JUDGMENT : A. Badharudeen, J. 1. Crl.Appeal No.456 of 2008 is at the instance of the 1 st accused in C.C.No.53/2002 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur. He assails the conviction and sentence imposed on him, as per judgment dated 28.02.2008 rendered by the Special Court. 2. Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2008 is at the instance of the 2 nd accused in the same case, and he also assails the conviction and sentence imposed on him as per the above judgment. 3. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala, represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard the learned senior counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2, in detail. Also heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 5. In the instant case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) by accused Nos.1 and 2. The precise allegation is that, on 19.12.2000, Sri.George, who was examined as PW8, filed an application before the Cochin Corporation for assigning a number to his house and for assessing the tax for obtaining an electric and water connection. On the same day, accused Nos.1 and 2, who were working as Revenue Inspector and Peon, respectively, in the Edappally Zonal Office of the Cochin Corporation, came to the house of PW8 and assigned a number to his house. When PW8 asked for a receipt for the payment of tax, the 2 nd accused informed him that there were some expenses involved and asked PW8 to meet the 1 st accused. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.400/- and Rs.100/- each, respectively, on 20.12.2000, and accepted Rs.300/- and Rs.100/- by accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively, on 03.01.2001, as illegal gratification. 6. On receipt of the final report after investigation, the learned Special Judge proceeded with the trial after taking cognizance. During trial, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 and MO1 to MO20 were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence. 7. 6. On receipt of the final report after investigation, the learned Special Judge proceeded with the trial after taking cognizance. During trial, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 and MO1 to MO20 were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence. 7. On appreciation of the evidence, the Special Court found that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly, both the accused were sentenced as under: “In the result, Both of the accused are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 (four) years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable U/s 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . They are also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable U/s.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bonds of the accused persons are cancelled. MO1 and MO2 series currency notes shall be returned to PW8 and other M.O.s being valueless shall be destroyed after the period of appeal, if any.” 8. During the pendency of this appeal, the 2 nd accused passed away, and his legal heirs were brought on record as additional appellants 2 to 4, as per order in Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2025, dated 06.03.2025. 9. While canvassing acquittal of the 1 st accused, the specific point raised by the learned senior counsel for the 1 st accused is that, there is no evidence to prove any demand of bribe by the 1 st accused. It is also pointed out that, during the chief examination of PW8, he stated that when he met the 1 st accused on 20.12.2000, the 1 st accused told him that something had been conveyed to him by the 2 nd accused, this part of his evidence is an improvement, which does not find a place in his previous statement. It is also pointed out that, during the chief examination of PW8, he stated that when he met the 1 st accused on 20.12.2000, the 1 st accused told him that something had been conveyed to him by the 2 nd accused, this part of his evidence is an improvement, which does not find a place in his previous statement. PW11, who recorded the said statement, when examined, also confirmed the specific omission and stated that no such version had been given by PW8 earlier. According to the learned senior counsel for the 1 st accused, apart from the material omission, there is nothing in the evidence to indicate any demand made by the 1 st accused and therefore, the offences alleged against the 1 st accused are not at all proved by the prosecution. Apart from that, the learned senior counsel also submitted that, as far as the demand of bribe is concerned, according to PW8, it was for the issuance of the receipt. The learned senior counsel further contended that, as per Ext.P4, the application submitted by the complainant was recommended for further action by the 1 st accused, which itself would indicate that there was no occasion or necessity for demanding any illegal gratification thereafter. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for additional appellants 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased 2 nd accused also invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW8 and the materials brought out during cross-examination, to assert that, during the chief examination of PW8, no specific demand on the date of the trap was spoken to, and that the evidence of PW8 is confined to the assertion already referred to earlier, which need not be reiterated. According to the learned senior counsel for the legal heirs of the 2 nd accused, no amount was recovered from the 2 nd accused, although the prosecution contends that, soon after receiving Rs.100/- from PW8, the 2 nd accused exchanged the same for two currency notes of Rs.50 each with PW3. PW3 thereafter entrusted the same to PW4 for the purchase of a revenue stamp, and ultimately, the original 100 rupee note was recovered from PW5, the Deputy Post Master, to whom it had been handed over by PW4 for the purchase of the revenue stamp. PW3 thereafter entrusted the same to PW4 for the purchase of a revenue stamp, and ultimately, the original 100 rupee note was recovered from PW5, the Deputy Post Master, to whom it had been handed over by PW4 for the purchase of the revenue stamp. It is further pointed out by the learned senior counsel that, according to the evidence of PW1, the very case of the prosecution is that the accused demanded bribe for issuing the receipt after assigning the house number. But, the evidence of PW8 itself would indicate that on the date of the receipt, accused Nos.1 and 2 who verified his application and put number to the house. Accordingly, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the legal heirs of the 2 nd accused is that there is no specific allegation of any demand made by the 2 nd accused on 20.12.2000, so as to apply the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, 1988. He would also submit that Ext.P10 F.I.R. reached the court after two days. This point was argued by the learned senior counsel for the 1 st accused also. According to both the learned senior counsel, even though trap was on 03.01.2001 and Ext.P7 FIS and Ext.P10 FIR were recorded/registered on 02.01.2001 at 4.30 p.m., the same was accepted by the court on 04.01.2001. According to him, if the FIR was registered at 4.30 p.m. on 02.01.2001, the same should have reached the Court on 03.01.2001, for which, no satisfactory explanation has been offered. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned senior counsel for the legal heirs of the 2 nd accused is that, as far as the demand and acceptance of Rs.100/- by the 2 nd accused, as alleged by the prosecution is concerned, the evidence of PW8 is not reliable. Therefore, coupled with the other aspects pointed out, the learned senior counsel would also contend that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is insufficient to establish the demand and acceptance of Rs.100/- by the 2 nd accused from PW8. 11. The learned senior counsel for the legal heirs of the 2 nd accused placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. 11. The learned senior counsel for the legal heirs of the 2 nd accused placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) , 2023 KHC 6268 and Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P. , 2024 KHC 6354 , to emphasize the settled legal position governing proof of demand and acceptance for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. 12. In Mir Mustafa ’s case (supra), the Apex Court considered the following factual background while reiterating the settled position regarding proof of demand under the PC Act, 1988: “The case of the prosecution is that accused no. 1 (A01) and 2 (A02) who, being Forest Officer and Forest Guard imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- ?n complainant in relation to the recovery of illegal and unlicensed teakwood from his saw-mill. After a week of this event, AO1 and AO2 again came to saw mill and threatened complainant and demanded a bribe of monthly amount of Rs.5,000/- to refrain from taking any further action on illegal and unlicensed possession of teakwood in the saw-mill. Being disinclined to pay the bribe, complainant lodged a complaint with the DySP. On receipt of complaint, trap proceedings were organized by DySP and on conclusion of proceedings, tainted currency notes were recovered from the bag of AO1. Trial Court convicted both accused and in appeal, High Court overturned conviction of AO2 and affirmed conviction of A01. Aggrieved by the affirmation of conviction, the present appeal is preferred by AO1. The question that arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all manner of doubt the fact that AO1 has demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant and whether the impugned judgment of the High Court is liable to be interfered with. Allowing the appeal, the Court held: In view of the above analysis and elaboration of evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe against the appellant (AO1) by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence. The allegation regarding acceptance of bribe by the appellant (AO1) is primarily based on the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and PW-2 and the DySP (PW-10). The allegation regarding acceptance of bribe by the appellant (AO1) is primarily based on the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and PW-2 and the DySP (PW-10). From the extracted portion of the deposition of the complainant (PW- 1) supra, it is comprehensible that he admitted that