Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 1051 (MAD)

S. R. Aravamuthan v. State

1996-10-11

N.ARUMUGHAM

body1996
Judgment : This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in Special Case No.3 of 1988 dated 112. 1989 finding the appellant guilty for the offences under Secs.5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sec.161 of the Indian Penal Code and whereupon, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.500 in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Sec.5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Sec.161 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. P.W.1 by name Thiru Ayyathurai along with P.W.3. Thiru Peter Alphones and one Tmt.Therasa, started a partnership business among themselves. Under the name and stile of ‘Royal Fibres’, to manufacture coir ropes, made out of the coconut coir, in their factory at Kuthukkalvalsai and having the registered office at No.45, Nelaavanimoolaveethi Street, Thenkasi Town. In the same house, in the ground floor portion, the major partner P.W.3. was living with his family and in the upstairs the registered office of the firm was situated. The production of this factory commenced from 8. 1987 onwards. It was slated that there was no sales tax for the goods manufactured in the above firm. But however, when the finished goods: .from this factory happened to go to the neighbouring States, R.C. number G.S.T. number may be insisted by the Excise authorities and if there was no number, the above finished goods were not allowed to be sold in the other states. Therefore, Form D and Form A duly filled up on 19. 1987 and 29. Therefore, Form D and Form A duly filled up on 19. 1987 and 29. 1987 under Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 respectively signed by P.W.3, the major partner, were given to the Deputy Commercial-Tax Officer’s Office by the Manager of the factory by name Meeran and got it registered by payment of Rs.120, being the registration fees, for which a receipt was given under Ex,P-2, P.W.4, an Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, would claim that by virtue of Sec. 26(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act if a businessman requires a registration certificate, he has to apply to the Commercial Tax Officer with the registration fee of Rs.100 plus a sum of Rs.20 for a single godown and get receipt and the said receipt must accompany the application filed to him. Accordingly, on the receipt of Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7, P.W.5, Junior Assistant employed in the Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, registered the same in his office register under Ex.P-8 and forwarded the said matter to the appellant/ accused who was the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer at that time for further action. 3. On 10. 1987 at about 10 a.m. when P.W.1 was in the house of P.W.3, P.W.6, the Office Assistant of the appellant/ accused came and informed him that he was called by the accused. Accordingly, P.W.1, had been to the office of the accused and met him and requested the R.C. and G.S.T., numbers for their factory. It was stated that for which the accused had told P.W. 1 that a sum of Rs.15,000 had to be deposited but however, it was replied by P.W. 1 that as there was no tax for their finished product, the deposit must be reduced. The response to this reply, by the accused was that he demanded a sum of Rs.500 by way of bribe to reduce the deposit amount. P.W.1 has stated that though a sum of Rs.500 was demanded by way of bribe, he paid only a sum of Rs.200, which was with him at that time and that the said amount was asked and received by the accused. Afterwards, the accused asked P.W. 1 to come on 110. 1987 and get the G.S.T. and R.C. Numbers for his factory. 4. Accordingly, when P.W.1 met the accused by 12 noon on 110. Afterwards, the accused asked P.W. 1 to come on 110. 1987 and get the G.S.T. and R.C. Numbers for his factory. 4. Accordingly, when P.W.1 met the accused by 12 noon on 110. 1987 and demanded the R.C. & G.S.T. Numbers, it was stated that the accused told P.W. 1 that if only he paid a further sum of Rs.300 as bribe, he could get them, for which P.W. 1 had replied that he had no money and therefore, he was asked to bring the money on the next day and get the orders for the numbers as required. P.W.1 conveyed this demand of bribe to P.W.3 on the night of 110. 1987 at his residence. P.W.1 is stated to have felt very much upon the demand of the accused for payment of the bribe and that therefore, he intimated P.W.3 that he would take appropriate action against the accused, for which, P.W.3 had consented to take proceedings against him on his own accord. 5. At about 7 a.m. on the morning of 110. 1987 when P.W.1 went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption office at Palayamkottai along with the prepared complaint and the bribe amount of Rs.300 and met PW.10, Inspector of Police and gave the complaint Ex.P-1, it was registered in Tirunelveli Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cr.No.2/87 for the offence under Sec.161, I.P.C., and a copy of F.I.R., was given to P.W.1 after getting his signatures. Then at about 8.15 a.m. the services of P.W.2 and one witness Kaja Nasumudeen was requisitioned. P.W.2 at that time was working as Assistant in the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture. They were introduced to P.W.1, P.W.2 and the other witness went through the contents of Ex.P-1 and they verified the veracity of the same with P.W.1. Then P.W.1 handed over the amount of Rs.300 three hundred rupee currency notes M.O.1 series to P.W.10 along with the receipt Ex.P-2 given by the office of the accused for having registered the application. It was counted and verified by P.W.2 and P.W.3. Then a glass tumbler full of water was brought and a sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the fingers of Kaja Nasumudeen were dipped and it was found that there was no change or colour. Then the currency notes were emeared with phenolpthalein powder on either side and Kaza Nasumudeen counted the currency notes again. Then a glass tumbler full of water was brought and a sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the fingers of Kaja Nasumudeen were dipped and it was found that there was no change or colour. Then the currency notes were emeared with phenolpthalein powder on either side and Kaza Nasumudeen counted the currency notes again. Then, when he dipped his fingers, the solution turned pink in colour. Accordingly, the phenolpthalein test was demonstrated and explained to P.W.2 and Kaza Nasumudeen. M.O.1 series was then handed over to P.W. 1 with instructions to give it to the accused when demanded at his office subsequently and that if the accused received the said amount, P.W. 1 was instructed to come out and touch his ‘crop’ (hair on the head) as a signal. Then for everything happened in the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Ex.P-3 was prepared by P.W.10 in which P.W.1,2 and another attested the same. F.I.R. was forwarded to the Special Judge, Tirunelveli and over phone P.W.10 intimated to the Officer of P.W.2. That he was taking him to Tehkasi. They all reached Tenkasi at about 11.45 a.m. on 110. 1987. 6. As P.W. 1 was instructed to go to the office of the accused by P.W.10. and P.W.2 was instructed to go and note what are the things happening, P.Ws.1 and 2 had been to the office of the accused and others got down near the office of the accused from the car. P.W. 1 alone entered into office room of the accused and P.W.2 remained outside. When the accused asked P.W.1 whether he had brought the money of Rs.300, P.W.1 answered in the affirmative and when demanded for the immediate payment, P.W.1 gave M.O.1 series and the accused received the same through his right hand, counted it and put it into his left side table drawer and closed it. As directly by the accused P.W.1 met P.W.5 Clerk. At that time P.W.2 was standing outside. 7. On 110. 1987 itself the accused had instructed P.W.5 to prepare the proceedings to make the deposit in State Bank of India regarding Ex.P-7. and accordingly, P.W.5 prepared the proceedings and handed over it to the accused. On 110. 1987 at 12 noon, P.W.6 the Office Assistant by name Kaza Mohideen brought and handed over the file Ex.P-7 to P.W.5 in which the accused had signed. and accordingly, P.W.5 prepared the proceedings and handed over it to the accused. On 110. 