Judgment : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Periyar District at Erode in Spl.C.C,No.1386 of 1987 dated 12. 1990, finding the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Sec.5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act before amendment and 161, I.P.C. and thereby convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Sec.5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with a fine of Rs. 2,000 payable, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, but however, in view of the same, no separate sentence for the I.P.C. offence has been awarded, for having allegedly received the bribe of a sum of Rs.250 from P.W.1 as illegal gratification. 2. From the adduced evidence and the case records, it is seen that P.W.1 Palanisamy, being an agriculturist and treasurer of Small Farmers Irrigation Association, residing at Goundampudhur Oricherry Village, had eight acres of land and so also his brother. Out of this extent, he and his brother had purchased five acres and seventy cents from one Muniya Gounder for a sum of Rs.35,000 in 1971, and for which, the patta was not transferred in their name. If one wants to get the loan from the bank, he has to get the patta transferred in his name in respect of the said land. To change the patta of the said land, an application was submitted to the Tahsildar of Bhavani by P.W.1 and his brother P.W.4 on 11. 1986 under Ex.P-1 along with the copy of their sale deed Ex.P-2. Then the Deputy Tahsildar assured them that after the enquiry by the village Administrative Officer of the said village, the patta would be transferred within a week. The appellant/accused was the Village Administrative Officer of the concerned village and P.W.1 and the accused are known to each other. Though three weeks had elapsed, since there was no response, P.W.1 along with one Rama Naicker examined as P. W.2 had been to the office of the accused on 12. 1986 and gave the copy of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and told him what the Deputy Tahsildar had told them already about the change of patta for the land. Though three weeks had elapsed, since there was no response, P.W.1 along with one Rama Naicker examined as P. W.2 had been to the office of the accused on 12. 1986 and gave the copy of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and told him what the Deputy Tahsildar had told them already about the change of patta for the land. It is stated to have been the response of the accused for it that if they wanted the patta for the land to be changed within a short time, they should pay a bribe of Rs.250 to him. P.W.1 and P.W.2 had bargained but however, the accused it was stated, had declined. As the copy of the chitta was since badly needed by P.W.1, he had agreed to bring the quantum of bribe as demanded on 12. 1986. It was therefore, at that time itself, the accused had prepared a petition to the Tahsildar in his own hand writing as if the same had been written by P.W.1, without referring the survey numbers and directed P.W. 1 to bring the application Ex.P-3 given by him with the bribe money within the evening of 12. 1986. However, having signed Ex.P-3 by P.W. 1 and his brother and taking the bribe money of Rs.250 P.W.1 along with P.W.2 Rama Naicker approached the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Erode, on the next day. Ex.P-4 is the copy of Ex.P-3 both were handed over to the police. To the oral narration of P.W.1, Inspector Kuppusamy of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing of Erode, wrote Ex.P-5 at about noon on 12. 1986. Copy of Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6 was served upon P.W.1. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were asked to come by 2.15 P.M. on that day. When they went to the office as instructed by 2.15 P.M. there were two other witnesses introduced to them by the Inspector and he also explained the mode of conducting phenolpthalein test. Then the bribe money brought by P.W.1 as five-fifty rupee currencies, were smeared with the phenolpthalein powder after the numbers of the same were noted down in a mahazar and handed over to P.W.1 to be kept in his pocket. Then the bribe money brought by P.W.1 as five-fifty rupee currencies, were smeared with the phenolpthalein powder after the numbers of the same were noted down in a mahazar and handed over to P.W.1 to be kept in his pocket. Keeping the Xerox copy of Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4 with him, the Inspector handed over the application Ex.P-3 to P.W.1 and instructed him that the moment the accused had received the bribe amount, he should come out and by clearing his face with the towel or hand he should give signal. With regard to the details of the case, a mahazar Ex.P-7 was prepared, in which, P.W.1 and others have attested. P.W.1 and P.W.2, the witnesses the Inspector along with his convoy, started by 2.45 p.m. to the office of the accused and neared the power loom belonging to one Subbaraya Chettiar, P.W.1 and P.W.2 get down and when came to the office of the accused, the witnesses and the Inspector were taking their position at some distance away and asked P.W.1 and P.W.2 to go to the office of the accused which is situated on the northern side of the Appakoodal road, where the accused was sitting facing east, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had thus entered into the room of the accused and occupied two chairs opposite to him and when P.W.1 handed over Ex.P-3 to the accused, he has demanded again as to whether he had brought the money which he has demanded already. P.W.1 then gave M.O.1 to M.O.5 to the accused. The accused having received the same in his hands, put them on the north western corner of his table and over it, he placed a calculator M.O.6. The accused on the receipt of Ex.P-3 filed up the gap in it by writing S.F.No.165 a,b,c 166 a,b,c,d 179 and kept in the right side drawer of his table and said that within a week from that day, they would get the order for the patta changed. Then P.W.1 and P.W.2 came outside the office of the accused and signalled as instructed already, which was followed by the Inspector along with the other witnesses entering into the office inside. 3. P.W.2 Rama Naicker is a resident of Mallipoor and he claims that he knew the accused as well as P.W.1 and that on 11. Then P.W.1 and P.W.2 came outside the office of the accused and signalled as instructed already, which was followed by the Inspector along with the other witnesses entering into the office inside. 3. P.W.2 Rama Naicker is a resident of Mallipoor and he claims that he knew the accused as well as P.W.1 and that on 11. 1986 at about 10 a.m. when he was writing to board a bus to Bhavani, P.W.1 came there and asked him to accompany him to see the Tahsildar in his office. Accordingly he did so. He has corroborated the claim of P.W.1 about the giving of application Ex.P-1 with Ex.P-2 on that day and the Tahsildar having replied that the patta would be transferred within a week and that as they did not get any response from them, on 12. 