ORDER The instant criminal revision has arisen in this way:- The first respondent herein, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID. Erode Unit, registered a case against the petitioner herein, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also against one Paramasivam alleging that during the period from 26-12-1994 to 25-12-1995, the said persons conspired with one another and dishonestly allowed the suppliers of (i) bus body kits (2) seat assembly, (3) spares and (4) tickets to the Jeeva Transport Corporation to misappropriate the funds of the Transport Corporation to the tune of Rs. 85,92,426.50 P. The charge against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 were also framed for commission of offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge No.1, Chennai took the matter on file in Spl. CC.No. 8 of1997 and proceeded with the trial. More than 78 witnesses have been examined. At this stage, the petitioner has come forward with a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C contending that the suppliers who have given evidence on behalf of the Transport Corporation have stated that they were also instrumental in commission of crime and therefore they should also be included as accused for commission of offence under See. 409 LP.C. 2. The learned Counsel for the first respondent has filed objections stating that the petitioner stands charged of committing offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and as per Section 24 of the said Act, the witness ought to have given statement before the Investigating Officer enjoying an immunity from being prosecuted. 3. The learned Special Judge accepted the contentions of the first respondent and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Special Judge, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision. 4. Heard both the sides. The case against the petitioner is that he was the Managing Director of Jeeva Transport Corporation at the relevant time and he dishonestly allowed the suppliers to misappropriate the funds and thereby committing offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Heard both the sides. The case against the petitioner is that he was the Managing Director of Jeeva Transport Corporation at the relevant time and he dishonestly allowed the suppliers to misappropriate the funds and thereby committing offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charge No.2 framed is as under: "Secondly:- That you A-1 in furtherance of the above said criminal conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction and at the same place and during the period from 26-12-1994 to 25-12-1995, that you A-I being a public servant in the capacity as Managing Director of Jeeva Transport Corporation Limited, Erode, who was having dominion over the funds of the above Corporation committed criminal breach of trust on the funds of the said Corporation to a total sum of Rs. 85,92,426.50 in the purchase of bus body kits, seat assemblies, spare parts and printing of bus tickets and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 409 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court: Charge No.7 framed runs as under:- "Seventhly: That you A1, in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction in the same place and during the period from 26-12-1994 to 25-12-1995 you A-1 being a public servant, employed as the Managing Director of Jeeva Transport Corporation, Erode, dishonestly allowed the said suppliers to misappropriate the funds of the said Corporation to a total sum of Rs. 85,92,426.50 which was under his control as public servant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court". There are specific charges against A-1 for alleged comn\1ssion of offence under Section 409 LP.C. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner though raised a plea before the Special Court that both the charges are incongruous and contradictory, in that one charge is to the effect that the petitioner committed offence under Section 409 LP.C., whereas the other charge is that he dishonestly allowed the other persons to commit misappropriation and therefore committed an offence under Section B (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charges can be amended any time, if it is made out that they are conflicting or contradictory. The Special Court has not considered this aspect. Charges can be amended any time, if it is made out that they are conflicting or contradictory. The Special Court has not considered this aspect. I am also not going to consider this, because the petition itself is to implead certain other witnesses as accused on the ground of their complacency in the offence. 6. According to the petitioner, four categories of suppliers should be arrayed as accused. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is ample material available from the evidence of Sridhar, who was examined as P.W. 73 and Velmuruganantham, who was examined as P.W.74 to the effect the some of the ticket printers formed an association for the purpose of giving bribe to the officials and thus they were also parties to crime committed. The learned Counsel drew my attention to the evidence of P.W. 74. Velmuruganantham. Wherein he-has stated as under:- (Tamil Version) and the evidence of P.W.73. Shridharan, wherein he has stated as under:- 7. The only question is whether by virtue of these statements given by these witnesses whether they and the other persons should be arrayed as accused. Careful perusal of their evidence would go to show that there had been demand to pay bribe and an association was formed to work out the ways and means to meet the demand. At this Juncture. I am reminded of the 'Panchathanthira Story' where the animals in the jungle met and decide that one of them in turns should offer itself as prey to the Lion which was sporadically killing the animals. It cannot be said that the animals willingly agreed to fall as prey to the Lion. 8. In every case of corruption, there is always meeting of the hands of the giver and the taker either directly or through some media. In some cases, the givers hand may offer, but the mind will be unwilling and in some cases, the givers hand may follow the temptation, but the acceptor may not be willing to receive. In the first case, the initiative and invitation are from the acceptor and in the second cases, they are from the giver. 9. Let us now consider the provision of Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act recites as under:- "24. In the first case, the initiative and invitation are from the acceptor and in the second cases, they are from the giver. 9. Let us now consider the provision of Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act recites as under:- "24. Statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a ' statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under Sections 7 to 11 or under Section 13 or Section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a prosecution under Section 12". 10. According to the learned Counsel for petitioner, Section 24 deals with the person who offered or agreed to offer any gratification or valuable things to the public servants. But, it would not apply to a case where there is a demand and an obtainment by the public servant. If the argument of the learned Counsel is accepted that this section would offer protection to the person who voluntarily giving any gratification or valuable things, then it is of the more fair that unwilling giver gets more protection. The learned Counsel also argued that Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would apply to a decoy witness and unwilling offences. But, it will not apply to the other persons. The learned Counsel drew an analogy with reference to Section 7 (3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Counsel also cited a decision reported in In re K. V. Ayyaswamy: AIR 1965 A.P. 105 , where a person giving the bribe is also treated as accomplice. For the same proposition, the learned Counsel cited the decision reported in P. Lasma Goud vs. State of A.P. and another: 2000 (1) Crimes 574, which has no bearing to the facts of the instant case and Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar: (1993) 2 SCC 16 . The fact that question of bribe would arise when there are offer and acceptance or a demand and offer. Therefore, in matters of this type, both the giver and receiver perpetuate the offence, but the given has a protection from prosecution by virtue of Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The fact that question of bribe would arise when there are offer and acceptance or a demand and offer. Therefore, in matters of this type, both the giver and receiver perpetuate the offence, but the given has a protection from prosecution by virtue of Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 24 does not discriminate between a person who offers willingly or unwillingly. It only refers to a person who offered or agreed to offer any gratification to the public servant. It therefore follows that the four ticket printers may hot or may have participated in the offence, though enjoying a protection under Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They enjoy protection even from the purview of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act says that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force which would include the Criminal Procedure Code also. I am of the view that the learned Special judge has rightly dismissed the petition. This Criminal Revision is therefore dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 4189 of 2000 is also dismissed.