1987 at 12 noon, P.W.6 the Office Assistant by name Kaza Mohideen brought and handed over the file Ex.P-7 to P.W.5 in which the accused had signed. The note order regarding the deposit to be made towards the State Bank of India was the one written by P.W.5 on handing over the orders regarding G.S.T. and R.C. P.W.5 got acknowledgment from P.W.1. After completing the job with P.W.5, P.W.1 came out along with P.W.2 showed the signal as instructed. It was followed by P.W.10 and P.W.2 enter the office room of accused. When P.W.1 had been to his house: 8. Thus on getting the signal from P.W.1, P.W.10 and his convey entered the office room of the accused, and got themselves introduced to the accused and then the accused was seen in an agitated mood. As instructed by P.W.10. a sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the accused dipped his right hand fingers and the solution turned pink in colour. It was preserved in a bottle and labelled as ‘A’. Likewise. the left hand fingers of the accused was dipped in another sodium carbonate solution and the solution turned pink in colour. It was preserved in another bottle and labelled as ‘B’. The bottles were marked as M.O.2 and M.O.3 respectively. Then the accused produced M.O.1 series, the numbers of which was verified with Ex.P-3 and found tallying. The concerned file Ex.P-5 was also recovered by P.W.(1). P.W.10 also searched the rexine bag found on the table of the accused which contained a total sum of Rs.8,357 kept in separate covers: M.O.4 are the currencies found in the rexine bag and M.O.5 is the rexine bag. The rental receipt Ex.P-6 was also recovered and for all the things happened in the office of the accused at that time, a mahasar was prepared, attested by P.W.2, P.W.10 and Kaza Nazumudeen. Then accused was arrested. Room No.20 in Venkateswara Lodge where the accused was staying was also searched by P.W.13 and after examining the accused in his office, P.W.10 let him on bail. .9. P.W.10, then examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and the recovered articles were sent to the court under Form 95. He visited the scene of occurrence on the next day on 110. 1987 and prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-14 and examined further witnesses. .9. P.W.10, then examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and the recovered articles were sent to the court under Form 95. He visited the scene of occurrence on the next day on 110. 1987 and prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-14 and examined further witnesses. Then, under Ex.P-10, P.W.10 has asked the court to subject M.O.2 and M.O.3 for Chemical examination. P.W.8 under the orders of the Judicial Magistrate sent the said material object for chemical examination under the original of. Ex.P-11 and got the chemical examiner’s report Ex.P-12 on 111. 1987. P.W.10 then sent the report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption about the investigation of the case and obtained the sanction order Ex.P.9. P.W.7 the section Superintendent of the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Office spoke to the factum of receiving the report from the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and placing the same for consideration of P.W.9, who on getting satisfied with the case, on 29.7,1988 under Ex.P-9, accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused for the offence to be charged against the accused. On the receipt of such sanction order and having completed the investigation, P.W.10, laid the final report before the trial court on 18. 1988 against the accused. .10. When the accused was examined under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating circumstances made available against him in evidence, he has admitted the starting of the partnership factory by P.Ws.1 and 3 with one Therasa is manufacturing coir ropes, for which, P.W.3 has submitted Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 for granting R.C. and G.S.T. numbers through his manager by name one Meeran on the receipt of a sum of Rs.120 under Ex.P-2, the receipt given to them. He would admit further that he dipped his fingers in the sodium carbonate solution but would contend that there was no change in colour. He admitted the recovery of M.O.1 series, a sum of Rs.8,357 and M.O.2 and M.O.3. by P.W.10 but he feigned ignorance of the mahazar prepared under Ex.P-4 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. In short to say, the accused had denied that he demanded any money nor received any money by way of bribe. He would also admit that he sent for P.W.1 on 10. 1987. by P.W.10 but he feigned ignorance of the mahazar prepared under Ex.P-4 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. In short to say, the accused had denied that he demanded any money nor received any money by way of bribe. He would also admit that he sent for P.W.1 on 10. 1987. While denying the substantive portion of the prosecution evidence in toto he has filed a written statement under Sec.243, Crl.P.C. in which, he has stated that he never demanded any bribe nor received any bribe and that on 29. 1987 he inspected the factory premises and obtained the recorded statement from P.W.1 and informed P.W.1 that he had to deposit a sum of Rs.500 at least as the minimum amount and that he never met P.W.3 and that on 110. 1987 when he was looking the files, P.W.1 placed M.O.1 series currency notes on his table and went out of the office suddenly and as it would not look nice in a public office, he put the same into the drawer of his table and that it was at this time P.W.10 came and that he was never agitated and that the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6 are correct but however, denied the evidence of P.W.5 as well as P.W.7 and P.W.9 and that the entire case against him was a foisted one. He has also stated that he had sent a statement on 1. 1988 with a letter to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. By stating so, he had accepted the money received by him but according to him it was for the deposit to be made for allotting the R.C. and G.S.T. numbers to the factory of P.W.1 and not the bribe money. 11. To substantiate the said contention, D.W.1 a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi, was also examined on his behalf. In his evidence, he would state that for the period from 4. 1987 to 110. 11. To substantiate the said contention, D.W.1 a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi, was also examined on his behalf. In his evidence, he would state that for the period from 4. 1987 to 110. 1987, as per the deposit register of his office, 7 persons had applied for the grant of R.C. and G.S.T. numbers and for which, they have paid a sum of Rs.500 each towards the deposit and got it registered and that the coir rope, textiles and rice are the commodities exempted from the Commercial Taxes and that one Mr.Anwar Basha was also working as they Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and during his tenure in such capacity, only two persons applied for R.C. and G.S.T. by depositing Rs.500 each and that the said deposit register is in force and that with reference to the same, he gave evidence. 12. On a consideration of the oral evidence let in through P.Ws.1 to 10 by the prosecution and D.W.1 on behalf of the accused, with 14 documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-14 on behalf of the prosecution and two documents Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 on behalf of the accused with six material objects recorded, in the context of rival contentions, the learned trial Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused and found him guilty to the charges framed and tried and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as noted supra by passing the impugned judgment. Aggrieved, the appellant has come forward with this appeal, challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment. 13. I have heard the Bar for the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence and the learned Government Advocate in support of the impugned judgment. 14. Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, dwelt his first attack over the conduct and nature of P.W.1, who is the decoy witness in this case, by referring to the factum that on 10. 1987, when the accused, for the first time, is said to have demanded the bribe of Rs.500 for assigning R.C. Number and G.S.T. number to the firm by name. Royal fibres, the response of P.W.l was that he could not pay Rs.500, but he paid Rs.200 and on the payment, according to P.W.l, the accused instructed him to come on 110. 1987 and get R.C. Number and G.S.T. Number for his product. Royal fibres, the response of P.W.l was that he could not pay Rs.500, but he paid Rs.200 and on the payment, according to P.W.l, the accused instructed him to come on 110. 1987 and get R.C. Number and G.S.T. Number for his product. Then, after having left the office of the accused on 10. 1987 till 110. 1987, P.W.1 had developed no animosity or grievance against the accused in his mind. The fact remains that for about for days, P.W. 1 has not informed about the demand of bribe and the payment of bribe to any one including P.W.3, who is the major partner of the business and a M.L.A. as well as a lawyer, for the obvious reasons known to him. This part of the inaction, according to the learned senior counsel, would expose that P.W.1 is a man of doubtful character. P.W. 1 has stated further that even on 110. 