1986 they met the accused in his office and he demanded a bribe of Rs.250 and that after bargain, it was agreed upon followed by the preparation of Ex.P-3 by the accused and all the claim made by P.W.1 in his evidence in full. He also supported P.W.1 by saying that they returned to then-village on 12. 1986 and approached the Vigilance and Anti Corruption police on the next day and all other facts as claimed by P.W.1. He has also claimed that he was present when the accused received the bribe amount M.O.1 to M.O.5 and kept them under M.O.6 and that they came out and P.W.1 prompted the signal. In short, P.W.2 had fully corroborated the claim of P.W.1 word by word. .4. P. W.3, the Sub Registrar of Dharapuram Registrar Office has claimed that on 12. 1986 when he was working as Sub Registrar in the office of the District Registrar at Erode, as instructed to him, to go to the Vigilance Office by about 2.15 p.m. on 12. 1986, he was there alone with one Govindaraja Perumal and that they were introduced to P.Ws.1 and 2 by the Inspector. He has spoken to the factum of having read over Ex.P-5 the complaint and the first information report Ex.P-6. 1986, he was there alone with one Govindaraja Perumal and that they were introduced to P.Ws.1 and 2 by the Inspector. He has spoken to the factum of having read over Ex.P-5 the complaint and the first information report Ex.P-6. He has further claimed that the mode of conducting phenolpthalein test was demonstrated and P.W.1 handed over M.O.1 to M.O.5 to the Inspector of Police and their numbers were noted down and that after semearing phenolpthalein powder, they were handed over to P.W.1 with necessary instructions that the same should be handed over to the accused when demand was made and on the receipt of the same P.W.1 should come out and give signal to the waiting police party at a different place. He also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 by claiming that in Ex.P-7 mahazar prepared by the Inspector, he and the other witness have attested. Then, at about 4.30 p.m. on that day, they all went to Thalavaipettai, where the office of the accused in situate, in a police jeep and at a distance near a powerloom, P.W.1 and P.W.2 got down and were instructed to go and do their job while P. W.3 and other witnesses waited at some distance for their action. Having taken Ex.P-3, P.Ws.1 and 2 had entered into the office of the accused and they came out after 20 minutes and whereupon, P.W.1 gave signal as instructed. Then, it was the consistent claim of P.W.3 that he along with Inspector of Police and other witnesses entered into the office of the accused and found that accused was about to begin to write something in his table. After having introduced every one of them, P.W.10 prepared sodium carbonate mixture and when the right hand finger of the accused was dipped in it, the colour of the solution, turned pink in colour. So also, the test was conducted on the left hand fingers and the solution turned pink in colour and both the mixtures were put in two separate bottles, properly packed and initialed by all. The bottles are M.O.7 and M.O.8. When the Inspector asked the accused where the money was, it was the claim of this witness, that the accused produced M.O.1 to M.O.5 kept under M.O.6. The number of the currencies tallied with Ex.P-7 mahazar prepared already. The bottles are M.O.7 and M.O.8. When the Inspector asked the accused where the money was, it was the claim of this witness, that the accused produced M.O.1 to M.O.5 kept under M.O.6. The number of the currencies tallied with Ex.P-7 mahazar prepared already. When the Inspector P.W.10 demanded about Ex.P-3, the accused took it out from the right side of the drawer and handed over to the Inspector and it was found that the application was filled up with the survey number. The specimen seal affixed by the Inspector on a white cloth is M.O.9. P.W.10 recovered M.Os.1 to 8 and Ex.P-3 under the cover the mahazar Ex.P-8. At about 7.15 p.m. on that evening, P.W.10 arrested the accused. .5. P.W.4 a resident of Oricherry Village and an agriculturist is the brother of P.W.1. He has corroborated and supported the claim of P.W.1 with regard tot he purchase of the land from one Muniya Gounder and that they had applied for the change of patta in their name and of the steps taken by P.W.1 and that the accused was the Village Administrative Officer during that time and his signature in the application and so on. He has claimed that particularly when he signed the application Ex.P-3, it did not contain any survey number. P.W.5 has claimed that while he was working as a draftsman in Bhavani Taluk Office, during 12. 1986 and12. 1986 Ex.P-l was pending disposal in his office and that it was given by P.W.1 along with Ex.P-2 and that on consideration of the same, he collected the details to change the patta, with reference to the chitta, settlement register and adangal book from the village administrative officer orally under Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-11 and when Ex.P-9 was perused, patta was found transferred Ex.P-10 indicated that the land had been surveyed but the same however did not bear the names of P.W.1 and P.W.4 and Ex.P-11 still stood in the name of the person who sold the land and in Ex.P-9 though the description of the property sold away was there, there was no reference about the change of patta or its requisition, so also in Ex.P-11. If patta had bene changed during 1971, Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-11 would have contained S.T.R.number. If patta had bene changed during 1971, Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-11 would have contained S.T.R.number. He would further claim that the power to change the patta vestsonly with the Tahsildar and that in the S.T.R. register maintained in the Taluk Office, there will be a reference in it with the serial number. In Ex.P-9, along with the S.T.R. number, fasli year will also be referred to. 6. P.W.6 Jayaraman has claimed that during November, 1986, he was working as Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar in Bhavani, and that on 11. 1986, P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 to him and that he had assigned the same to S.I. section of his office and that from 9. 1986 till 30.11.1986, the S.I. post was vacant and no action could be taken upon Ex.P-1. The file created for the application Ex.P-1 is numbered as 200450 of 1986. Ex.P-12 is the note order issued by the Tahsildar in the said file. P.W.5 who was in charge of the section had obtained copy of chitta Ex.P-9 and it did not bear the S.T.R. Number and that after having got the necessary report from the Village Administrative Officer, the patta was changed as per rules by the Tahsildar on 2. 1987. P.W.7 Chandran is the Tahsildar who had passed order Ex.P-12 and he has claimed that Ex.P-9 chitta copy did not bear the S.T.R. number and on 2. 1987 as per rules, he ordered change of patta and that on 12. 