ORDER: Govindarajan (A-1), the Food Inspector-cum-Sanitary Inspector and Pachamuthu (A-2), Maistry working in Salem Municipality were convicted for the offences under Secs.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and under Secs.12 read with 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), Govindarajan (A-1) was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default to undergo R.I. for two months on each count. Pachamuthu (A-2) was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default to undergo R.I. for two months on each count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment, Govindarajan (A-1) has filed an appeal before this Court in C.A.No.274 of 1994 and Pachamuthu (A-2) has filed a separate appeal in C.A.No.282 of 1984. Both these appeals are being disposed of in this common judgment. 2. The facts leading to the conviction need narration: "(a) Ramanathan (P.W.3) was running an Ice factory styled as ‘State Ice Cream’ in Salem. Sethuraman (P.W.1), the brother-in-law of P.W.3 was working under him as Manager in the said Ice factory. P.W.4 Nagarajan is a hawker engaged by P.W.1 who used to take the ice cream and ice fruit in a vending cart and sell to the public. (b) On 21.9.1988, when he was selling the ice cream to the public in Sevvaipettai area, Govindarajan (A-1) took P.W.4 and the cart to the Municipal Office. He asked P.W.4 to inform his owner that he must come and meet him. Accordingly P.W.4 phoned up to the Ice company. Since P.W.3 was not available in the station, P.W.1 came to the Municipal office and met the first accused. He informed that the owner Ramanathan (P.W.3) was not available, as he had gone to Madras. The first accused told P.W.1 that he could ask P.W.3 to come and meet him as soon as he came from Madras. (c) P.W.3 Ramanathan, the owner, came back to Salem on 22.9.1988. On being informed P.W.3 said that he was tired and therefore, P.W.1 could go again and meet the first accused and get the details of the information to be conveyed to P.W.3. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the Municipal office and asked the first accused as to why P.W.3 had to meet him. On being informed P.W.3 said that he was tired and therefore, P.W.1 could go again and meet the first accused and get the details of the information to be conveyed to P.W.3. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the Municipal office and asked the first accused as to why P.W.3 had to meet him. At that time, the first accused to him that P.W.3 shall give Rs.200 as bribe for not booking a case against P.W.3’s company and if money is not paid, he would file a case and in that event, P.W.3 would have to suffer by facing the criminal proceedings before the Court. (d) P.W.1 came to P.W.3 and informed this to him. So, on 26.9.1988 P.W.3 went and met the first accused. At that time also, he demanded the money of Rs.200 as bribe. He had also reminded P.W.3 that he was earlier prosecuted by another Food Inspector in a similar case and therein he was convicted and therefore he must pay the money of Rs.200 to him. When P.W.3 expressed his inability, the first accused demanded atleast Rs.150. Then P.W.3 promised that he would be sending the money through P.W.1 next day, i.e., on 27.9.1988. (e) Since P.W.3 was not inclined to give money as bribe, he instructed P.W.1 to give a complaint to the Vigilance next day. In pursuance of the same, P.W.1 came to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and gave a complaint at 2.00 p.m. As per the direction of the D.S.P., the Inspector of Police, P.W.11 registered the case and arranged for securing two official witnesses for watching the trap proceedings. Accordingly, P.W.2 Abdul Rahman, an Assistant in the Highways Department and one Rangasamy, working in the P.W.D. came to the Vigilance office to assist in the trap. They were introduced to P.W.1. At 2.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.2 Abdul Rahman and Rangasamy the currency notes handed over by P.W.1 were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared. Then, demonstration was shown to the complainant and the witnesses and the significance of the phenolphthale in test was explained to them. Ex.P-3 mahazar was prepared signed by the witnesses and P.W.11. P.W.1 was instructed to give the money to the Food Inspector (A-l)only on demand. (f) Then, the officers and the witnesses went in an Auto-rickshaw and other vehicles at about 3.00 p.m. P.Ws. Ex.P-3 mahazar was prepared signed by the witnesses and P.W.11. P.W.1 was instructed to give the money to the Food Inspector (A-l)only on demand. (f) Then, the officers and the witnesses went in an Auto-rickshaw and other vehicles at about 3.00 p.m. P.Ws. 1 and 2 alone were instructed to go to the office. Accordingly, they went and met A-1. When the first accused saw P.W.1 he asked him as to whether was; sent by P.W.3, the Ice Factory owner, and whether he brought the money. P.W.1 after stating that he had brought the money, took out the money from his pocket and attempted to give to the first accused. At that time, he saw P.W.2 Abdul Rahman, who was with P.W.1 and enquired P.W.1 as to who he was P.W.1 said that he is an Engineer, who was engaged for effecting repairs of the company machines and both of them came for purchasing the machineries and on the way, they came to the municipality to meet the first accused. Then, the first accused began to talk with P.W.2. At that time, the first accused called two persons, viz., Pachamuthu (A-2) and P.W.7 working as Maistries, who were standing outside, and talked to them. Then, he asked P.W.1 to hand over the money to Maistries and go away. At that time, the first accused was putting several questions to P.W.2 in regard to the engineering work. Therefore, P.W.1 came out and attempted to give money to A-2 Pachamuthu. He said that the money need not be given at that place and took him to the nearby dispensary. P.W.7 Mariappan, another maistry also accompanied the second accused and P.W.1. Near the dispensary, P.W.1 removed the currency notes of Rs.150 and handed over the same to A-2. He counted the same and put it in the left side pocket. Then, P.W.1 came back to the first accused and informed him that he gave the money to A-2. Then, both P.Ws.1 and 2 came out of the office and gave the pre-arranged signal to P.W.11 and other