JUDGMENT: C.A.No.26 of 1994 has been filed by the second accused and C.A.No.37 of 1994 has been filed by the first accused in Special Case No.18 of 1990 on the file of the Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The appellants along with the one Murugaiyan - the third accused were prosecuted by the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred as arrayed before the lower court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants herein were working as Health Superintendents at Vallam. Two days prior to Deepavali in the year 1989, the second accused met one Asai Thambi P.W.1, who is running a tea shop under the name and style “Rajaji Restaurant” and informed him that A1 demanded a sum of Rs.100 by way of mamool. P.W.1 declined to pay the same. The next day, A1 came to the shop of P.W.1 and demanded Rs.100. P.W.1 replied stating that he has started the tea shop only a month ago and hence, he is not in a position to pay any amount. A1 told him that all the shop holders have paid the sum of Rs.100 and as such, P.W.1 also has to pay the same. P.W.1 replied that there is no elders in his shop and on their arrival, P.W.1 will make arrangement for the payment. 3. On 31.10.1989 at 4 PM, A1 came to the shop of P.Ws. 3 and 4, who are none other than the cousins of P.W.1, called P.W.1 and questioned him as to why he did not pay the mamool. In case he refuses to pay any amount, he has to close down the tea shop. A1 also demanded the mamool from P.Ws. 3 and 4. P.W.3 replied that he had no funds. A1 told P.W.3 that he will take samples for which P.Ws.3 and 4 replied that without the prior permission of the Panchayat, A1 cannot ask for the samples. This was also communicated to the President of the Panchayat Board - One Ponnusamy. The President of the Panchayat Board sent for A1 and asked him not to take samples and A1 went away. 4. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Prevention of Corruption Office and gave a complaint Ex-P1 to P.W.6, who is the Inspector. P.W.6 received and registered the complaint as Crime No.8 of 1989 under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Prevention of Corruption Office and gave a complaint Ex-P1 to P.W.6, who is the Inspector. P.W.6 received and registered the complaint as Crime No.8 of 1989 under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The printed first information report is Ex.P6. P.W.6 obtained the permission from his superior to trap the first accused. P.W.2, who was working as the Head Clerk in the Tanjore Collectorate and another-One Ramasamy, who was working in the Public Works Department as Assistant Engineer were summoned as trap witnesses. Both P.W.2 and the said Ramasamy were introduced to P.W.1 and the complaint was read over to them. 5. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as the said Ramasamy were explained about the phenolphthalein test. P.W.6 received M.O-1 series two Rs.50 currencies from P.W.1 and he put the phenolphthalein powder over the currencies. Thereafter, he handed over the same to P.W.1 with a direction to hand it over to A1 on his demand. Immediately on handing over the same, P.W.1 was instructed to come out of the office and to give signal by holding the dhoti. P.W.6 along with others went near the house of A1. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of A1 and found the same locked. They came back to P.W.6 and informed him about the same. P.W.6 asked P.W.1 to wait for A1. In the afternoon by 3.45 PM, P.W.1, on enquiry, found that A1 was not in station and he can meet him only on the next day at 8 AM. P.W.1 informed the same to P.W.6 and all of them returned to Tanjore. P.W.1 was asked to stay in the Prevention of Corruption Office itself. P.W.2 and the said Ramasamy were asked to keep the plan secretly. 6. On the next day at 5.30 AM, they were asked to be present in the office of P.W.6. On 2.11.1989, all of them again came to the house of A1. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of A1 and called him. A1 came out of his house. P.W.1 informed him about their visit on the previous day and also informed him that he has brought the mamool amount. A1 asked P.W.1 to handover the same at S.K.M. Lorry Booking Office. P.W.1 replied that he was not in talking terms with those, who are in the lorry booking office. A1 came out of his house. P.W.1 informed him about their visit on the previous day and also informed him that he has brought the mamool amount. A1 asked P.W.1 to handover the same at S.K.M. Lorry Booking Office. P.W.1 replied that he was not in talking terms with those, who are in the lorry booking office. A1 asked P.W.1 to hand over the amount to A3, who is having a tea shop closeby. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to P.W.6 and informed him about the instructions given by A1. P.Ws.1 and 2 thereafter went to the tea shop of A3 and handed over the amount stating that A1 had demanded the mamool and had instructed them to hand over the same to A3. A3 received M.O-1 series, folded in his dhoti and told them that he will hand over the amount to A1. P.W.1 thereafter gave the signal to P.W.6 and P.W.1 left to his house. P.W.2 was also there. 7. P.W.6 and Ramasamy and other prosecution party went to the shop of A3. From there, they went to A1’s house. Thereafter, they brought A3 to A1’s house and made a search. No incriminating materials recovered. P.W.6 prepared the sodium carbonate solution and asked A3 to dip his fingers both left and right hands. The solution changed its colour. The solution was sealed in a bottle and sent for chemical examination through the court. After the chemical examiner’s report, the charge sheet was filed. 8. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 the main witness, P.W.2 the trap witness, P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the cousins of P.W.1, and P.W.6 the Investigation officer were examined and as many as 10 documents were marked. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused were questioned under Sec.313(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence version is one of denial. D.W.1, who was a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, was examined to establish that A2 is having the Head Quarters at Kasavalanadu Pudur where he has to be in the office from 8 AM to 5 PM and he has no role to play at Vallam. 9. The defence version is one of denial. D.W.1, who was a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, was examined to establish that A2 is having the Head Quarters at Kasavalanadu Pudur where he has to be in the office from 8 AM to 5 PM and he has no role to play at Vallam. 9. On the basis of the evidence, the lower court had acquitted A3 and found A1 and A2 guilty of the offences for which they were charged and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100 for the offence under Sec.7 of the said Act, in default to pay the fine amount, they have to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. They have been further sentenced to undergo 18 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the said Act and to pay a fine amount of Rs.100, in default to pay the fine amount, they have to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The lower court further ordered that the sentences should run concurrently. As against the same, the present criminal appeals have been filed. 10. Mr.M.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the second accused contended that the role played by the second accused is only to pass on the information of demand made by A1 to P.W.1, even assuming that the prosecution case is true. In such circumstances, A2 cannot be found guilty for any of the offences, for which, the charges were framed. 11. Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the first accused contended that there is absolutely no evidence on the side of the prosecution to establish the demand as well as the payment. When there is no recovery from the first accused, the offence cannot be said to have been made out under the said Act. There is also discrepancy with regard to the date of demand. He further contended that on the Deepavali day, the accused might not have met P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 to demand mamool. There is also no evidence on the side of the prosecution with regard to the relationship between A1 and A3. When A3 had been acquitted on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence to show that A3 had received the amount on behalf of the first accused, the offence against A1 is not made out. 12. There is also no evidence on the side of the prosecution with regard to the relationship between A1 and A3. When A3 had been acquitted on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence to show that A3 had received the amount on behalf of the first accused, the offence against A1 is not made out. 12. It is unnecessary to elaborate the facts, since the question for consideration falls within a short compass i.e. whether the prosecution has made out the case against both the appellants with regard to the demand as well as the payment of the mamool. As per the admitted case of the prosecution, it is clear that A2 has no role to play except informing P.W.1 that A1 demanded Rs.100 by way of mamool. More than that, it is not the case of the prosecution that A2 had persisted P.W.1 for the payment of the amount nor he demanded any amount on behalf of A1. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no offence has been made out against A2. 13. So far as A1 is concerned, admittedly, the recovery of the mamool amount is not from A1. In a trap of case under the said Act, the demand and payment followed by the recovery are the essential ingredients to be established by the prosecution. All the three are conjointly to be proved. It is not a piece-meal establishment. If the connecting thread is missing in between anyone of the requirements, then, it has to be held that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the judgment of the lower court, in paragraph 22, the learned trial Judge had found that A3 did not abet the offence by rendering any assistance to A1. Further, the learned trial Judge also stated that the Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that there is absolutely no evidence to establish the relationship between A3 and A1 and also as to whether A3 had received the amount knowing fully well that the same when the recovery had been admitted from A3, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not established the alleged offence of receiving the bribe against A1. 14. 14. In a recent judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan, A.I.R. 2001 S.C.W. 2415, the Supreme Court held that if the amount is not recovered from the person of the accused, it will be highly doubtful to accept the case of the prosecution in the following terms: “That apart, it is an admitted case that the amount of Rs.4,000 tainted money, which is alleged to have been demanded, was recovered from under a pair of trousers from the cot in room No.19 at Tilsk Lodge by the trap party. According to respondent No.1, he was in the bathroom and which he came out, he found P.Ws.1, 2, and 3 sitting on the cot when the raid party suddenly appeared and picked up the amount of Rs.4,000 from under the pair of trousers. The fact that P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were already sitting on the cot where the pair of trousers was lying from underneath which the amount was recovered is not disputed. Under these circumstances, it does probabilise the defence version given by the respondents that bribe money was planted by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, who were engaged in illicit distillation and sale of arrack, to falsely trap the respondents, who were serving in the Prohibition Wing of the Po ice, by placing the amount under the trousers of respondent No.1.” 15. Admittedly, the recovery is not from A1. When the recovery is rot from A1, the phenolpthalein test has no role to play. Hence, it is unnecessary to discuss the procedure adopted by P.W.6. For all these reasons, this Court holds that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and as such, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. 16. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed. The convictions and sentences imposed by the court below are set aside. Since the appellants are on bail, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.