1986 he issued Ex.P-13 to P.W.1 that he has no arrears of land revenue not be paid. P.W.8, the Head Clerk of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Erode, has claimed that on the receipt of Ex.P-14 requisition given by P.W.10, he sent M.Os.7 and 8 with the covering letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the office copy of which has been marked as Ex.P-15, to the Chemical Examiner and received Ex.P-16 the Chemical Analysis report on 112. 1986. P.W.9 Narasimhalu, who was the Revenue Divisional Officer during October, 1987, received the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption on 110. 1987, and having considered the entire file, got satisfied and accorded the sanction Ex.P-17 to the police to prosecute the accused as he was authority to appoint and remove the village Administrative Officers, like the accused. 7. P.W.10, Kuppusamy, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption wing at Erode has claimed that on 12. 1987, and having considered the entire file, got satisfied and accorded the sanction Ex.P-17 to the police to prosecute the accused as he was authority to appoint and remove the village Administrative Officers, like the accused. 7. P.W.10, Kuppusamy, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption wing at Erode has claimed that on 12. 1986 at about 1 p.m., when he was on duty P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to his office and P.W.1 gave a oral statement and he reduced it into writing under Ex.P-5 and got the signature after having read over the same. On getting the permission from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was camping at Erode, on that day, he registered the said complaint Ex.P-1 in his police station crime number 8/A.C/86 for the offence under Sec.161, I.P.C. at about 1.30 P.M. on that day. he prepared the printed F.I.R. Ex.P-6. He along with another Inspector by name Ramasamy, got the services of P.W.3 and another witnesses by 2.15 p.m. and introduced them to P.W.1 and P.W.2 and apprised them with reference to the contents of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and demonstrated to them the mode of conducting phenolpthalein test. P.W.1 produced the M.Os.1 to 5 and Ex.P-3 before P.W.10. He showed to the witnesses that survey numbers have not been mentioned in Ex.P-3 and it over to P.W.1 and he kept the xerox copy Ex.P-4 in his file. After smearing phenolpthalein powder on M.Os. 1 to 5, he instructed P.W.1 to give them to the accused when he demanded it and to give the signal. Ex.P-7 mahazar was prepared and in which, the numbers of M.Os.1 to 5 were also noted and it was attested by the witnesses. After arranging for the despatch of F.I.R. and the other things to the Court, by 3.30 p.m. he along with the convoy the decoy and trap witnesses proceeded to Thalavaipettai in a Police jeep at about 4.15 p.m. and asked P.W.1 and P.W.2 to get down near the godown of Subbarayalu Chettiar and took position in a visible area and thus they stayed outside. He would further claim that P.W.1 and P.W.2 entered into the office of the accused by 4.45 p.m. and after a little while P.W.1 came out and gave a signal as instructed. He would further claim that P.W.1 and P.W.2 entered into the office of the accused by 4.45 p.m. and after a little while P.W.1 came out and gave a signal as instructed. Therefore, P.W.10 and other witnesses entered into the office of the accused and the accused was sitting in a chair and writing something by keeping a pad in between his arms and the table. After his introduction to the accused, in the presence of accused and witnesses, sodium carbonate mixture was prepared in two glass tumblers and the fingers of each of the hands of the accused were dipped in each of the mixture and the colour of the mixture changed to pink. The accused was found in an agitated and frustrated mood. When questioned about his receipt of bribe, he confessed that he had received and took M.Os.1 to 5 from underneath M.O.6 kept upon the table and on recovery of the same, numbers of M.Os.1 to 5 were verified with Ex.P-7 and it was found tallying. When asked about Ex.P-3, the accused opened the right side drawer of his table and produced it and when perused, it was found that the survey numbers of the land had been filled up. Then the chemical mixtures were poured into separate bottles and were duly packed with the labels affixed containing the signatures of the persons concerned and witnesses and Ex.P-8 mahazar was prepared detailing of the incident and it was attested. Then he recovered M.Os.1 to 9 and Ex.P-3 under cover of mahazar attested by witnesses. It was at that time, P.W.7 came to the office of the accused and perused all the records and the accused had stated before him that there was no arrears of land revenue payable by P.W.1 and accordingly a certificate Ex.P-13 was prepared. The accused was arrested at about 7.15 p.m. on that day. Then he returned to Erode police station and altered the section of the F.I.R. into one under Sec.5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sent the report to the higher officials about the arrest of the accused. He sent the material objects recovered to the court on 12. 1986 and gave requisition Ex.P-14 to send the case properties for chemical examination. On 2. He sent the material objects recovered to the court on 12. 1986 and gave requisition Ex.P-14 to send the case properties for chemical examination. On 2. 1987 he examined P.W.6 and recovered Ex.P-1,2 and 9 to 11 and after having obtained the sanction to prosecute the accused from the authorities under Ex.P-17, a final report was laid by the subsequent Inspector by name Karunakaran for the offence against the accused as above referred. 8. When the accused was examined under Sec.313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with reference to the materials made available against him and the incriminating portion of circumstances by the prosecution, he has denied his complicity but however, he has stated that for the collection of Small Savings, a publication was given and in which, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had attested by subscribing their signature and that the said witnesses would help to collect the small savings and that the higher officials had passed orders to collect the Small Savings and that the Collections of Small Savings made then and there had been entered in the records and he admits of P.W.1 and P.W.2 having come for change of patta and that he had demanded the collections for Small Savings and that from P.W.1 and his brother since he wanted an application for change of the patta, he prepared the application without survey numbers and handed over to him to come with the signature on the morning of 12. 1986 and that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had assured that they would come with their contribution for Small Savings along with the application on 12. 1986 and that they came on 4th and gave the money for Small Savings and accordingly, he received the same and kept them under M.O.6 and within that time, Police came and that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had written a letter on 12. 