1987, when he had been to the office of the accused to get R.C. number and G.S.T. Number, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.300 to grant such R.C. number and G.S.T. number and he had no money, he was instructed to give the said bribe of Rs.300 on the next morning and get R.C. number and G.S.T. number as required. Consequently, P.W.1 claims that on the same day evening getting felt seriously on the subsequent demand made by the accused, he has informed P.W.3, the major partner and after he got clearance, he prepared Ex.P-1 at his home and with the said complaint, he had been to the office of P.W. 10 on the next day morning by 7.00 and lodged the complaint to P.W. 10 followed by the registration of the complaint and the investigation that began by setting up a trap. A mere reading of Ex.P-1 would show, according to the learned senior counsel, that the while claim made by P.W.1 is a total lie, because the complaint Ex.P-1 could not have been at all prepared by P.W.1 on the evening of 110. 1987. 15. Learned Government Advocate Mr.Kumaresan has repudiated the said contention by stating that in view of the demand of bribe made by the accused through P.W.6 Office Assistant working in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thenkasi, from P.W.1, P.W.1 had paid a sum of Rs.200 by way of bribe and the accused accepted the same on 10. 15. Learned Government Advocate Mr.Kumaresan has repudiated the said contention by stating that in view of the demand of bribe made by the accused through P.W.6 Office Assistant working in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thenkasi, from P.W.1, P.W.1 had paid a sum of Rs.200 by way of bribe and the accused accepted the same on 10. 1987 and since P.W.1 was instructed to come to the office of the accused on 110. 1987 as the clerk P.W.5 was on leave for two days followed by Saturday and Sunday being holidays, P.W.1 had been to the office of the accused for the purpose of getting relevant numbers for their finished product, and therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 is quite natural and cogent and that therefore, it is a convincing one which cannot be doubted at all. 16. Of course, it is true, if the evidence of P.W.1 is looked into, superficially and manifestly, it appears to be true. But if it is perused meticulously, there is some inherent legal lacking and the root of suspicion with think fabric is very much available in the claim of P.W.1. It is noticed that P.W.1 has claimed that pursuant to the intimation given by P.W.6, P.W.1 had been to the office of the accused and met him and asked for the assignment of R.C.Number and G.S.T. Number for their finished product for which, the accused demanding a sum of Rs.15,000 towards deposit and P.W.l replied that the finished product was not a taxable one and therefore he (P.W.1) need not pay such huge amount as deposit. It was his further evidence that in response to his reply, the accused agreed to reduce the deposit to some considerable level, if P.W.l pays a bribe of Rs.500. However, P.W.l claims that he paid a sum of Rs.200 at that time and the accused received it. It was his further evidence that in response to his reply, the accused agreed to reduce the deposit to some considerable level, if P.W.l pays a bribe of Rs.500. However, P.W.l claims that he paid a sum of Rs.200 at that time and the accused received it. It is, therefore, a very reading of the evidence of P.W.l clinches the fact that the accused had suggested a sum of Rs.15,000 towards deposit for assigning G.S.T. number and R.C. number and when P.W.1 has stated his inability on the ground that his finished product is not a taxable one, the accused seems to have agreed for the reduction of the deposit amount, provided on the payment of bribe of Rs.500 to him and for the demand by the accused, the minimum response by P.W.l was that he paid a sum of Rs.200 by way of bribe to the accused which was received by the accused. It is thus noticed that the deal consisting of a demand of bribe of Rs.500 with the payment of bribe to the extent of Rs.200 by P.W.1 was over completely and totally on 10. 1987 itself. It is neither the case of the prosecution that though the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.500 and P.W.1 paid Rs.200 against that and the accused had asked P.W.4 to bring the balance on 110. 1987, nor P.W.1 intimated the accused that he would pay the balance amount of Rs.300 on the subsequent day or on 110. 1987. This being the case, the above dealing was over on 10. 1987 itself. If I believe the evidence of P.W.1 then, the question that arises is why P.W.1 waited till 110. 1987 without insisting for getting the R.C. number and G.S.T. number for his product. To substantiate his contention, P.W.1 also would claim that the accused had asked him to Come on 110. 1987 to get the relevant numbers for his product. If the secret deal between P.W.1 and the accused was over on 10. 198? itself inclusive of the consent of demand of bribe and the demand of bribe as seen and noted from the evidence referred to above, then, the question of trap set up by the prosecution cannot at all arise. 17. It is seen that P.W.1 met the accused on 110. 198? itself inclusive of the consent of demand of bribe and the demand of bribe as seen and noted from the evidence referred to above, then, the question of trap set up by the prosecution cannot at all arise. 17. It is seen that P.W.1 met the accused on 110. 1987 at 12.00 noon and demanded G.S.T. Number and R.C.Number for their product, for which the accused is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.300 by way of bribe. P.W.1 has never stated that the accused had demanded the balance of the bribe demanded by the accused on 10. 1987. But, on the other hand, it is noticed that P.W.1 has stated that the accused demanded a further sum of Rs.300 by way of bribe. Therefore, this attitude of the accused in making the second demand of bribe of Rs.300 on 110. 1987, according to P.W.1, made him infuriated and disappointed, however, impelled him to accept and as instructed by me accused, P.W.1 accepted to give that bribe money on the next day i.e., on 110. 1987. P.W.1 would further claim that on the same day evening he mer P.W.3 and informed him about the demand of bribe by the accused against which he paid a sum of Rs.200, but the accused demanded Rs.300 further arid therefore, he decided to take proceedings against the accused for which P.W.3 has given his consent and accordingly, P:W. 1 prepared the complaint at his residence. The above portion of the claim of P.W.1 assumes some significance in instant case, for the reasoning that Ex.P-1, the written complaint by P.W.1 bears some truth. This complaint Ex.P-1, is claimed to have been prepared by P.W.1 himself at his residence on the evening of 110. 1987. On the next day, according to P.W. I he went along with the complaint to Palayamkottai and lodged the complaint with P.W.10, who, in turn, registered the same in Crime No.2 of 1987 under sec.161 of the Indian Penal Code. 1987. On the next day, according to P.W. I he went along with the complaint to Palayamkottai and lodged the complaint with P.W.10, who, in turn, registered the same in Crime No.2 of 1987 under sec.161 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai drew my attention to the following sentences found in ExP-1: The very passage extracted above, referred to by P.W.1 in Ex.P-1 would reveal that the demand was made by the accused for the payment of Rs.300 by way of further bribe and since P.W.1 had not been possessed with that money at that time, P.W.1 was asked to bring the money on the next day was said to have taken place at 12.00 noon on 110. 1987. If this incident has happened at 12.00 noon on 110. 1987 and P.W.1 came out and went to home after informing P.W.3 and prepared the complaint Ex.P-1. On the evening of very same day at his residence, there would be no need or occasion for P.W.1 to refer the word, ‘yesterday (110. 1987)‘, However, his oral claim would go to show that he handed over the complaint at about 7.00 a.m. on 110. 1987 and the Inspector of Police has signed it with the date of 110. 1987. If the complaint was written and registered on 110. 1987, I would have no ground to suspect the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W. 1 is that he had prepared Ex.P-1 at his residence on 110. 1987 evening, whereas the contends of Ex.P-1 go to show that the further demand was made on ‘Yesterday (110. 1987)‘. Based upon this minute fact, but, however, important, learned Senior Counsel would contend that Ex.P-1 must have been prepared only on 110. 1987 and not as claimed by P.W. 1 that is on the evening of 110. 1987 at his residence. If at his residence, then I am not able to understand as at his residence, then I am not bale to understand as to why he put the work, ‘yesterday’ while referring to the incident of demand of further bribe on 110. 1987. 18. This complaint could have been prepared at the behest of the police or someone, with the writing of P.W.1; for the reasoning that the earlier transaction between P.W.1 and the accused was over on 10. 1987 itself and on 110. 1987. 18. This complaint could have been prepared at the behest of the police or someone, with the writing of P.W.1; for the reasoning that the earlier transaction between P.W.1 and the accused was over on 10. 1987 itself and on 110. 1987 after the demand of further bribe by the accused was made, it is seen P.W.1 has decided to take proceedings against the accused with the result, he has intimated P.W.3 for clearance, but, however to make subsequent payment of Rs. 300, there must be a demand for the said sum and therefore, the complaint was suitably drafted with the reference that 110. 1987 incident was said to have taken place in the office of the accused. But, however, the word, ‘yesterday’ referred to in Ex.P-1 has betrayed the prosecution case, particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 in its entirety. 19. Ofcourse, there is no supporting or independent evidence for the alleged demand of bribe by the accused either on 10. 1987 itself or on 110. 1987 in the office of the accused. Similarly, there is no other evidence to support the payment of Rs.200 by way of bribe by the accused on 10. 1987 in his office. P.W. 1 seems to be a person who is in actual in-charge of the partnership business. The very conduct of this witness who is a decoy in the instant case in not taking any action, nor informing anyone with regard to the illegal demand of the accused to pay the bribe of a sum of Rs.500 to assign G.S.T. Number and R.C. Number in favour of their product which is a nontaxable one and to reduce the quantum of the deposit amount, for nearly four days, not only would amount to a delay, but it also clearly demonstrates that P.W. 1 is a person of offering bribe and achieving his object. He is also a person equally guilty for the offence of bribe as contemplated under Sec.161 of the Indian Penal Code. The bribe giver is also guilty in the concept of law prevailed yester years. The second demand, as claimed by P.W. 1 made by the accused on 110. 1987 cannot be accepted for the reasoning that he has not referred to the same in Ex.P-1 itself and Ex.P-1 is a document manifestly seems to have been prepared on 110. 1987 and all actions seems to have been proceeded further. The second demand, as claimed by P.W. 1 made by the accused on 110. 1987 cannot be accepted for the reasoning that he has not referred to the same in Ex.P-1 itself and Ex.P-1 is a document manifestly seems to have been prepared on 110. 1987 and all actions seems to have been proceeded further. There was absolutely no explanation or reasoning given by the prosecution as to why the word, ‘Yesterday’ has been referred to in Ex.P-1. If Ex.P-1 the written complaint is taken as true, in its full contents, then, it is obviously leading to the meaning that it must have been prepared on 110. 1987 and not on 110. 1987 as claimed by P.W.1. Having thus considered the genuineness and dexterity of Ex.P-1 and the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the preparation of Ex.P-1 on the night of 110. 1987 at his residence at about 9.00 p.m. is totally a false one and could not at all be believed for any reasoning. After Ex.P-1, is surmounted with the above false theory, if it is presumed that it was prepared on 110. l987, then, it remains that the conflict between the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the written complaint Ex.P-1, creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. It is well settled by now that when there is conflict between the oral claim of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence of the same which runs counter to each other resulted in a grave doubt, benefit of doubt must be ascribed to the accused. Thus, the star performance of P.W.1 who is the decoy, in this case, is inherent with great doubt and could not be believed. If the inaction of P.W.1 for about 4 days is considered, then, I am left with no other alternative except to disbelieve the whole version of P.W.1 viz., he has paid a bribe of Rs.200 on 8.10 1987 on the first occasion and then, Rs.300 on the date of trap viz., 110. 1987 for the reasoning that the trap witness P.W.2 has not rendered any help to improve the prosecution case. It is noticed, at this juncture, P.Ws.10 and 2. both would claim unanimously that P.W.2 was not instructed to accompany P.W. 1 to the place of the accused while paying the bribe amount. 1987 for the reasoning that the trap witness P.W.2 has not rendered any help to improve the prosecution case. It is noticed, at this juncture, P.Ws.10 and 2. both would claim unanimously that P.W.2 was not instructed to accompany P.W. 1 to the place of the accused while paying the bribe amount. It is the specific case of the prosecution through the abovesaid witnesses that P.W.2 was instructed to remain outside only and to overhear the things happened inside the office room of the accused P.Ws.2 and 10 in their evidence have claimed so. This being the admitted case of the prosecution, then, I am at every difficulty to understand or take P.W.2 as trap witness in this case. It is noted that P.W.2, a Government servant working in a different office and whose service was requisitioned by P.W.10 and in whose presence along with one another Kaja Nasimudeen the complaint given by P.W.1 was verified and the phenolphthalein test was demonstrated with the trap money and thus, the whole trap was set up in presence of P.W.2, as evident from Ex.P-3 Mahazar prepared by P.W. 10 and attested by them. If the service of P.W.2 in this manner was thus obtained, then, I do not understand as to why and for what reason, P.W.10 Investigating Officer, has instructed P.W.2 to remain outside, especially when the trap is said to have been implemented. P.W.2, also seems to have claimed that he remained outside the office room of the accused as instructed and overheard the things happened inside. In this case, unmindful of the legal procedure, the Investigating Officer has committed a perfunctory mistake in not instructing the witness P.W.2 to accompany P.W.1 when the bribe was paid to the accused. In the light of the specific and categorical evidence of P.W.2 and 10 it is made crystal clear that the claim of P.W.1 that he paid the bribe of Rs.300 on 13,10.1987 has not been supported by any of the witnesses, nor corroborated by anyone. In the light of the specific and categorical evidence of P.W.2 and 10 it is made crystal clear that the claim of P.W.1 that he paid the bribe of Rs.300 on 13,10.1987 has not been supported by any of the witnesses, nor corroborated by anyone. In short to say, from the evidence of P.W.2 even though he was present throughout the demonstration of the chemical test and he was one of the attestors of Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4, for the reasoning that he was not present and remained outside when P.W.1 is claimed to have paid the amount of bribe to the accused I am not inclined to treat him as a trap witness. Trap was not implemented in his presence. Then, there is no difficulty to say that P.W.2 is not a trap witness at all. The portion of the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the trap, though attracts the second limb of Sec.60 of the Evidence Act, is not a substantive portion of the evidence rendering any support or corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1. Then, it remains that the solitary claim of P.W.1 alone is made available with regard to the alleged payment of bribe which was followed by the demand made by the accused on two occasions with no corroboration, of independent witness of any kind or any other witness, even according to the prosecution; For the reasoning aforementioned, I am of the firm view that the evidence of P.W.1 is doubtful and could not have been given any legal credibility. 20. One another circumstances which has been established by the evidence on record is that P.W.1 is a minor working partner like the third partner. The major partner is P.W.3. He is an advocate not practising, but, however, a member of Legislative Assembly and a partner of the business to the extent of 60 per cent and the registered office of the Industry is situate in the upstairs of his house. This being the position, if one of the partners, P.W.1 was asked to pay a bribe of Rs.500, then the question that arises is how one of the partners, P.W.1 kept quiet without informing other partners for about 3 days. It is not the case of P.W.1 that to inform P.W.3, he was not available in his residence. This being the position, if one of the partners, P.W.1 was asked to pay a bribe of Rs.500, then the question that arises is how one of the partners, P.W.1 kept quiet without informing other partners for about 3 days. It is not the case of P.W.1 that to inform P.W.3, he was not available in his residence. I can understand, if it is stated, for some reasoning P.W.1 could not have informed the fact to P.W.3, but the prosecution case is otherwise. Therefore, on this aspect also a serious doubt arises about the veracity of the prosecution claim, particularly P.W.1. 21. In M.G. Shamsuddin v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1995 S.C.W. 2717, the Supreme Court had an occasion to hold that law to be followed in believing the evidence of accomplice or the person who participated in the commission of a crime in one made or other, particularly in a case of bribery, in the following words: “The word ‘accomplice’ is not defined in the Evidence Act. However, it is accepted that the word is used in its ordinary sense which means and signifies a guilty partner or associate in a crime. Illustration (b) to Sec.114, in a way cautions the court to bear in mind the presumption that an accomplice is not worthy or credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Sec.133 of the Act, however, declares that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because; it proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The relation between Sec.133, which is a rule of law and Illustration (b) to Sec.114, which is a rule of prudence has been the subject of comment in a large number of decisions. However, it has emerged that a conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal though an accomplice may be unworthy of credit for several reasons. Reading Sec.133, and Illustration (b) to Sec.114 of the Evidence Act together the courts have held that while it is not illegal to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice the rule of prudence so universally followed has to amount to rule of law that it is unsafe to act on the evidence of an accomplied unless it is corroborated in material aspects so as to implicate the accused. The reasons for requiring corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice are that an accomplice is likely to swear falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself and that he is an immoral person being a participator in the crime who may not have any regard to any sanction of the oath and in the case of an approver, on his own admission, he is a criminal who gives evidence under a promise of pardon and supports the prosecution with the hope of getting his own freedom. Now confining to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjected to the same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradation. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complaint is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving the trap cannot succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from a person who is unwilling and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in order to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus, there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well as be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. Thus, there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well as be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat of loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and how becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of ‘accomplices’ by reason of their being bribe givers, in the first instance the Court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances. It is well settled that the corroborating evidence can be even by way of circumstantial evidence. No general rule can be laid down with respect to quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of a trap witness which again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances like the nature of the crime, the character of trap witness etc. and other general requirements necessary to sustain the conviction in that case. The court should weigh the. evidence and then see whether, corroboration is necessary. Therefore, as a rule of law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon. Whether corroboration is necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case of bribe, the person who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe and it is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the payment of bribe. However, it is cautioned that the evidence of a bribe given has to be scrutinised very carefully and it is for the court to consider and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide the question whether a conviction can be based upon or not in those given circumstances." 22. However, it is cautioned that the evidence of a bribe given has to be scrutinised very carefully and it is for the court to consider and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide the question whether a conviction can be based upon or not in those given circumstances." 22. Pursuant to the legal ratio held by the Apex Court in the above case law, it has now become clear that the standard or the nature of trap witness, who be comes a party to a transaction, becomes the victim of threat or coercion and assumes the character of an accomplice by reason of his being the bribe giver. It is the duty of the court to consider, the degree and complicity and then look for the corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration may vary according to the facts of each case and that corroboration can be even by proving the circumstances and that as such no general rule can be bid down with respect to the quantum of evidence required corroborating me testimony of trap witness, which again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances. All the more, it could be said that the court should weigh the evidence and then see the standard of corroboration which is required. As a matter of rule of law, it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon. Whether corroboration is necessary and if so to what extent, and what should be its nature, all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is a caution declared by the Apex Court that the evidence of a bribe giver has to be scrutinised very carefully and that it is the duty of the Court to consider and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner as rendered above. 23. Adopting the legal canon enunciated by the Apex Court, I have had several occasions to deal will) bribery cases. However, in the facts of the instant case, I have to consider a question whether the solitary evidence of P.W.1 is enough to conclude or believe the case of the prosecution and if so, to what extent? P.W.1 is admittedly a minor sharer in the partnership firm by name, Royal Fibres. However, in the facts of the instant case, I have to consider a question whether the solitary evidence of P.W.1 is enough to conclude or believe the case of the prosecution and if so, to what extent? P.W.1 is admittedly a minor sharer in the partnership firm by name, Royal Fibres. He lodged the complaint Ex.P-1 by getting implicit concurrence of the major partner P.W.3. While lodging the complaint Ex.P-1, P.W.1 has caused a delay of nearly 4 days for which he offered no explanation. It is noticed that he had already paid a sum of Rs.200 by way of bribe on 10. 1987 itself. There is absolutely no supporting or substantiating evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the said aspect. The accused denied the bribe of Rs.200 on 10. 1987, but, however, he would admit that a sum of Rs.300 was placed on his table by P.W.1 and the, P.W.1 walked out and after verifying it, he put it in his table drawer when P.W.10 and his convoy came which was followed by other activities. The inaction by P.W.1 for about four days and the major mishap found in Ex.P-1 belittle the legal credibility of the evidence of P.W.1. No other witness except P.W.1 has supported the prosecution case. It is, at this juncture, in the context of no other supporting or substantiating evidence 1st in by the prosecution; I am not inclined to believe the version of P.W.1 as a whole, not the evidence of P.W.2 for the reasoning aforementioned. If the circumstances spoken to by P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses as well as the circumstances referred to by and on behalf of the accused are looked into properly, I have no other alternative except to say that there are serious doubts inherent in the claim of P.W.1 and that what has been paid by P.W.1 on two occasions or on one occasion viz., on 110. 1987 is not bribe money, but only a payment made towards the deposit. The corroboration or substantiation required in this case is too heavy and it should be necessarily made available in order to establish the claim of P.W.1, which is totally lacking in this base. 24. 1987 is not bribe money, but only a payment made towards the deposit. The corroboration or substantiation required in this case is too heavy and it should be necessarily made available in order to establish the claim of P.W.1, which is totally lacking in this base. 24. Regarding the evidence of P.W.3, he has stated ‘thai he is not a practising lawyer, but a Member of Legislative Assembly and in his house, the office of the firm, Royal Fibres is situate in the upstairs and on the evening of 110. 1987. P.W.1 informed him that the accused had demanded the bribe of Rs.500 and P.W.1 himself paid a sum of Rs.200 and he (P.W.1) proposed to take action against the accused, for which he (P.W.3) expressed his willingness. This part of the evidence of P.W.3, in my considered view, would not render any corroboration for the claim of P.W.1 that the accused had made a demand of bribe on two occasions and P.W.1 paid the first installment on 10. 1987 and the second instalment was paid during the trap. All the more, what he has claimed is that P.W.1 has intimated him about his intention to take action against the accused, on 110. 1987. Since P.W.3 is a person having the major share in the partnership firm, to provide R.C. number and G.S.T. number to his firm, if the accused demanded a bribe even without inspecting the firm, then definitely, P.W.3 being a public servant and the person in the public life would have taken serious note of it and would have made the accused to be taken to task. But, he claimed that he simply gave green signal to P.W.1. Though his act of prompting appears to be a justifiable one, really it looks very artificial and unnatural. If the matter is viewed in this angle. I am not inspired or impressed by the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been perpetrated by the accused through P.W.1. 25. Though his act of prompting appears to be a justifiable one, really it looks very artificial and unnatural. If the matter is viewed in this angle. I am not inspired or impressed by the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been perpetrated by the accused through P.W.1. 25. Having thus considered the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, the non-officials, however, P.Ws.1 and 2 happen to be the decoy and the trap witnesses, I am of the firm view that the concept of demand of bribe by the accused and the payment of the bribe money claimed by P.W.1 has not at all been proved, nor substantiated as required by the law with every adequate corroboration and substantiation and that mere is an inherent doubt in the claim of P.W.1 in this case. Even in the rough sketch Ex.P-14, prepared by P.W.10, it has not been stated where exactly P.W.1 had taken position at the time of the trap. Therefore, it is highly doubtful where exactly P.W.2 took position outside the office of the accused during the implementation of the trap. Ex.P-14 rough sketch shows that this witness was standing on the eastern side of the window fixed on the southern side Of the office room of the accused. It is significant to notice that P.W.2 has not claimed that he saw the bribe being given by peeping through the window. As I have already observed, the trap set up by P.W.10 has not been implemented properly and adequately. Having thus considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in its entirety; it is seen that the prosecution has not ex-plained the circumstances against the accused, nor his overt act amounting to the concept of demand of bribery and the receipt of bribery and that there are inherent doubt in the evidence of the above witnesses. 26. Now coming to the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, it is noticed that the deposit for the certificates with regard to the commodities which are not taxable under the Commercial Tax is depending upon the estimates fixed at the discretion of the Commercial Tax Officer and a sum of Rs.500 is conventionally being fixed as security deposit and there are applications in like manner which have been registered in the deposit register of the accused office during the tenure of P.W.4. It is also the evidence given by D.W.1, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The evidence of P.W.4 is fully supported by D.W.1. P.W.4 claims that those who want G.S.T. number and R.C. number for their products manufactured, an application has to be submitted under Sec.26(1) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act and a sum of Rs.100 towards registration fee and a sum of Rs.20 towards godown fee have to be paid and accordingly, the application must be registered for assigning the numbers for tax purpose. He would further claim that the coir rope is an exempted commodity from the general and Commercial Taxes. He would state that for the receipt of each and every amount, the staff belonging to his office viz., D.C.T.O. and A.C.T.O. have to give receipt. P.W.5 is the Junior Assistant working and he was working under the accused on the relevant date. He speaks about Exs.P-7 and P-8 and also Ex.D-2. He speaks to the proceedings prepared by him on 110. 1987 on the instructions of the accused. He is the author of Ex.D-2, dated 10. 1987 in which the accused had signed. He has stated that on 110. 1987, the office peon brought the relevant file Ex.P-7 for preparing the note to deposit the amount with the State Bank of India. According to him, the note order was prepared to deposit the amount of Rs.500 with the State Bank of India in the name of P.W.1’s firm. P.W.6 is the message who claims that he had intimated P.W.1 On 10. 1987 on the instructions of the accused. P.Ws.7 and 9 are the witnesses who speak about the sanction order accorded by the authorities concerned under Ex.P-9 after having gone through the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and other materials. P.W.8 is me Court Clerk who sent the material objects M.Os.2 and 3 for chemical examination on the order of the Judicial Magistrate and received the chemical examiner’s report Ex.P-12, P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer who did the investigation in this case. 27. Lastly, it was contended by the learned senior counsel that Ex.P-9, the sanction order dated 27. P.W.8 is me Court Clerk who sent the material objects M.Os.2 and 3 for chemical examination on the order of the Judicial Magistrate and received the chemical examiner’s report Ex.P-12, P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer who did the investigation in this case. 27. Lastly, it was contended by the learned senior counsel that Ex.P-9, the sanction order dated 27. 1988 is not a valid document for the reasoning that it has not been granted by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras by applying his mind to the factual aspects the case in detail and for the non-application of the mind, the alleged sanction under Ex.P-9 is not a valid one and, therefore, the prosecution has to fall to the ground on this score. In support of this, learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Rajendran v. State by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, etc, (1995)2 L.W. (Crl.) 549, in which I had my preference to add the following: “Under Sec.6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, the sanctioning authority should necessarily apply its mind and get itself satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. The, prosecution has to prove this, in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. A case instituted without adopting the above referred legal concept and ingredients must necessarily fail. Though a report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption with a particular reference number has been referred in the column of reference and in paragraph six, and full and careful examination of the materials placed before the sanctioning authority was referred to, it is manifest and apparent that it is not known what are all the documents that have been relied upon by the Sanctioning Authority to arrive at the satisfaction and what are all the grounds of satisfaction are totally absent in this case. According of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosant act following the consideration of all the materials placed before him, not to be guided by extraneous considerations, which alone provides the protection to public servants against frivolous prosecutions and litigations. According of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosant act following the consideration of all the materials placed before him, not to be guided by extraneous considerations, which alone provides the protection to public servants against frivolous prosecutions and litigations. This requirement of law is necessarily incumbent upon the investigating agency, to be complied with, before launching prosecution against the person accused of the offence under the Act.” The above view of mine quoted in the cited case law was the following of the observations made in several cases in Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admin.), 1980 M.L.J. (Crl.) 73 (S.C.); Anand Sarup v. State, 1988 Crl.L.J. 756; Mohd.Iqbal Ahmad v. State of A.P., A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 677; Periyasamy v. Inspector, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 582; Har Bhamse Lal v. State of U.P., 1988 Crl.L.J.1122; Indu Bhushan Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 140; State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand, A.I.R., 1973 S.C. 2131 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Damodaran, 1992 Crl.L.J. 522 (S.C). 28. In the context of the above legal ratio, I have looked into the evidence of P.W.9 with regard to the according of sanction under Ex.P-9 on 27. 1988 P.W.9 speaks about the receipt of the request made for according sanction to prosecute the accused from the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras 23. 1988 appended with the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department containing the details of the case. He would add further that after having perused the statements of witnesses, copy of the first information report and copies of other documents sent to him and after being satisfied himself, he has accorded sanction to prosecutes the accused under Ex.P-9. In the context of the above evidence given by P.W.9, it has become relevant for me to extract Ex.P-9 in its verbatim, which runs an under: "CONFIDENTIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHEPAUK, MADRAS - 600005. PRESENT: THIRU N.KRISHNAMURTHY, I.A.S. Ref: 04/03/162613/87 Dated: 27. 1988. Sub: Public Services - Commercial Taxes Department-Demand and acceptance of bribe by Thiru. S.K.Aravamudhan, formerly Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi Sanction for prosecution in a Court of Law - Accorded. Ref: Report of the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras in Rc.55/87/CT/TI, dated 23. 1988. PRESENT: THIRU N.KRISHNAMURTHY, I.A.S. Ref: 04/03/162613/87 Dated: 27. 1988. Sub: Public Services - Commercial Taxes Department-Demand and acceptance of bribe by Thiru. S.K.Aravamudhan, formerly Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi Sanction for prosecution in a Court of Law - Accorded. Ref: Report of the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras in Rc.55/87/CT/TI, dated 23. 1988. "WHEREAS Thiru S.K.Aravamudhan was functioning as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi, during September and October, 1987 and he is a public servant. WHEREAS it is alleged that 6n 10. 1987, at the Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer at Tenkasi, Thiru S.K.Aravamudhan, demanded a sum of Rs.500 from Thiru Ayyadurai as gratification other man legal remuneration as a motive of reward for issue of Registration Certificate and General Sales Tax Number for the workshop of the said Ayyadurai and for reducing the amount to be remitted as deposit by him and accepted Rs.200 from Thiru Ayyadurai, for the said purpose. WHEREAS it is further alleged that in the course of the same transaction, on 110. 1987 at about 12 Noon at the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi, Thiru S.K. Aravamudhan, demanded a further sum of Rs.300 from the said Ayyadurai, as gratification other than legal remuneration for the said purpose and on 110. 1987 at his office at Tenkasi, at about 12 noon Thiru S.K. Aravamudhan, accepted a sum of Rs.300 from the said Ayyadurai, as gratification other than legal remuneration, for the said purpose. WHEREAS it is further alleged that in the course of the same transaction, on 10. 1987 and 110. 1987 at his office at Tenkasi, Thiru S.K.Aravamudhan, being a public servant, viz., Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi, corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position as such public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs;500 from Thiru Ayyadurai, under the circumstances mentioned above. WHEREAS the aforesaid acts constitute offences under Sec.161, I.P.C. and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. WHEREAS the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras has sought sanction for prosecution of the said Thiru S.K. Aravamudhan, before a Court of law for the said offences. WHEREAS the aforesaid acts constitute offences under Sec.161, I.P.C. and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. WHEREAS the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras has sought sanction for prosecution of the said Thiru S.K. Aravamudhan, before a Court of law for the said offences. WHEREAS I, Thiru N.Krishnamurthy, I.A.S., Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras-5 being the authority competent to remove the said S.K. Aravamudhan from office, after careful consideration of the materials placed before me in regard to the said allegations, am satisfied that the said S.K.Aravamudhan, should be prosecuted before a Court of law for the said offence. Now, therefore, I hereby accord sanction under Sec.6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act II of 1947), to prosecute the said Thiru S.K.Aravamudhan, before a Court of law for the said offences and for taking cognizance of the said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction." 29. A casual look and reading of the very contents of the document Ex.P-9 manifestly shows that it does not support the oral evidence of P.W.9. According to Sec.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, before amendment, according of sanction was provided by the Statute only for the purpose of perusing the entire documents by the authority concerned and to arrive at a conclusion that there are adequate grounds to prosecute a Government servant for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act which would also mean that the above provision was intended by the statute to prevent innocent persons from being prosecuted on the basis of frivolous complaints and to prevent the abuse of process of Court to rope in a Government servant, to the ordeal of the criminal prosecution. If this is the object underlying the decisions of the Apex Court in very many cases, then, the competent authority while according sanction to prosecute a Government servant must apply its mind in full to all the materials gathered, factual aspects submitted and culminating grounds for prosecuting such a Government servant and only after the identification of the full materials and grounds it has to accord sanction, otherwise, the sanction should not be accorded. .30. .30. A scrutiny of Ex.P-9 with reference to its verbatim contents does not disclose the consideration of any materials or grounds or other documents in detail which were perused by P.W.9 to have his mind applied for the identification of the grounds to accord the sanction for the prosecution of the accused. A mere mentioning of the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption without mentioning the detailed particulars and the names of the documents placed before him for his perusal to claim that he has applied his mind while according the sanction, is a far-fetched one and cannot at all be countenanced in the eye of law. As was held by the Apex Court, the according of sanction is a sacrosanct act and not an idle formality which was clearly intended to save the Government servant from prosecution him with fictitious and false grounds with a view to roping in criminal prosecution and the law on this score has now become well settled as referred to above. The reference noted under Ex.P-9 for perusal to accord the sanction was merely to the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and not even any other records. That being so, I am rather surprised to see the evidence of P.W.9 before the Box that he has looked into the copies of the first information report, other documents, materials and statements of witnesses produced before him while according sanction under Ex.P-9. While looking into the matter in this angle, I am of the firm view that the evidence of P.W.9 is merely an embellishment and to say all the more, it is a subsequent improvement spoken to by him in his oral evidence. The very fact that Ex.P-9 does not contain any of the materials or documents referred to by P.W.9 before the witness box goes to show the hollowness of the evidence of P.W.9. There is a vital inconsistency and direct conflict between the oral evidence of P.W.9 and the sanction order accorded by him under Ex.P-9. The very fact that Ex.P-9 does not contain any of the materials or documents referred to by P.W.9 before the witness box goes to show the hollowness of the evidence of P.W.9. There is a vital inconsistency and direct conflict between the oral evidence of P.W.9 and the sanction order accorded by him under Ex.P-9. The resultant position of this conflict would clearly invalidate the evidence of P.W.9 and that therefore, after having considered the full gamut of the same, I am constrained to hold that the sanction order Ex.P-9 made available in this case is not a valid one and accordingly, the Court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence against the accused and thus, I have to endorse my view with the contention raised by the learned senior counsel in this regard. On this score alone, the prosecution must fail. 31. Coming to the nature of the defence taken by the accused in this case, I have to refer to the defence theory projected by and on behalf of the accused. It was the specific case of the accused that he never received the amount of Rs.200 from P.W. 1 on 10. 