the appellant(A01), forgot his rexine bag in the coffee shop and that the complainant(PW-1) picked up the same and handed it over to the appellant(AO1). Thus, unquestionably, the complainant (PW-1) had the opportunity to plant the tainted currency notes into the bag being carried by the appellant (A01). After a threadbare analysis and evaluation of the evidence available on record, we feel that the prosecution case is full of embellishments contradicting and doubting and thus, it would not be safe to convict the appellant (AO1) for having demanded and accepted the bribe money from the complainant (PW-1). In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the appellant (A01) by leading evidence which can be termed to be of unimpeachable character. The AO1 (appellant), therefore, deserves to be acquitted of the charges.” 13. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has a case right from the beginning that the 2 nd accused demanded bribe, and during examination, the complainant, PW8, also supported the assertion that the bribe was demanded by the 2 nd accused. Thereafter, the same was recorded by the Vigilance from PW5. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that, as far as the demand by the 1 st accused is concerned, the evidence of PW8, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel, is confined only to an omission. 14. Having considered the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988? (ii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the verdict would require interference? (iv) The order to be passed? 15. (ii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the verdict would require interference? (iv) The order to be passed? 15. Point Nos.(i) to (iv) In this case, as far as the demand of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2 from the complainant, who was examined as PW8, is concerned, the solitary evidence of PW8, along with recovery of bribe amounts from accused Nos.1 and 2, stand alone, and no other witness has given evidence in support of the demand. 16. PW8 (the complainant), Sri.George, was a car mechanic by profession. According to him, during the year 2001, he was working as a fitter mechanic under a contractor in the Cochin Shipyard. He had constructed a house near the Medical Centre, Palarivattom. On 19.12.2000, he had submitted an application before the Cochin Corporation for assigning a number to his house and for the assessment of tax in order to obtain electric and water connections. On the same day, accused Nos.1 and 2, who were the Revenue Inspector and Peon, respectively, of the Edappally Zonal Office of the Cochin Corporation, had come to his house and assigned number to it. When PW8 requested for the receipt for payment of tax, the 2 nd accused told him that there were some expenses for the same and asked PW8 to meet the 1 st accused to discuss the details. On 20.12.2000, PW8 met the 1 st accused in his office. The 1 st accused told him that the 2 nd accused had already informed him of all the details, and at that time, the 2 nd accused demanded a bribe of Rs.500/-, out of which Rs.400/- was to be paid to the 1 st accused and Rs.100/- to himself. PW8 expressed his inability to pay such an amount. Thereafter, for about 10 to 12 days, he went to meet the accused persons. The 2 nd accused then told him that there was no need to discuss the matter further and reduced the bribe amount to Rs.300/- for the 1 st accused and Rs.100/- for himself, asking PW8 to come on 03.01.2001. Thereafter, for about 10 to 12 days, he went to meet the accused persons. The 2 nd accused then told him that there was no need to discuss the matter further and reduced the bribe amount to Rs.300/- for the 1 st accused and Rs.100/- for himself, asking PW8 to come on 03.01.2001. Since PW8 was not willing to pay any bribe, on 02.01.2001, he went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, and lodged a complaint. 17. PW9, who was examined in this case, was the decoy witness. He was working as the Land Acquisition Special Tahsildar, Ernakulam, and his evidence was that, on the instruction of the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam, he reported before PW11 at about 8 a.m. on January 03, 2001. CW3 Sri.Lalappan and PW8 were also present there. PW9 deposed that PW11 read out the contents of Ext.P7 complaint given by PW8 and demonstrated the Sodium Carbonate - Phenolphthalein test. On the instruction of PW11, PW8 produced MO1 and MO2 series currency notes, on which, PW11 put the identification mark ‘A’ near the watermark. After smearing those currency notes with phenolphthalein powder, they were placed in the shirt pocket of PW8 with necessary instructions. PW9 had also signed the mahazar, Ext.P8. He further deposed that all of them proceeded to the office of the accused persons and reached there at about 10.00 a.m. PW11 instructed PW9 to accompany PW8 and to observe what transpired between PW8 and the accused persons. PW8 went into the office of the 1 st accused. Soon after, on receipt of the pre-arranged signal from PW8, all of them entered the office room of the 1 st accused. PW11 identified himself and introduced the other members of the trap team. A mutual search was conducted. The 1 st accused told PW11 that he