1986 stating that they would come and meet him on 12. 1986 and that a sum of Rs.4,200 being the Small Savings collections was referred in the letter and that on 12. 1986 he had paid towards Small Savings and that on 12. 1986, a sum of Rs.600 has also been paid. While stating so, the accused had not examined by witness on his behalf. 9. 1986 and that a sum of Rs.4,200 being the Small Savings collections was referred in the letter and that on 12. 1986 he had paid towards Small Savings and that on 12. 1986, a sum of Rs.600 has also been paid. While stating so, the accused had not examined by witness on his behalf. 9. After having recorded the oral testimony of 10 witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 10 and documentary evidence Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17 on behalf of the prosecution and seven documents Ex.D-1 to E-7 on behalf of the accused, with the marking of 9 materials objections for the prosecution and after having considered the adduced evidence and circumstances above referred to in detail and very elaborately with the respective rival contentions projected on behalf of the parties concerned, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the complicity of the accused in having received the bribe by way of illegal gratification has been fully established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, has found the accused guilty for the offences charged and tried and convicted and sentenced him as noted supra and aggrieved, the appellant/accused has come forward with this appeal, challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment. 10. I have heard the Bar for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment on very many grounds by contending very strenuously and the contra from the learned Government Advocate controverting the same, but however, justifying the verdict rendered by the trial Magistrate. .11. Mr.Sivaprakasam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant endeavoured most by taking me through the oral claim of P.Ws.1 and 2 on the one hand and P. Ws.3 and 4 with the Inspector P.W.10 on the other hand, to contend that the version of the prosecution cannot at all be believed for the very circumstance that the decoy witnesses in this case were not at all sent to accompany to the trap witness in order to secure every corroboration and substantiation of the claim of P.Ws.1 and 2 and for which, the prosecution or P.W.10, the Investigating Officer had no say at all either by way of explanation or by way of any reason. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the trap set up by P.W.10 with the witness P.W.3 and another is a total failure and the contra to the same, the findings and observations of the learned trial Magistrate did not at all refer to the above said aspects. The next contention raised by the learned counsel is that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not only close associates but they had every motive against the Village Administrative Officer, for implicating him in a trap set up by the Police for the obvious reasons known to themselves and that there is delay in approaching the Police by P.Ws.1 and 2 by about four days and the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses is inherent with every suspicion and improbabilities and that as such, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 could not be believed as they are not telling the truth and the whole came appears to be the scheme of P.Ws.1 and 2 who were very close to the accused, and the established circumstances would clinch the above said aspect. The third attack projected by the learned counsel is that the sanction accorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Ex.P-17 to prosecute the accused is not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the case of the prosecution must fail but the learned trial Magistrate, has not looked into the said aspect in any angle, which is a grave error, which causes every prejudice to the rights of the accused putting him to untold suffering and that therefore, he wants the interference by this Court in this appeal. 12. The contra arguments based on the very consistent claim of P.Ws.1 and 2 on the one hand with the same type of evidence by P.W.3 and P.W.4 with the evidence of the Investigating Officer, was projected to justify the impugned judgment of confiction and sentence, by Mr.A.N.Rajan, learned Government Advocate and thus, it seems to me, that he has taken every pains to justify the impugned judgment. 13. In the context of the above rival position and circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the complicity of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is correct or not? .14. 13. In the context of the above rival position and circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the complicity of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is correct or not? .14. This is a case arising out of the setting up of a trap by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Erode, on 12. 1986 with the first witness P.W.1 as the decoy and P.W.3 the Sub-Register as the trap witness. But however, it is seen that P.W.2, one of the close associate of P.W.1 and a villager, who according to his own version and from the records filed on behalf of the accused, seems to have helped the accused in the collection of Small Savings, as deployed by the Government from the Villagers and villages concerned, and at the same time, they are the agriculturists and that P.W.1 being the treasurer of Small Farmers Irrigation Association, of that locality with P.W.2 appears to have had a close link with the accused in this case. It is also the fact that under the original of Ex.P-2, sale deed, P.W.1 and P.W.4 being brothers had purchased a certain extent of land from one Muniya Gounder for a sum of Rs.35,000 for which, the patta for the said land had not been transferred to their name and with a view to get bank loan, they thought of getting the transfer of the patta in their name, for which, they have submitted Ex.P-1 to the Tahsildar, Bhavani on 11. 1986 along with Ex.P-2 and it seems that they were given the assurance that within a week they would get the transfer order not however, they were not given with any response. To this extent, it appears that there was no controversy or dispute of facts among the parties herein. 1986 along with Ex.P-2 and it seems that they were given the assurance that within a week they would get the transfer order not however, they were not given with any response. To this extent, it appears that there was no controversy or dispute of facts among the parties herein. At this juncture, it has also become necessary to note that there was no denial or controverting of the claim of the accused that he being the Village Administrative Officer, as per the documents relied upon under Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7 the Revenue Authorities, on behalf of the Government, had also entrusted to him the task of making the collections for Small Savings in that Bhavani firka, in which, the accused was working as one of the Village Administrative Officers, of the concerned village, with the help of P.Ws.1 and 2 as evident from Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7, particularly, Ex.D-2, the letter written on 12. 