap proceedings are concerned, the evidence of PW10, the decoy witness, and the evidence of PW11, Dy.S.P., who recorded Ext.P1 complaint, prepared pre-trap mahazar arrested the accused and recovered MO1 series notes from the accused as part of the investigation, are available. As far as the post-trap as well as the pre-trap proceedings are concerned, the evidence of PW10, the decoy witness, and the evidence of PW11, Dy.S.P., who recorded Ext.P1 complaint, prepared pre-trap mahazar arrested the accused and recovered MO1 series notes from the accused as part of the investigation, are available. The point argued by the learned senior counsel for the 2 nd accused/appellant is that PW1 is not a wholly reliable witness since his evidence is not free from contradictions. But the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that PW1 was examined before the court after 6 to 7 years of the occurrence and therefore, some contradictions brought during his examination due to paucity of time and because of fade in memory by itself are quite insufficient to hold that PW1 is not a wholly reliable witness. 21. Keeping the argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor, which is having force, on scrutiny of evidence of PW1, even though some contradictions were extracted during the examination, overall evaluation of the evidence tendered by PW1 would lead to the conclusion that the prosecution allegation as to receipt of Rs.2,000/- as bribe by the 2 nd accused/appellant and receipt of the same on the date of trap have been proved by the prosecution without reasonable doubts. In such view of the matter, the conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge does not require any interference. Coming to the sentence, I am inclined to modify the sentence. 22. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. Conviction imposed by the special court for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Section 120B of IPC is confirmed. The sentence is interfered and modified as under: 1. The appellant/2 nd accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the 2 nd accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. 2. The appellant/2 nd accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the 2 nd accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. 2. The appellant/2nd accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 weeks. 3. The appellant/2 nd accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the 2 nd accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. 23. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run separately. 24. 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. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith for information and compliance.