had not received any bribe from PW8 and that PW8 had put the currency notes into his shirt pocket. The 2 nd accused stated that the amount of Rs.100/- received from PW8 had been changed by him into two fifty-rupee notes, one of which was given to a clerk and the other kept in his pocket. The hand washes of PW11, PW9, and CW3 were taken, and there was no colour change in the solution. MO5 was the sample of that solution. The hand washes of PW11, PW9, and CW3 were taken, and there was no colour change in the solution. MO5 was the sample of that solution. The right-hand and left- hand washes of the 1st accused were taken, and there was no colour change; MOs 6 and 7 were the samples of those solutions. Thereafter, the right-hand and left-hand washes of the 2 nd accused were taken, and the colour of the solution turned light pink. MO8 and MO9 were the samples of those solutions. On the instruction of PW11, PW9 recovered three 100-rupee currency notes from the shirt pocket of the 1 st accused, which were found to be the MO2 series currency notes. MO10 was the said shirt. The corner portion of those currency notes was dipped in sodium carbonate solution, and the colour turned pink. MO11 was the sample of that solution. On further instruction from PW11, CW3 Sri.Lalappan recovered one 50-rupee currency note from the shirt pocket of the 2 nd accused; MO17 was that currency note. The pocket portion of the shirt of the 2 nd accused was also dipped in sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink. MO13 was the sample of that solution. A Scene-cum-Seizure Mahazar, Ext.P9, was prepared, in which all of them had signed. 18. Apart from the evidence of PW8 and PW9, PW11, the then Dy.S.P., Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam, who recorded Ext.P7 statement as that of PW8, also supported the case as part of the post-trap proceedings. PW11 asked PW8 to come on the next day morning at 7.30 with the amount to be given to the accused persons. He reported before PW11 on the next day at about 7.30 a.m. At that time, there were two independent witnesses PW9 and CW3. PW11 explained the significance of Sodium Carbonate-Phenolphthalein test. On the instruction of PW11, PW8 produced four 100 rupee currency notes. MO2 series were three of those currency notes and MO1 was the other currency note. PW11 noted the number of those currency notes. After smearing it with Phenolphthalein powder it was placed in the left shirt pocket of PW8. At about 10 a.m., all of them proceeded to the office of the accused persons and reached there by 10.30 a.m. PW11 instructed PW8 to give the amount only on a specific demand made by the accused persons. PW8 went to the office of the accused persons. At about 10 a.m., all of them proceeded to the office of the accused persons and reached there by 10.30 a.m. PW11 instructed PW8 to give the amount only on a specific demand made by the accused persons. PW8 went to the office of the accused persons. First he met the 2 nd accused. PW8 asked the 2 nd accused whether they can assign the number to his house. The 2 nd accused replied that he has already told him everything and that he need not repeat the same. PW8 told him that he has brought the amount. Then, the 2 nd accused asked PW8 to give his share of the bribe amount Rs. 100/-, PW8 paid him Rs.100/- out of the tainted currency notes. MO1 was the said currency note. The 2 nd accused asked PW8 to pay the balance amount to the 1 st accused. PW8 went inside the office room of the 1 st accused and paid the balance amount Rs.300/- to the 1 st accused. MO2 series were those currency notes. The 1 st accused did not receive the amount by hand. He showed his pocket and asked PW8 to put the amount in his pocket. PW8 did so. PW8 went outside and gave the pre-arranged signal. 19. Going through the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5, it has come out in evidence that soon after receipt of Rs.100/- by the 2 nd accused, he entrusted the same to PW3 for getting exchange of the same and therefore, the 100 rupee note could not be recovered from him. PW3 evidenced that he accepted Rs.100/- from the 2 nd accused and given two fifty rupee currency notes as exchange. Then, he entrusted the money to PW4. PW4 given evidence that he had given this 100 rupee note to the Post Office. PW5 examined in this case is the Deputy Post Master, Ernakulam and he produced the MO1 100 rupee note, as one entrusted by PW4. 20. On evaluation of the evidence, it is emphatically clear that as far as the demand by the 1 st accused is concerned, no convincing evidence forthcoming and the evidence given by PW8 during his chief examination that when he met the 1 st accused on 20.12.2000, the 1 st accused told him that something had been conveyed to him by the 2 nd accused. However, this part of his evidence is an improvement, which does not find a place in his previous statement. This material omission was brought out and proved through the defence argument. In fact, no convincing evidence available to demand of bribe by the 1 st accused. Coming to the allegation against the 2 nd accused, merely on the basis of the evidence of PW5, it cannot be found that he did not demand or accept the bribe, as the evidence of PW8 is convincing. 