1986 by P.W.2 to the accused. 15. From a careful perusal of the documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-1 filed on behalf of the accused, it has become very clear that a publication was made by tomtom on 211. 86 with regard to the appeal made to the general public to come and renew their ration cards and also to contribute their might towards the Small Savings; and the circumstance under which P.W.2 had written the letter Ex.D-2 to the accused; and that by proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Office dated 111. 1986 and instructive orders given by Tahsildar and memo under Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5 in the context of Ex.D-6 and Ex.D-7, the Village Administrative Officers were also deployed by passing indirect instructions and orders to collect the amounts from the villagers, agriculturists for Small Savings Scheme separately barring the other revenue collections. It is in this context, the case of the prosecution as well as the accused has to be viewed with reference to the adduced oral and documentary evidence. .16. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the persons, who happen to be the decoys but the de jure person for the trap is P.W.1 and P.W.2 is his close associate. It is worthwhile to note that their submission of the application Ex.P-1 along with Ex.P-2 for the transfer of patta was made as early as on 11. .16. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the persons, who happen to be the decoys but the de jure person for the trap is P.W.1 and P.W.2 is his close associate. It is worthwhile to note that their submission of the application Ex.P-1 along with Ex.P-2 for the transfer of patta was made as early as on 11. 1986 to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has, according to them, told that the change of patta order would be issued to them within a week. But however their consistent claim is that instead of one week, though three weeks had elapsed, since there was no response from the Tahsildar or from the Revenue Department from Bhavani, they opted and preferred to go and see the accused, who was the Village Administrative Officer, in Thalavaipettai village, where his office is situated. It is very significant and strange for P.Ws.1 and 2 in having approached the accused instead of seeing the Deputy Tahsildar or the Tahsildar with whom they had given Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 already and it was he who had given the response on 11. 1986 itself that the change of patta would be done within a week and it is not the claim of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they had submitted Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 to the accused nor they have approached the accused to change the patta of the land in their names. If that is no, it is not understandable as to why they chose the accused and opted him as the target and approached him on 12. 1986, even after a lapse of four weeks, instead of approaching the Tahsildar with whom the application was submitted already. 17. If P.W.2 the close association of P.W.1 was the treasurer of the Small Farmers Irrigation Association or Society, it is safe to presume that they must have had a very good acquaintance with the accused, who was the Village Administrative Officer. 17. If P.W.2 the close association of P.W.1 was the treasurer of the Small Farmers Irrigation Association or Society, it is safe to presume that they must have had a very good acquaintance with the accused, who was the Village Administrative Officer. It is therefore, under the circumstances, even taking for granted that they did not approach the Tahsildar but for their acquaintance with the accused, they have approached the accused to help them to get the change of patta in their name, it was their case that to get the order he had demanded the bribe of Rs.250 which even after bargaining, the accused had refused to reduce, and that in view of the compelling need P.W.1 and P.W.2 had agreed to bring the said bribe amount and that therefore, the accused had prepared Ex.P-3 but however, without filling up the survey numbers of the land. It was also the consistent case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused had asked them to come with the application with the signature of P.W.1 and P.W.4 with the bribe money on the evening of 12. 1986 and for which, they had accepted. 18. But it is seen that with the affixed signature in Ex.P-3 on the very next day, that is on 12. 1986, they have approached P.W.10 and given Ex.P.t at the office of P.W.10 and with the permission of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was then camping there, P.W.10 registered the case and made all preparations for setting up the trap by getting the trap witnesses P.W.3 and another by making every arrangements on the same day by about 2.30 p.m. till 4.30 p.m. It is also significant and very important to note that on the same day, the services of P.W.3 and another was requisitioned and they were introduced to P. Ws.1 and 2 and the contents of Ex.P-5 was read over to them and found correct. The mode of conducting the phenolpthalein test was also demonstrated. The mode of conducting the phenolpthalein test was also demonstrated. The numbers of M.Os.1 to 5 were noted and all the happening were written down in Ex.P-7 mahazar attested by all the witnesses and thus the prosecution is very consistent in claiming that the above process at the office lasted till 3.30 p.m. Then the decoy witnesses were claimed to have been given the instructions and M.Os.1 to 5 and they all started and reached Thalavaipettai, where the office of the accused is situated by 4.30 p.m. on that day. If the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, 3 and 10 are believed, according to their versions before the trial Court, it is seen that the entire proceedings and the arrangements for the trap after the registering of the case by lodging Ex.P-5 until the trap was over must necessarily be on the next day, namely, 12. 1986. It is also the consistent case of the prosecution that the above arrangement case of the prosecution that the above arrangements and trap was set up on 12. 1986. It is thus seen that between 12. 1976 and 12. 1986 there was a gap of two days, namely, 12. 1986 and 12. 1986 in the middle, and what sort of preparation was made which witnesses were called, when the trap was there and when the arrangements were made, are all things yet to be explained and proved by the prosecution. A careful perusal of the entire case records clearly shows that all the records reached the Court including the F.I.R. only after 12. 1986. If that is so, there is no doubt about the fact that the alleged trap including the recovery of the material objects 1 to 9 and the mahazars, the registering of the case must necessarily happened on 12. 1986, which is possible and in consonance with the version of the prosecution witnesses. Even so, if taken to that extent, then it is not known what P.W.1 and P.W.2 did non 12. 1986 and 12. 1986 and thus three days had elapsed, they seen to have thought even not to give the money and report the matter to the vigilance and Anti Corruption Police. But however, the consistent case of P.W.1 and P. W.2 is that on the next day, on 12. 1986 and 12. 1986 and thus three days had elapsed, they seen to have thought even not to give the money and report the matter to the vigilance and Anti Corruption Police. But however, the consistent case of P.W.1 and P. W.2 is that on the next day, on 12. 1986 they went to the office of P.W.10 and Ex.P-5 was prepared by P.W.10 and other things have followed including the trap and the arrest of the accused on that day itself. A careful perusal of Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 clinches the fact that P.W.1 had been to the office of P.W.10 and gave the oral complaint, which was reduced into writing to his narration and signed by him was only on 12. 1986 followed by Ex.P-6, the printed F.I.R. on that day, at about 1.30 p.m. on 12. 1986. If the consistent case of the prosecution is taken, there is virtually a direct conflict and lacuna arisen between the decoy witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 on the one hand and their giving the complaint to P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, on 2. 1986 and the preparation of the printed F.I.R. on the same day, the documentary evidence. There is serious doubt arising thereby, as to whether P.W.1 and P.W.2 had gone to the office of P.W.10 on the next day. If the answer is ‘yes’, then, it must necessarily be on 12. 1986 and not on 12. 1986. If I believe the evidence of P.W.10 and the genuineness and trust worthiness of Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6, supported by P.W.3, the trap witnesses, then the complaint Ex.P-5 and F.I.R. Ex.P-6 were given by P.Ws.1 and 2 on 12. 1986 and not on 12. 1986. Now this anomaly happened and what was the explanation given by the prosecution and it is rather unfortunate the learned trial Magistrate has totally overlooked the said important and vulnerable point, which vitiates the whole trial. Thus, it is possible to hold that either Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 must have been prepared subsequently followed by the setting up of the trap and everything has bene fixed with the false date or the converse that P.Ws.1 and 2 were telling lies and not placing the truth before the Court. Thus, the gap of three days between 12. 1986 and 12. 1986 still remains unexplained and not spoken to and adverted to. Thus, the gap of three days between 12. 1986 and 12. 1986 still remains unexplained and not spoken to and adverted to. The above aspects, in my considered view, raise a serious and grave suspicion over the conduct and veracity and the credibility of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the Police Officers on the other hand. 19. The second important point to be noted in this case, is that P.W.10 the Investigating Officer on the preparing of Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 has secured the Services of P.W.3 and another trap witness and the decoy witnesses were instructed properly with the trap witnesses and the mode of setting the trap was explained as evident from the oral evidence of P.W.10. M.Os.1 to 5 were smeared with phenolpthalein powder and the sodium carbonate mixtures was claimed to have changed in colour on the dipping of the fingers of the accused, the resultant factor of the trap said to have been successfully completed. According to the consistent claim of the prosecution, by about 4.30 p.m. on 12. 1986 P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.10 with his convoy, all arrived at Thalavaipettai village and took position near the power loan factory of Subbaraya Chettiar and from where P.W.1 and P.W.2 the decoys were alone seem to have been sent to the accused and not the trap witnesses. The trap witness P.W.3 by name Nagappan, the former Sub Registrar of Erode remained along with the Inspector of Police. If he was a trap witness and was appraised of the mode of trap set up by P.W.10 and taken from Erode to Thalavaipettai, where the trap was going to be demonstrated, then, P.W.10 should have instructed him to accompany P.W.1 instead of P.W.2 but significantly and more surprisingly, the trap witnesses were asked to remain with P.W.10 the Inspector. Therefore, P.W.3, never accompanied P.W.1 or P.W.2 to substantiate the trap. There was no reasoning whatsoever given by the prosecution as to why P.W.3 had not accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2 being the trap witnesses taken all the way from Erode to Thalavaipettai village, where the trap was conducted. Thus, it is seen, the very performance for which, P.W.3 was taken in the police jeep has thus been defeated and obliterated, for the obvious reasons known to the prosecution, particularly, the investigating agency. Thus, it is seen, the very performance for which, P.W.3 was taken in the police jeep has thus been defeated and obliterated, for the obvious reasons known to the prosecution, particularly, the investigating agency. However, it is noted that P.W.2, a close associate of P.W.1 and taking part in each and every activity of P.W.1, who had a grudge against the accused and the author of Ex.D-2, was chosen to accompany P.W.1 as a changed trap witness by the prosecution, which by itself creates a doubt about the truth, veracity and genuineness of the claim made by the prosecution. There was no reason or explanation of any kind given by the prosecution for the above sea change. The learned trial Magistrate on this score also failed to take note of it and advert to the same but however overlooked the above link and the manifest defect inherent in the prosecution, which goes to the very root of the prosecution case, with the result, the decoy witness or witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 are highly suspicious in attitude and their vetsions could not at all be believed as they are not cogent but look very artificial with big and deep gaps in their claim still remaining unexplained and thereby rendering their oral testimony as totally unbelievable and the credibility of the trap witness is not at all available to support the trap. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is of no consequence at all in either way. 20. Barring the evidence of the above three persons, there is no iota of evidence to prove that there was a successful trap and in which, it was successfully established that the bribe money M.O.1 to M.0.5 was demanded and received by the accused as bribe and thus his complicity has been proved. 21. While it is seen that the trap itself is highly suspicious as the evidence of the decoy witnesses in unbelievable with no support of the trap witness, then, it is very difficult to hold that there was a successful trap. 22. Yet another inherent defect made available in this case, which the learned trial Magistrate has overlooked totally is the so called bribe money M.O.1 to M.0.5, five-fifty rupee currency notes was claimed to have been seen upon the table of the accused on the north western corner of the same underneath a calculator M.O.6. 22. Yet another inherent defect made available in this case, which the learned trial Magistrate has overlooked totally is the so called bribe money M.O.1 to M.0.5, five-fifty rupee currency notes was claimed to have been seen upon the table of the accused on the north western corner of the same underneath a calculator M.O.6. This was the consistent and frank claim of the prosecution. It is also noted that the said money has been received by the accused by way of bribe. The doubt, however, serious arises in this regard for the reasoning that if a public servant is sitting in office and while discharging his duty, received the bribe amount illegally by way of illegal gratification by making the demand, then, it has become highly doubtful that he has kept it upon the table, open to the eyes of all, instead of keeping it either in his pocket or inside the drawer. It is not the case of the prosecution, that the accused had kept M.Os.1 to 5 in his pocket or in the table drawer but kept upon the table in one of its corner and since the bribe money happened to be in currencies, the calculator was used as a paper weight. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the calculator M.0.6 placed upon M.Os.1 to 5 was seen to have totally covered M.Os.1 to 5 and that they were not visible to the naked eye of everyone coming near the accused. The very claim that on entering the office by P W.10 and his party by introducing themselves by preparing the sodium carbonate mixture and asked the accused as to where was the bribe money and then the accused took the money underneath the calculator and produced it to the Inspector of Police is very artificial and a mockery. The above circumstances and the attitude of the accused as well as the Inspector of Police seems to be totally strange and unnatural and totally against the normal prudence of an ordinary citizen. The mere claim of the Inspector of witnesses that on questioning the accused, he seemed to be agitated or frustrated is of no consequence and has no relevancy as such agitated mood or frustrated mood depends upon the mentality of every individual, whether he be an accused or an innocent. The mere claim of the Inspector of witnesses that on questioning the accused, he seemed to be agitated or frustrated is of no consequence and has no relevancy as such agitated mood or frustrated mood depends upon the mentality of every individual, whether he be an accused or an innocent. The identifying of the bribe money M.O.1 to M.O.5 upon the table of the accused and the recovery of Ex.P-3 from the drawer of his table by P.W.10 is certainly a circumstance not in favour of the prosecution but however is only in favour of the accused in my constrained view. In this regard also, the prosecution has not only failed to prove the complicity of the accused but has also demonstrated the hallowness and weakness inherent in its case. 23. Of course, it was true, the claim of P.W.10 and P.W.3 and other witnesses are consistent that the Sodium Carbonate mixture with the smearing of phenolpthalein powder over M.Os.1 to 5 proved positive and the recoveries were made mahazar. In my considered view, all these things, the mahazars and other things, would have been done at a later stage on the same day either in the office of the accused or in the office of P.W.10 but certainly not at the place where the alleged trap was set up. If one is expected to believe the strange theory of the prosecution, then prosecution must have given the reason as to why P.W.3 had not accompanied P.W.1 and 2 during the time of the paying of bribe to the accused as spoken. The fact that the trap witnesses remained elsewhere and escorted the Investigation Officer P.W.10 is totally contra to the very purpose for which they were brought and that itself would be enough for rejecting the theory of the trap, recovery and everything and it also shows that P.W.3 though a Government servant, totally unconnected with the accused or the prosecution party, however, has not rendered and help to substantiate the prosecution or improve its case. All the above said factors important points have not at all been touched and considered by the learned Magistrate in arriving at his conclusions in his lengthy judgment and for the same reasonings, after having considered the whole gamut of the case, with reference to documentary and oral evidence, I am not inclined to attach any importance to the bogy of the claim made by P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.10. If it is so, then the prosecution case must necessarily go to the debris. 24. The legal element of corroboration of substantiation did not arise in this case, as I disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.10 as well as P.W.3 and in my considered view, and opinion, the prosecution has deliberately failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond the realm of doubt by adducing acceptable, believable and convincing legal evidence before the trial Court. 25. Then, lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to Ex.P-17, the sanction accorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam, as claimed by P.W.9. Accordingly to P.W.9, the Revenue Divisional Officer was the authority to appoint and remove the accused, who is the village Administrative Officer, by virtue of the power vested in him and he after having been satisfied with the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, found referred in Ex.P-17, accorded the sanction to the police to prosecute the accused. But however, it was challenged on the ground that it was not a valid sanction order as held by the settled law on this score and that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind and on this ground alone, the prosecution is vitiated, for which, the learned trial, Judge, has also approached or a wrong perspective of the law. In the context of the said contention, I have perused Ex.P-17, the sanction order, which reads as follows: "Proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer Gobichettipalayam Present: Thiru. R. Narasimmalu, B.A., Ref. B1/24318/86 Sub: VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER -Periyar District - Bhavani Taluk - Oricherri Village - Duraisamy (Thiru) K.M. Village Administrative Officer - Corruption - arrested for corruption -Prosecution - orders - issued. Ref: Report of the Director, Vigilance & Anti-corruption, Madras in R.C.No.76/86/REV/PV dt. 110. 87 and connected materials. Whereas Thiru K.M.Duraiswamy, a public servant, was functioning as Village Administrative officer, Oricheri Village, Bhavani Taluk, between 8. 1984 and 12. 1986. Ref: Report of the Director, Vigilance & Anti-corruption, Madras in R.C.No.76/86/REV/PV dt. 110. 87 and connected materials. Whereas Thiru K.M.Duraiswamy, a public servant, was functioning as Village Administrative officer, Oricheri Village, Bhavani Taluk, between 8. 1984 and 12. 1986. Whereas it is alleged that the said K.M. Duraisamy on 12. 1986 at about 14.00 hours at his office at Dhalavapettai, demanded a sum of Rs.250 as gratification other than legal remuneration from one Tr.K.M. Palanisamy as motive or reward for recommending his patta transfer application to enable the complainant to get the title of the lands transferred in his name and that of his brother in the revenue records and pursuant to the said demand, on 12. 1986 at about 16.40 hours at his office at Dhalavapettai, the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.250 from the said Tr.K.M. Palanisamy, as a motive or reward for the said purpose and as gratification other than legal remuneration. Whereas it is further alleged that the said T.K.M. Duraisamy being a public servant, by corrupt of illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position, obtained pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.250 from the said Tr.K.M.Palanisamy on 12. 1986 at about 16.40 hours at his office at Dhalavapettai. Whereas the abovesaid acts constitute offences under Sec.16, I.P.C. and Sec.5(1)(d) read with Sec.5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Whereas I.R.Narasimmalu, being the authority competent to remove Tr.K.M. Duraisamy, from office, after fully and carefully perusing the materials placed before me in regard to the allegations against Tr.K.M. Duraisamy, am satisfied that Tr.K.M. Duraisamy, should be prosecuted before a court of law for the said offences. Now Therefore, I.R.Narasimmalu, do hereby second sanction u/s 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to prosecute the said Tr.K.M.Duraisamy before a Court of law for offences u/s 161, I.P.C. and Sec.5 (1) (d) r/w Sec.5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and for the Court to take cognizance of the said offence. Now Therefore, I.R.Narasimmalu, do hereby second sanction u/s 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to prosecute the said Tr.K.M.Duraisamy before a Court of law for offences u/s 161, I.P.C. and Sec.5 (1) (d) r/w Sec.5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and for the Court to take cognizance of the said offence. (Sd)...: REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GOBICHETTIPALAYAM." Though P.W.9 claims before the trial Court that on perusal of the materials and having been satisfied with the existence of the ground to prosecute the accused, he has accorded the sanction under Ex.P-17, yet, the perusal of Ex.P-17, shows that his version is not true and Ex.P-17 contains a reference of the Report of the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras in R.C.No.76/86/REV/PV dated 110. 1987 and connected materials alone and nothing more. The five paragraphs contained in this sanction order reveal manifestly that the mere allegations made against the accused alone have been repeated and that they pertain only to the charge. What are all the materials or documents or records have been placed before him, to accord sanction are not known. The above said aspects clearly demonstrate the fact that P.W.9 being an authority to accord sanction has not at all applied his mind and arrived at a due satisfaction to accord the sanction to prosecute the accused. It is not known what are all the materials which are deemed to be the materials placed before him. Except the two words ‘connected materials’, there is nothing indicative to show that he has gone through all the case records and the evidence and the material objects and the trap conducted and the contents of the report and they remain a mystery and not at all been referred to or adverted to. 26. It is therefore under the above circumstances, I have repeatedly held, as held by the Apex Court, in very many cases, the question of sanction is a sacrosanct activity which must be duly exercised by the authority by applying its mind on perusing all the relevant materials, case records and evidence gathered by the prosecution before according the sanction and this sort of objective test is the inherent one, necessarily to be exercised by the authority in order to avoid and prevent the implication of public servants in false and frivolous cases and that, therefore, the above law has thus been settled. But however, in the instant case, it is rather unfortunate that the principles of settle law has not at all been followed. 27. As held in Charles Waker Devadas v. State by the Inspector of Police etc., 1993 L.W. (Crl.) 346 following the decisions held in Iqbal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 677; Perisamy v. The Inspector. Vigilence and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 582; Bharcory Lal v. State of U.P, 1988 Crl.L.J. 1122; Indu Bhusan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 148; State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand Jain, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2131 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Damodaran, 1992 Crl.L.J. 522 by myself, and other judgments, in which, I had the occasion to deal with the similar question and for the same view and opinion held in State v. Natchimuthu Gounder 1993 L.W. (Crl) 402,I am constrained to hold that Ex.P-17 is not the valid sanction order and it is the resultant outcome of non- application of mind without the basis of any records and that therefore, the prosecution launched against the accused upon the basis of the above defective and invalid sanction order has become vitiated. 28. It is seen that the various other findings, and conclusion arrived at by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the impugned judgment are found incorrect and erroneous and the very approach adopted by him to the adduced legal evidence is not in accordance with the legal perspective and the overlooking of the same in to would amount clearly a biased record of Judgment and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.’ 29. Having thus considered every one of the contentions made by the bar for the respective parties, I am able to see every force in the contentions made by the Bar on behalf of the appellant and while saying so, I do not find any merit on the prosecution which had deliberately failed to prove the complicity of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, it must fail and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 30. In the result, for all the foregoing reasonings, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Periyar District at Erode, in Spl.C.C.No.1386 of 1987, dated 12. 30. In the result, for all the foregoing reasonings, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Periyar District at Erode, in Spl.C.C.No.1386 of 1987, dated 12. 1990 against the accused is set aside and consequently, the accused is acquitted forth-with. Fine amount, paid if any, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant immediately.