Judgment : This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, dated 21.9.1990 in Special Case No.1 of 1985. 2. Both the accused herein stood charged under Sec.5(1)(d) read with Sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and under Sec.161, I.P.C. 3. The first appellant employed as Taluk Supply Officer is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.500 as illegal gratification from P.W.1 on 12.3.1984 at 9.00 a.m. at his house at Sirkaii and again on16.3.1984 at 7.00 a.m. demanded another sum of Rs.1,200 of which Rs.1,000 was to be given to him and Rs.200 to be given to the Head Clerk for the purpose of recommending his petition for the issue of licence to run the mill”Kanagaiakshmi Rice Mill“at Koothayampettai” in his name and that in pursuance of the demand he had accepted Rs.500 at 7.30 a.m. on 18.3.1984 at his residence at Sirkali. It is further alleged that on or about the same day, the first appellant during the course of the same transaction being a public servant by illegal and corrupt means abusing his position as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.500 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.161, I.P.C. and under Sec.5(1) read with Sec.5(2) of the Act. 4. The second appellant employed as Head Clerk in the office of the Taluk Supply Officer, Sirkaii. was charged on the allegation that he demanded a sum of Rs.200 as illegal gratification from P.W.1 on 16.3.1984 at the office of the Taluk Supply Officer, Sirkaii, for taking speedy action on the petition given by P.W.1. and accepted a sum of Rs.200 from him on 18.3.1984 at the residence of the second appellant and that being a public servant by corrupt and illegal means had obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.200 as illegal gratification and thereby committed offence under Sec.161, I.P.C. andunder Sec.5(1)(d) read with Sec.5(2) of the Act. 5. The case of the prosecution is that the elder brother of P.W.1 died on 2.2.1982, that P.W.1 alongwith the wife of his elder brother Nagalakshmi were residing at the same house as a joint family, and that after the death of his elder brother, P.W.1 was looking after the family. 5. The case of the prosecution is that the elder brother of P.W.1 died on 2.2.1982, that P.W.1 alongwith the wife of his elder brother Nagalakshmi were residing at the same house as a joint family, and that after the death of his elder brother, P.W.1 was looking after the family. The Rice Mill, in respect of which the licence was held by the elder brother of P.W.1 had to be changed in the name of P.W.1 and the said Nagalakshmi had given a letter of consent in favour of P.W.1. Thereupon P.W.1 had submitted the application for transfer of the licence in his favour to the Taluk Supply Officer on 30.11.1982. Subsequently as required by the said office, he has submitted the statement of Nagalakshmi as well as legal heir certificate. It is further stated that he has also paid Rs.200 for obtaining National Savings Certificate and had deposited a sum of Rs.20 towards security deposit. He had sent reminders and as there was no proper reply from the office, on 12.3.1984 he had gone to the Taluk Supply Office, Sirkaii and later, he had gone to the residence of the first accused on 12.3.1984, and that the first accused had demanded Rs.500 as a consideration for recommending the certificate in favour of P.W.1. P.W.1 further states that he had gone to the house of the first accused alongwith one Balu and on the next day on 13.3.1984 he went to the office of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur at about 4.30 a.m. and met the Superintendent of Police. He is said to have given the complaint Ex.P-5 to the Superintendent of Police. Thereupon, the Superintendent of Police is said to have requested for the service of the official witnesses and at about 8.30 p.m. they have come to the said office and introduced P.W.1 to P.W.2 Dhakshinamoorthy and one Tajudeen who are the said official witnesses. They were asked to go through the complaint given by P.W.1 and on enquiry P.W.1 agreed that he had given such a statement and that the accused had demanded illegal gratification as stated by him. Thereafter, he produced five Rs.100 notes over which phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled and the witnesses were informed about the procedure relating to the phenolphthalein test. They were asked to go through the complaint given by P.W.1 and on enquiry P.W.1 agreed that he had given such a statement and that the accused had demanded illegal gratification as stated by him. Thereafter, he produced five Rs.100 notes over which phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled and the witnesses were informed about the procedure relating to the phenolphthalein test. It is further alleged that at about 4.00 p.m. they left Thanjavur in a jeep, after reaching Sirkaii the Superintendent of Police informed P.W.1., that both the official witnesses will accompany him and that he was also given a tape-recorder which was to be used for recording the conversation with the first accused. They reached Sirkali at 7.30 a.m. and went to the house of the first accused at 8.00 a.m. Before they went inside the house, they switched on the taperecorder and it is alleged that the wife of the first accused informed that the first accused was not available and that they were asked to come back at 10.00 a.m. Thereafter, again they went at 10.00 a.m. and that P.W.1 accompanied with Balu went inside the house of the first accused. It is further stated that P.W.1 requested the accused to expeditiously send the papers relating to his application and the first accused had replied that he has not seen the file and had asked the accused to pay a sum of Rs.500 at the office towards Small Scale Savings and instruct the office to send the file to his house. Thereafter, it is alleged that P.W.1 went to the office of the Taluk Supply Officer and on 14.3.1984 he met the Head Clerk, the second accused and gave him Rs.100. On being told about the instructions of the first accused the second accused had told that he will send the file in due course and that P.W.1 alongwith others had returned to the Travellers Bungalow at Sirkali. There the Superintendent of Police was informed about the happenings and that the cassette from the tape-recorder was also removed and marked by the Superintendent of Police. Ex.P-7 Mahazar was also prepared for having received the cassette. There the Superintendent of Police was informed about the happenings and that the cassette from the tape-recorder was also removed and marked by the Superintendent of Police. Ex.P-7 Mahazar was also prepared for having received the cassette. On the next day, one Muniandi Thevar (P.W.3) is said to have met P.W.1 and they had met the first accused, and that the first accused had told them to bring Rs.1,200 and accordingly on 16.3.1984 it is alleged that P.W.1 went to the house of the first accused at about 8.00 a.m. Before he went he had taken the tape-recorder with him and switched on before meeting the first accused. It is further alleged that the first accused had demanded the money and that the first accused insisted that he should be paid Rs.1,000 whereupon P.W.1 had stated that he will not be able to give the said amount and that P.W.1. was asked to give Rs.500 as a first instalment and then later to give the balance of Rs.700. The first accused is alleged to have asked P.W.1 to come to his house with the said amount at 8.00 a.m. on the next day. 6. It is further stated that at about 10.00 a.m. on the next day P.W.1 went to the office of the Taluk Supply Officer and met the second accused and had informed him about what had transpired between himself and the first accused. He is said to have gone to the office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at 4.00 p.m. and had informed him about what has happened earlier. The conversation said to have taken place between himself, and the second accused is said to have been recorded in the tape-recorder and Ex.P-8 is the said Mahazar relating to the alleged handing over of the cassette relating to the said conversation. It is further stated that two official witnesses were summoned and they were requested to peruse the complaint as against the second accused and they were also given instructions relating to the phenolphthalein test. On the five Rs.100 notes and also two more 100 rupee notes which were meant for being handed over to the second accused were also subjected to sprinkling of phenolphthalein powder. Ex.P-9 is the Mahazar. On the five Rs.100 notes and also two more 100 rupee notes which were meant for being handed over to the second accused were also subjected to sprinkling of phenolphthalein powder. Ex.P-9 is the Mahazar. P.W.1 was informed that when he goes to the house of the first accused, P.W.2 would accompany him and that when he goes to the house of the second accused, P.W.4 would accompany him as a trap witness. The prosecution party left Thanjavur and reached Sirkali at 7.30 a.m. and first went to the house of the first accused at about 8.00 a.m. The first accused is alleged to have been available in the house and that on enquiry he had introduced P.W.2 as his brother-in-law. P.W.1 had introduced P.W.2 and that on demand he had given Rs.500 to the first accused, and that after handing over all the currency notes he had come out and had given a signal to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was waiting outside. Thereafter, the said officials are said to have entered the house of the first accused. P.W.1 further states that thereafter he went to the house of the second accused and the second accused was available at the house when he reached there alongwith P.W.4. The second accused is said to have demanded money, and that after receiving the currency notes. P.W.1 had asked for water to drink and the second accused went inside the house. Thereupon, P.W.1 is to have come out of the house and given a signal to the officials and the officials had immediately come inside. The second accused is said to have admitted about hiding the amount and had wrapped it in a towel and put in in the glove box of his vehicle TVS 50 which was parked on the verandah of the house of the second accused. It is further alleged that on seeing the officials, the second accused washed of his hand by using water from the hand-pump which was on the front side of the house. P.W.1 would further state that the officials caught hold of the hands of the second accused and subjecting his hands for phenolphthalein test by dipping his hands in sodium carbonate mixture it was found that the mixture turned into pink colour. Thereafter the mixture was filled up in two bottles. P.W.1 would further state that the officials caught hold of the hands of the second accused and subjecting his hands for phenolphthalein test by dipping his hands in sodium carbonate mixture it was found that the mixture turned into pink colour. Thereafter the mixture was filled up in two bottles. On being asked about money, the second accused is said to have taken the money from the glove box of TVS 50. Ex.P-10 is the Mahazar regarding verification of the numbers in the currency notes. Thereafter, P.W.1 is said to have gone to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and had handed over the cassette which was used for recording the conversation on 18.3.1984. 7. P.W.2 who is the official witness pertaining to the trap which was conducted at the house of the first accused. P.W.4 Sathyamoorthy is the official witness relating to the trap proceedings conducted in respect of the second accused. P.W.3 Muniandi Thevar who is said to have accompanied P.W.1 to the house of the first accused, turned hostile, and he has been treated as a hostile witness. P.W.4 is the Assistant Engineer attached to the Public Works Department, Thanjavur, and he is the official witness relating to the trap proceedings, as against the second accused. P.W.9 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police of office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. P.W.10 is the Inspector in the office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. He has spoken to about the alleged arrest of the accused and about recording of statement of P.W.4 under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. 8. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against the accused as stated above. 9. In this case, Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has sought to question the validity of the order of sanction issued for the prosecution of both the first and the second accused. Ex.P-14 pertains to the sanction order issued by the District Collector, Thanjavur with reference to the first accused and Ex.P-16 is the sanction order issued by the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur with reference to the second accused. In Ex.P-14, the preamble of the order refers to the report of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and also other connected records. Ex.P-14 pertains to the sanction order issued by the District Collector, Thanjavur with reference to the first accused and Ex.P-16 is the sanction order issued by the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur with reference to the second accused. In Ex.P-14, the preamble of the order refers to the report of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and also other connected records. After going through the details of the allegations against the accused the Sanctioning Authority has recorded as below: “And whereas I, T.R.Ramaswamy, District Collector, Thanjavur being the authority competent to remove the said Thiru A.Sankaranarayanan from office, after duly and carefully examining the materials before me in regard to the said allegation and the circumstances of the case, consider that the said Thiru A.Sankaranarayanan, should be prosecuted in a court of law for the said offence. Now therefore I do hereby accord sanction under Sec.6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) for the prosecution of the said Thiru A.Sankaranarayanan, for the said offences and for taking cognizance of the said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Similarly, in Ex.P-16 in the preamble portion reference is made to the report of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and other connected records after giving details of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused. The Sanctioning Authority has passed his order as below: “And, whereas, I, K.S.Krishnasamy, M.A. District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, being the authority competent to remove the said Thiru K. Krishnamurthy, from office, after duly and carefully examining the materials before me in regard to said allegation and the circumstances of the case, consider that the said Thiru K. Krishnamurthy should be prosecuted in a court of law for the said offences. Now, therefore, I do hereby accord sanction under Sec.6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947), for the prosecution of the said accused for the said offences and for taking cognizance of the said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Learned Senior Counsel contends that a mere statement by the Sanctioning Authority that he was satisfied on the basis of the materials produced before him that the concerned accused should be prosecuted alone will not be sufficient and that there must be a reference to the actual materials produced before him and that the sanctioning order should also disclose the salient materials which led to the satisfaction of the Sanctioning Authority. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Mohd Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. Mohd Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. , A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 677. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has held that it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. Learned Senior Counsel has also relied on at least three judgments of this Court rendered by N.Arumugham, J. in the following reported cases: (1) Charles Waker Devadas v. State by the Inspector of Police, etc. Charles Waker Devadas v. State by the Inspector of Police, etc. 1993 L.W. (Crl.) 346. (2) Rajendran v. State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Rajendran v. State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption [1995] 2 L.W. (Crl.) 549. (3) Ayyasamy. On the basis of the said judgments learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contends that the Sanctioning Authority granting sanction merely by narrating substratum of allegations without applying its mind would render the order of the sanction invalid. However, learned Public Prosecutor has referred to one of the latest judgments rendered by the Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996)1 S. C. C. (Crl. However, learned Public Prosecutor has referred to one of the latest judgments rendered by the Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996)1 S. C. C. (Crl. ) 63.With reference to the facts relating to the said judgment, the sanction order merely stated that whereas the Government of Maharashtra having fully examined the material before it and considering all the facts and circumstances disclosed therein, was satisfied that there was a prima facie case made out against the accused person and that it was necessary in the interest of justice that the accused person should be prosecuted in the court. The High Court expressed that there was nothing in the order of sanction to indicate as to whether the signatory or any other officer on his part had personally scrutinised the file and arrived at a subjective satisfaction that hence the order of sanction was invalid. Disagreeing with the said view of the High Court, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “Another reason as given by the High Court for quashing the sanction was that the order of sanction was signed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, but”there is nothing in this order to indicate as to whether the signatory or any other officer on his part was the one who had personally scrutinised the file and arrived at a subjective satisfaction that is a legal pre-requisite.“We do not find any warrant, in law, which requires a statement being made, while according sanction that the officer signing the order had personally scrutinised the file and had arrived at the required satisfaction. In the preamble of the said order, it is categorically stated”and whereas the Government of Maharashtra having fully examined the material before it and considering all the facts and circumstances disclosed herein, is satisfied that there is a prima facie case made out against the accused person and that it is necessary in the interest of justice that the accused person should be prosecuted in the court of competent jurisdiction for the said offence….” This prima facie shows that there has been an application of mind and that the material on record has been examined by the concerned officers before according sanction. In view of the aforesaid, there was absolutely no justification for the learned Judge to observe that any such statement, as indicated by him, was required to be made in the order. The learned single Judge made observations to the effect that the manner in which the sanction order had been passed would show that a ‘rather cavalier treatment’ has been meted out in the present case. We do not see any justification for the court making such observations in the present case because the perusal of the order of sanction does not show any legal infirmity and such remarks by the Judge were clearly uncalled for.” Therefore, keeping in mind that ruling of the Supreme Court as mentioned above, in both Ex.P-14 Ex.P-16 reference is made to the report as well as the connected records, a detailed reference to the allegations made against the accused are also contained in the order of sanction and the Sanctioning Authority has also stated that he considered that the respective accused should be prosecuted in a court of law for the said offences after having duly and carefully examined the materials placed before him. Therefore, the court holds that the essential requirements of a valid sanction order is available in both Exs.P-14 and P-16, and hence the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel in the said context are rejected. 10. Coming to the merits of the appeal even though this is a trap case in which recovery of currency notes is allegedly made against both the accused, it has to be examined as to whether the substantive evidence as against the accused is sufficient to sustain the conviction. It is settled law that mere recovery of the amount alleged to have been used for trapping the accused will not suffice to prove all the allegations against the accused. In Suraj Mal v. State. Suraj Mal v. State. 1980 M. L. J. (Crl. ) 73, the Supreme Court has made it clear that mere recovery of money ignoring the circumstances under which it was paid was not sufficient when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable. The Delhi High Court has also expressed on the same lines in the judgment reported in Anand Sarup v. State Anand Sarup v. State 1988 Crl.L.J. 756. 11. The Delhi High Court has also expressed on the same lines in the judgment reported in Anand Sarup v. State Anand Sarup v. State 1988 Crl.L.J. 756. 11. In this case, there are several factors which cast considerable doubts on the version of the prosecution, and also lead to the conclusion that the allegations against the accused have not been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. 12. The complainant in this case is P.W.1 and as regards the recovery of money from the first accused, P.W.2 has been examined as the official witness to corroborate the trap proceedings against the first accused and P.W.4 has been examined as the official witness to corroborate the evidence relating to the trap as against the second accused. The prosecution also mainly relies on tape-recorder conversation which is alleged to have been recorded during the conversation between P.W.1 andthe first accused and the second accused along with other official witnesses. In this case there are several circumstances which indicate that it is not safe to accept the evidence tendered through the tape-recorder. Exs.P-20 to P-24 have been filed as the transcript of the taperecorded conversation on various dates. It is stated that the conversations were recorded on various dates namely, 14.3.1984, 16.3.1984, 17.3.1984 and 18.3.1984. The reasons for doubting the genuineness of the alleged tape-recorder conversation is as follows: (a) Strangely the cassettes were allowed to remain with P.W.1 even though they were recorded on different dates. Ultimately all the recorded cassettes were taken custody by P.W.9, the investigating officer only on 18.3.1984 being the last day on which the conversations were recorded. It is the clear evidence of P.W.9 that all the cassettes were taken custody by him only on the same day namely, on 18.3.1984. On the other hand, it is the positive evidence of P.W.1 that the cassettes recorded on different dates were handed over to the investigating officer on the very same day whenever the recording was effected. In fact, Ex.P-7 Mahazar has been field to show that the investigating officer took custody of the tape-recorded cassette on 14.3.1984 on the very same day. Ex.P-8 is the Mahazar for taking custody of the cassette alleged to have been recorded on 17.3.1984 on the very same date at about 17 hours. The recitals in both the Mahazars read as though P.W.9 had taken the custody of cassette on the respective dates. Ex.P-8 is the Mahazar for taking custody of the cassette alleged to have been recorded on 17.3.1984 on the very same date at about 17 hours. The recitals in both the Mahazars read as though P.W.9 had taken the custody of cassette on the respective dates. It is strange that the evidence of the investigating officer is completely inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.1 apart from totally belying Mahazars Exs.P-7 and P-8. This only leads to the irresistible conclusion that the cassette was allowed to be in the custody of P.W.1 for more than four or five days. The very genuineness of the Mahazars Ex.P-7 and P-8 are also rendered doubtful. (b) On the first occassion when P.Ws.1 and 2 are alleged to have gone to the house of the first accused at about 8.00 a.m. on 14.3.1984, it is stated that they were informed by the wife of the first accused that the first accused was not in the house, that he will come only after some time. It is admitted by both P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the tape-recorder was switched on and that the conversation with the wife of the first accused had been recorded. P.W.2 has positively deposed that the conversation was recorded in the cassette. But a perusal of the transcript of the recorded conversation discloses that the alleged conversation is totally absent. (C) A perusal of the transcript of the recorded conversation also discloses that on several places the recording was not clear. It is repeatedly stated that most of the parts of the conversation alleged to have been made by the first accused was “not clear”. The conversation alleged to have been recorded on 18.3.1984 is the most crucial portion of the recorded conversation, on which date the first accused is alleged to have been paid the bribe money. It is very strange to observe that while most of the wordings alleged to have been spoken to by P.W.1 are recorded clearly and whereas most of the statements which are alleged to have been made by the first accused is noted as “not clear”. (d) Even the transcript as exhibited before the court, a reading of it does not appear to implicate the accused in a convincing manner. (d) Even the transcript as exhibited before the court, a reading of it does not appear to implicate the accused in a convincing manner. In fact, in most of the portions of the transcript the first accused, it has been stated that he cannot do any favour to P.W.1 if the other records produced by him like the legal heir certificate is not proper. The first accused has also repeatedly expressed that if there was no proper material to substantiate the claim the legal heir of the deceased brother of P.W.1 and that he cannot help if the materials produced before him are not clear. 13. Therefore, having regard to the above features I am of the view that it is not safe to place any reliance on the tape-recorded conversation filed before the court. It is also seen that the transcriptions of the tape-recorded conversation has been recorded in the presence of PWs.l and 2 land filed as exhibits. It is not stated as to how they identified the voice of the accused. It is only P.W.1 who has identified the voice. Nor does it appear to be a proper procedure to identify the voice of the accused. 14. In Yusufalli v. State of Maharashtra Yusufalli v. State of Maharashtra (1968) 1 S.C.J. 511: A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 147the Supreme Court has held that though the tape record of a statement is relevant and admissible, the time and place and accuracy of the recording must be proved by a competent witness and the voices also must be properly identified. The Supreme Court has taken into account one of the features of the magnetic tape recording is the ability to erase and re-use the recording medium, and that because of the said facility of eraser and re-use the evidence must be received with caution. The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record had not been tampered with. 15. In R. M. Malkani v. State Maharashtra R. M. Malkani v. State Maharashtra A.I.R 1973 S.C. 157: [1973] 1 S.C.C 471: 1973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 359: 1973 Crl.L.J. 228, the Supreme Court has again expressed caution in accepting the evidence proved through a tape recorder, having regard to the fact that there was always the possibility of erasures of the tape. In R. M. Malkani v. State Maharashtra R. M. Malkani v. State Maharashtra A.I.R 1973 S.C. 157: [1973] 1 S.C.C 471: 1973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 359: 1973 Crl.L.J. 228, the Supreme Court has again expressed caution in accepting the evidence proved through a tape recorder, having regard to the fact that there was always the possibility of erasures of the tape. The fact that the conversation can be altered must also be borne in mind by the court while admitting it in evidence. In Mahabir Prasad v. Surinder Kaur Mahabir Prasad v. Surinder Kaur , (1981)2 S.C.C. 258: (1982)1 S.C.J. 362: A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1043, the Supreme Court has pointed out that the tape-recorded conversation can be relied on only as corroborative evidence and that in the absence of other evidence, the tape-recorded conversation was not proper evidence and cannot be relied upon. Having regard to the cautions thus expressed by the Suprme Court and taking into account the circumstances pointed out above with reference to the quality of tape-recorded evidence adduced in the present case, I am of the view that it is not safe to rely upon the transcript of evidence tendered in the above case in Exs.P-20 to P-24. 16. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1. who is the complainant against both the accused, the antecedents of P.W.1. necessarily requires the court to adopt a careful examination of the evidence tendered by him. It has been brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.1. that he does not appear to be an innocent or a reliable person whose evidence can be accepted without any suspicion. It is brought out in the cross-examination that he has been frequently indulging in similar complaints against the public officials whenever he had any occasion to deal them, which are as follows: (i) In the cross-examination he has admitted that he had earlier given a complaint against the Deputy Tahsildar of Chidambaram, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chidambaram, on an allegation of corruption against the said official, (ii) He has also given a compliant against one Premalatha, Revenue Inspector, Sirkali, alleging that she had accepted bribe of Rs.25 for granting legal heir certificate. He has admitted to have filed O.S.No.29 of 1984 before the civil court at Sirkali and the suit was dismissed. He has admitted to have filed O.S.No.29 of 1984 before the civil court at Sirkali and the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by him was not pressed, (iii) He has also admitted that he had filed a suit in O.S.No.302 of 1981 before the District Munsifs Court, Chidambaram against one Raghupathy Naidu claiming a sum of Rs.5,555 as due towards the rental