21. On perusal of Ext.P7 FIS, the same was lodged on 02.01.2001 and FIR was registered then and there itself. But, the date of occurrence was recorded as 20.12.2000 and therefore, reached the court only 04.01.2001, as argued by the learned senior counsel for the legal heirs of the 2 nd accused. Even regarding the registration of the FIR, PW11, who recorded the same, stated in his evidence that no written complaint had been lodged by PW8, and that his FIS was recorded on 02.01.2001, based on which, the FIR was registered. Although the delay in registering the FIR was taken as trivial, it appears that the trap conducted on 20.12.2000 was carried out without registering any FIR regarding the demand. 22. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 23. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State , AIR 2023 SC 330 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 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.” 24. 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 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 PC Act, 1988. 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 PC Act, 1988 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. 25. Regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount on the date of trap, the evidence of PW8 is that, the Vigilance party along with PW8 started at 10.00 a.m. from the Vigilance Office and reached the office of the accused at 10.30 a.m. According to him, the Dy.S.P. informed him that the money would be handed over only if there was a demand by the accused. On reaching the office, he met the 2 nd accused, Paily, and asked about the numbering. He replied that there was no need to repeat what he had said earlier, as he had already informed him of the same before. The earlier version of PW8 was that on 20.12.2000, when PW8 met the 2 nd accused, he demanded Rs.500/-, i.e., Rs.400/- was meant for the 1 st accused and R.100/- was meant for the 2 nd accused. The earlier version of PW8 was that on 20.12.2000, when PW8 met the 2 nd accused, he demanded Rs.500/-, i.e., Rs.400/- was meant for the 1 st accused and R.100/- was meant for the 2 nd accused. PW8 testified that when it was so said by the 2 nd accused, he informed him that he had brought the money and he asked for Rs.100/-, then, he had given Rs.100/- to the 2 nd accused and he requested PW8 to give Rs.400/- to the 1 st accused and later given Rs.300/- to the 1 st accused. Thus, it appears that the demand of Rs.500/- by the 2 nd accused on 20.12.2000, was reiterated on the date of the trap by the 2 nd accused, and soon thereafter, he accepted Rs.100/- from the complainant. Even though the learned senior counsel for the legal heirs of the 2 nd accused vehemently argued that no evidence available to see demand by the 2 nd accused, the evidence of PW8 would show otherwise. That is to say, even though specific demand by the 1 st accused could not be found in the evidence of PW8, specific demand by the 2 nd accused could be seen from the evidence of PW8. Thus, it appears that as far as the demand made by the 1 st accused is concerned, no convincing evidence is forthcoming. However, the demand, at the instance of the 2 nd accused is concerned, the evidence of PW8 is convincing. 26. It is argued by both the learned senior counsel that the FIR was accepted by the court only on 04.01.2001, though the same was registered on 02.01.2001. In fact, this argument, even though appears to be impressive at first blush, is too trivial in a case of this nature. Therefore, the contention raised in this regard is found to be of no merits. 27. Thus, on an overall evaluation of the evidence, it could be gathered that the Special Court convicted and sentenced the 1 st accused, on the finding that he had demanded and accepted the bribe, without the support of any convincing evidence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence, as against the 1 st accused would deserve interference. 27. Thus, on an overall evaluation of the evidence, it could be gathered that the Special Court convicted and sentenced the 1 st accused, on the finding that he had demanded and accepted the bribe, without the support of any convincing evidence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence, as against the 1 st accused would deserve interference. At the same time, the evidence discussed would show that the 2 nd accused demanded and accepted the bribe, as alleged by the prosecution, by proving the ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed against the 2 nd accused is liable to be sustained. But, the sentence would require modification for realisation of the fine amount alone, in view of the death of the 2 nd accused. 28. In the result, these appeals are allowed in part. The conviction and sentence imposed against the 1 st accused are set aside and the 1 st accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. He is set at liberty forthwith and his bail bond stands cancelled. As far as the conviction imposed against the 2 nd accused is concerned, the same is confirmed. However, the sentence is confined to realisation of a fine of Rs.5,000/- from the legal heirs, to the extent of the property they have inherited from the 2 nd accused. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith.