though the alleged demand of bribe was on 17.09.2001, the complaint Ex.P.2 was lodged only on 20.09.2001. The prosecution witness has not come out with any explanation for the delay of 3 days to lodge his complaint. The unexplained delay in First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case. PW-1 [Kutralingam, I.A.S.,] who has accorded sanction is not the authority competent to remove the appellant. Ex.P.1, the sanction order to prosecute the appellant is defective for want of authority and non application of mind. The prosecution has failed to prove demand both prior to the alleged trap or on the day of trap. Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond doubt, which is sine qua non to draw presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution has not proved demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. Despite that, the trial Court has erroneously drawn presumption against the appellant. The appellant as Executive Engineer of PWD division of Ariyalur, was directed by the District Collector to collect Flag Day donation of Rs.7,000/- by 30.11.2001. The communications of the District Collector, Perambalur are marked as defence exhibits D-1 and D- 2. Through DW-1 who succeed the appellant Office of Executive Engineer Ariyalur the factum of target fixed by the District Collector is also proved. While so, the trial court has declined to accept the explanation of the appellant that he received the money given to him by PW-2 under the impression that it is for the flag day donation. The degree of proof to rebut the statutory presumption is only the preponderance of probability. Unlike for prosecution it is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant having discharged his burden of rebuttal the trail court ought not to have drawn presumption against the appellant. The contradictions in the ocular evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.6 regarding the the alleged sequence of events during the trap proceedings vis a viz the documentary evidence such as entrustment mahazar Ex.P.4 and recovery mahazar Ex.P.9 can only give an inference that the prosecution witnesses are whole unreliable. None of the prosecution deposed that the appellant demanded money from PW-2. The gesture and sign like raising the eye-brow and shaking head alleged to have made by the appellant are not proof of demand. In the absence of proof that the appellant accept money as reward to do any favour abusing the official position, mere recovery of money from the appellant is sufficient to convict the appellant. In the light of the explanation given by the appellant, which is possible and reasonable, the trial court judgment deserves reversal.