1987, nor he asked the witness to come and meet him on 110. 1987. In short, the response by the accused with regard tot he alleged overt act on 10. 1987 is one of a total denial. As I have already observed, to substantiate the entire overt act alleged to have happened on 10. 1987, there is no independent or corroborating evidence except P.W.1. It is the specific case of the accused that on 10. 1987 itself P.W. 1 has given a written statement which has been marked as Ex.D-1 and the contents of which are extracted as under: Taken down by me read by the deponent and admitted by him to be correct. Sd. S.K. Aravamudhan, 10. 1987 Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi. The accused admitted this document and it was claimed by him that on 10. 1987 itself he visited the factory. The accused further claimed that P.W.1 furnished the estimate of the business turn-over and the investment and the statement of P.W.1 was reduced into writing and after having read over the same, P.W. 1 admitted it as correct and put his signature. 1987 itself he visited the factory. The accused further claimed that P.W.1 furnished the estimate of the business turn-over and the investment and the statement of P.W.1 was reduced into writing and after having read over the same, P.W. 1 admitted it as correct and put his signature. This document produced by the accused is marked as Ex.D-1 It is not the case of P.W.1 either before the investigating Officer or before the trial court that this document was not given by him, nor his signature was obtained by coercion or undue influence. The whole contents of Ex.D-1 were written by the accused to the narration of P.W. 1 and it is noticed further that after having read over, the same, P.W. 1 accepted it as correct and subscribed his signature with his own pen, in different ink. The very fact that the contents of Ex.D-1 are found in green ink and the signature is found in different ink would clinch, the fact of contribution made by the accused as well as P.W. 1 with regard to Ex.P-1. In so far as the genuineness and validity of the document is concerned, it has not been disputed or controverted particularly by P.W. 1 and so, this document with its contents must be presumed to be genuine and valid and as such I am fully constrained to believe the document as true and the contents of the same were fully given by P.W.1. 32. Ex.D-2, another document marked on behalf of the accused assumes much significance and throws light upon the case, the contends of which are extracted as under: “ROC.B.5/3610/67. Submitted. Inspected the place of business of Royal Fibres at 45-A Mela Avani Moola Veethi, Tenkasi. They are manufacturing coconut fibre at Kuthukkal Valasai. There are three partners in the business. One of the partner Thiru S.R. Ayyadurai is having landed property at Kuthukkal Valasai worth about Rs.15,000. They have invested a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the business. A security deposit of Rs.500 is fixed. Sd S.K.Aravamudhan, 10. 1987. D.C.T.O.” P.W.5, Office Assistant of the accused would speak to the preparation of this document on 10. 1987 itself signed by the accused. It is thus seen that the accused as well as P.W.5 are speaking about this document Ex.D-2. A security deposit of Rs.500 is fixed. Sd S.K.Aravamudhan, 10. 1987. D.C.T.O.” P.W.5, Office Assistant of the accused would speak to the preparation of this document on 10. 1987 itself signed by the accused. It is thus seen that the accused as well as P.W.5 are speaking about this document Ex.D-2. If this document is true, it is noticed that the accused inspected the place of business belonging to P.Ws.1 and 3 at Avani Moola Veethi, Tenkasi on 10. 1987 itself and the security deposit amount has been fixed at Rs.500, on that date itself. If the security deposit was quantified on 10. 1987 itself, then a question that arises is what was the need or occasion for the accused to demand the bribe on that day i.e., on 10. 1987, for P.W.1 to pay a sum of Rs.200 and for further bribe of Rs.300 to be paid on 110. 1987 as claimed by the prosecution. At this juncture, the evidence of P.W. 1 has become more relevant to refer to the proceedings to pay the deposit amount of Rs.500 with State Bank of India. According to P.W.5, the proceedings were prepared by P.W.5 at the specific instructions of the accused on 110. 1987. It was the claim of P.W.10 that a sum of Rs.300 M.O.1 series was recovered from the accused as it was taken from the left side table drawer of the accused. The admission of the accused that at about 12.00 noon on 110. 1987, P.W.1 came and placed the money, M.O.1 series and left out immediately, would probables in all the four the case of the accused that he kept the money in the drawer just to deposit after accounting it in Ex.P-7 proceedings, but, in the meanwhile, P.W.10 and his convoy came and recovered the money. One another circumstance which probabilises the case of the accused is that Exs.D-1, D-2, P-7 and its connected register P-8 were recovered from the custody of the accused immediately after the so-called trap was over by P.W. 10. It is the admitted case of the prosecution also. That being so, the very contention projected by Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel that what was paid by P.W.1 on 110. It is the admitted case of the prosecution also. That being so, the very contention projected by Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel that what was paid by P.W.1 on 110. 1987 is not at all a bribe money to the accused, but towards the part of the security deposit found referred to in Ex.D-2, and that therefore, all the charges framed against the accused and found convicted after the trial are not correct and erroneous. After having carefully considered the oral evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 on the hand and the defence theory on the other hand in the context of Ex.P-1, written complaint, Exs.D-1 and D-2 documents and Ex.P-7 proceedings prepared by P.W.5 to make the deposit into the State Bank of India on 110. 1987,I am fully satisfied to hold that what was paid by P.W.1 at about 12.00 noon on 110. 1987 is not all the bribe money, but only the payment made towards the security deposit as referred to in Ex.D-2. Of course, it was true that the accused has denied the receipt of Rs.200 on 10. 1987, but for all reasonings given above, it is for the prosecution to prove the payment of the said amount to the accused, for which there is practically no evidence at all except the suspicious conduct and attitude of P.W.1. In short to say, the presumption arises under Sec.4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act before amendment, would not be made available in favour of the prosecution and for the said reasoning, the accused must be given the maximum benefit of doubts about referred to. After carefully considering the whole gamut of the case, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the realm of doubt for the offences charged and tried. 33. I have gone through the impugned judgment rendered by the learned special Judge very meticulously. It is well settled by now that the Court of law is not bound to be carried away on the basis of mere surmises, conjectrues and imaginary things, but bound to proceed and act upon only on the legal and legal evidence alone and not otherwise. It is well settled by now that the Court of law is not bound to be carried away on the basis of mere surmises, conjectrues and imaginary things, but bound to proceed and act upon only on the legal and legal evidence alone and not otherwise. The preponderance of improbabilities established by the adduced evidence in this case as a whole would render full support to the defence theory, and in particular the documentary evidence, Exs.D-1, D-2 and P-7 and the oral evidence P.Ws.4 and 5 and D.W.1 support the defence theory. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 3 stands merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Accordingly, I am fully satisfied to hold that the learned trial Judge has totally over-looked all the abovesaid legal aspects of the oral and documentary evidence and as such, the various finding and observations given by the learned Judge are not correct, in my respectful view and that therefore, the impugned judgment rendered by him has to suffer in its entirety. 34. In the result, the appeal succeeds and accordingly, it is allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Special Judge-cum-chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli in S.P.L. Case No.3 of 1988 dated 112. 1988 against the accused is hereby set aside, and the accused/ appellant is acquitted forthwith. The fine amount paid if any is hereby ordered to be refunded to the accused/ appellant immediately.