charges for the oil engine alleged to have been given to him. Even P.W.1 at the first instant contended that the appeal filed by Raghupathy Naidu was rejected, the witness later went back on his earlier statement and said that the suit was rejected after compromise. (iv) P.W.1 has also admitted that he filed a suit against the Chidambaram Municipality regarding the demolition of an illegal encroachment made by him over the land belonging to the Municipality and that O.S.No.287 of 1978 filed by him claiming damages was rejected and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed. 17. The above facts disclose that P.W.1 appears to be a person who revels in giving frequent complaints against officials who do not obliged him and appears to be a seasoned court bird whose evidence has to be scrutinised very carefully. 18. P.W.1 has stated that on giving the complaint to the office of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption his complaint was recorded (Ex.P-5) and that on the same day namely, 13.3.1984 both P.W.2 andTajudeen, two official witnesses had come to the office of the Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at about 8.30 p.m. on the same night. The evidence of both P.W.2 as well as the investigating officer disclose that for the first time P.W.1 was introduced to P.W.2 and Tajudeen only at 4.00 p.m. on the following date. There is absolutely no explanation on the side of the prosecution as regards the said contradiction. If P.W.1s evidence is to be accepted, it would only lead to the irresistible conclusion that prosecution witnesses the evidence of official witnesses cannot be accepted and that all the prosecution witnesses have been conspiring together to frame up the accused. 19. As stated earlier, on the first occasion P.W.1 had gone to the house of the first accused along with P.W.2 on 14.3.1984. They are supposed to have met the wife of the first accused and she is alleged to have stated that her husband was not immediately available. 19. As stated earlier, on the first occasion P.W.1 had gone to the house of the first accused along with P.W.2 on 14.3.1984. They are supposed to have met the wife of the first accused and she is alleged to have stated that her husband was not immediately available. The conversation with the wife of the first accused is said to have been recorded in the cassette, but curiously has not been produced before the court. 20. P.W.1s evidence also clearly shows that on 14.3.1984 and 17.3.1984 when he had met the first accused, the first accused had not demanded any money and therefore, money was not paid to the first accused. This is the admitted case of the prosecution and if really the first accused was anxious to receive any bribe from P.W.1. there is no reason why he had not demanded for the amount on the said dates. In fact P.W.1 has admitted that he did not pay the amount on 14.3.1984 since the first accused did not ask for the amount. It is totally unbelievable that the first accused did not demand for the amount even though according to P. W.1 he was asked to meet the first accused on that date with the expectation that P.W.1 should pass on the bribe amount to the first accused. 21. There is yet another circumstance which lends considerable doubts regarding the activity of the prosecution witnesses on 14th, when there the first attempt was made to pay the bribe amount to the first accused as per Ex.P-6 Mahazar prepared on that date. The following are the numbers of the currency notes which were kept ready to be handed over to the first accused: (1) 2FC 520089 (2) 2FC 547503 (3) 2FC 547504 (4) 2FC 547505 (5) 2FC 547506 It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that on the second occasion when the trap was laid on 18.3.1984 he had made use of same currency notes which were kept ready on 14.3.1984. But strangely at least two currency notes which were made use on 18.3.1984 were totally different. They are as follows: (1) 4BV 703818 (2) IDE 253753 (3) 2FC 547503 (4) 2FC 547504 (5) 2FC 547505 Therefore, at least two currency notes differ and there is no explanation from the prosecution as to how the said two currency notes came to be changed. They are as follows: (1) 4BV 703818 (2) IDE 253753 (3) 2FC 547503 (4) 2FC 547504 (5) 2FC 547505 Therefore, at least two currency notes differ and there is no explanation from the prosecution as to how the said two currency notes came to be changed. It is true that the alleged recovery from the first accused as evidenced under Mahazar Ex.P-12 would correspond to the five currency notes for which Ex.P9 have been prepared before entrustment to the first accused. But having regard to the evidence of P. W.1 that the very same currency notes which were kept ready on 14th were made use of on the second occasion also, leads to casting doubts on the various activities of the prosecution witnesses. 22. The only witness who speaks in support of P.W.1 with reference to the first accused is P.W.2 who is the official trap witness. Having regard to the fact that he has been a party to the entire transaction including Exs.P-7 and P-8 Mahazars under which the cassette of the tape are said to have been taken custody of by the investigating officer on the respective dates themselves a fact which is completely disproved by the evidence of the investigating officer himself, leads to the conclusion that the evidence of the said person cannot be accepted without a further corroboration. The fact that P.W.1 had positively stated that P.W.2 was introduced to P.W.1 on the night of 13.3.1984 itself leads to the inference that both P.W.1 and 2 had dealings known only to themselves. As stated earlier it is not understandable as to why there should be a contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and the other official witnesses as to when exactly both of them had met each other for the first time. 23. Coming to the case of the second accused, the prosecution is in a worse position than that of the first accused. All the defects pointed out above with reference to the alleged tape-recorded conversation would apply equally in favour of second accused also. Ex.P-24 is the transcript of the tape-recorded conversation alleged to have been recorded on 18.3.1984 as between P.W. 1 and the second accused. A perusal of the said transcript does not lead to any proof of either any demand for Rs.200 by the second accused or any payment of the said amount to him. 24. Ex.P-24 is the transcript of the tape-recorded conversation alleged to have been recorded on 18.3.1984 as between P.W. 1 and the second accused. A perusal of the said transcript does not lead to any proof of either any demand for Rs.200 by the second accused or any payment of the said amount to him. 24. It is also pertinent to note that the chemical report Ex.P-15 pertaining to phenolphthalein test conducted with reference to the solution sent for test pertaining to the second accused. The report clearly states that in item Nos.3 and 4 phenolphthalein test was not detected. But sodium carbonate was detected in all the five items. Item Nos.3, 4 and 5 pertain to the solution sent for test in the context of the recovery made from the second accused. There is no proper explanation from the prosecution as regards the failure of phenoplhthalein test with reference to the second accused. In order to get over the negative result from the chemical examiner, P.W.1 would state that immediately after seeing the officials he pumped the water from the hand-pump on the veranda of the house of the second accused and after pumping water he washed his hands. According to P.W.4 who is corroborating the official trap witness, the second accused is said to have gone inside the house and when he came out his hands were wet. It is obvious that both P.Ws.2 and 4 have chosen to speak falsehood in an attempt to explain the negative chemical report. Similarly the allegation against the second accused is that he had placed money in glove box of his TVS 50 vehicle after wrapping it in a cover. The evidence of P.W.1 is that immediately after the officials came into the house of the second accused on being demanded by the investigating officers, the first accused himself took the amount from the glove box of TVS 50 and handed over it to the officials. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.4 is that the investigating officer himself took the amount from the TVS 50 moped. He would further state that when enquired by the officials the second accused simply kept quite and did not give any reply and that there upon the Inspector himself took the amount from the glove box of TVS 50. He would further state that when enquired by the officials the second accused simply kept quite and did not give any reply and that there upon the Inspector himself took the amount from the glove box of TVS 50. This is a vital contradiction regarding the recovery of the amount from the second accused as between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4. 25. Therefore, the case of the prosecution as against the second accused amounts to a total failure of recovery of the bribe amount from the hands of the second accused and the said contradiction coupled with the negative chemical report would completely disprove the allegations against the second accused. The manner in which the bribe amount as alleged to have been recovered from the first accused is also not free from doubt. In the chief-examination P. W. 1 says that immediately after his giving signal the official witness had entered the house of the first accused and the officials had immediately seized the amount from the hands of the first accused. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that he was not aware of how the amount was recovered from the first accused. Therefore, in the case of the first accused also the recovery of the bribe amount is not properly established and at any rate is not free from doubt. 26. Therefore, having regard to all the defects in the case of the prosecution as pointed above I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence the appellants herein are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 27. In the result, the above appeal is allowed and both the accused are held as not guilty of the offences and both of them are set at liberty.