officers. (g) On getting the signal, P.W.11 came to the office along with the officials including P.W.2 and disclosed their identity. Then, Govindarajan (A-1) was requested to take seat. At that time, P.W.6 Varadhan, another man working in the municipality was also there. Both A-2 and Mariappan P.W.7 were found standing near the chair of A-1. (g) On getting the signal, P.W.11 came to the office along with the officials including P.W.2 and disclosed their identity. Then, Govindarajan (A-1) was requested to take seat. At that time, P.W.6 Varadhan, another man working in the municipality was also there. Both A-2 and Mariappan P.W.7 were found standing near the chair of A-1. Then, P.W.11 prepared Sodium Carbonate solution and asked the first accused to dip his fingers of both the hands. But there was no change in the colour of the solution. Then P.W.11 again prepared Sodium Carbonate solution in two other glass tumblers and asked A-2 to dip his fingers. This time, the colour of the solution turned into pink. When the accused were questioned, A-2 Pachamuthu, the Maistry informed P.W.11 that P.W.1 came and met the first accused and that thereafter, he instructed him and P.W.7 Mariappan that P.W.1 would be giving the money and the same could be collected from him and accordingly, P.W.1 gave the money of Rs.150 and he received it and kept it in his pant pocket. He also removed the currency notes and handed over to P.W.11. On verification, with the mahazar the numbers of the currency notes were found tallied. Then, the pocket portion of the pant of A-2 was subjected to test which proved positive. (h) Thereafter, both the accused 1 and 2 were taken to custody then they were released on bail. During the further investigation, he examined all the witnesses. After finishing investigation, he sent a report to the authority requesting for sanction. After obtaining sanction Ex.P-10, P.W.11 filed a charge sheet against both the accused for the offences referred to above. (i) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-17 were filed and M.O.1 to M.O.10 were marked. On the side of the defence, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were filed. (j) When these accused were examined with reference to the incriminating materials, the first accused stated that he never met P.Ws.1 to 4 and no money was demanded from them as bribe and that there was no necessity for him to instruct A-2 to receive the money from P.W.1 on his behalf as Exs.D-1 and D-2 would show that there was enmity between A-1 and A-2 and as such, false case was foisted against him. The second accused would state that he had nothing to say about this case. (k) On analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as defence, the trial Court found both the accused guilty for the offences referred to above and convicted them thereunder. Aggrieved by this, both the accused are before this Court in these two separate appeals. 3. Mr.I.Subramaniam, the learned counsel for the first accused/appellant Govindarajan, would submit the following: ”Admittedly, there is no recovery of the money from the first accused Though test was conducted on the hands of the first accused, the same was proved negative. The evidence relating to demand das not been supported by any corroboration. Though P.W.1 stated in the deposition that the first accused asked P.W.1 to give money to A-2, he admitted that he had not stared to the police that the first accused particularly mentioned the name of the second accused. The evidence of P.W.6 is quite significant, since P.W.6 was one of the officials sitting in the office, but he gave a different story by not supporting prosecution. Exs.D-1 and D-2 would show that the first accused complained about the misconduct of A-2 by not attending the office regularly, to the higher officials. When such being the case, the first accused would not have instructed P.W.1 to give the money to A-2. Admittedly, at the time of demand, there was no seizure nor any adulteration case was pending. Therefore, there was no necessity for the first accused to demand the money. In this case, charges were framed twice. On 18.7.1939, the first charge was framed. Again after the evidence was over on 1.3.1994, the second charge was framed. Both the charges would not refer about the demand of the accused P.W.11 did not give any explanation as to why the test was conducted on A-1. Since there is no recovery from A-1, no presumption would arise as against him. Therefore, the first accused would be entitled to be acquitted. 4. Mr.Antony Xavier, the counsel appearing for the second accused would submit the following: “In this case, the investigation was not conducted by the competent officer. Under Sec.17(C) of the Act, 1988, Deputy Superintendent of Police alone would be competent to investigate. In the present case, P.W.11 Inspector of Police conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the entire investigation is illegal. Under Sec.17(C) of the Act, 1988, Deputy Superintendent of Police alone would be competent to investigate. In the present case, P.W.11 Inspector of Police conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the entire investigation is illegal. Under Sec.19 of the Act, the sanction has to be granted only by the Municipal Health Officer. But, in the present case, P.W.8 Director of Public Health has granted sanction. Therefore, the sanction is invalid. Admittedly, there is no material to show that A-2 demanded the money nor any complaint was filed against him by P.W.1. Therefore, A-2 is liable to acquitted.” 5. In reply to these submissions, the learned Government Advocate would point out various portions of the evidence and contend that the reasonings given by the trial Court for convicting both the accused are correct and justified. 6. I have carefully considered the contentions made by the counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. Before appreciating the materials available on record, it would be worthwhile to refer to the points raised by the counsel for both the accused in regard to the question of law. 8. On behalf of the counsel for the first accused, it is contended that the charges were framed against both the accused on 18.7.1989 for the offences under Sec.7 against the first accused and under Sec. 12 read with 7 against the second accused. But again, on 1.3.1994, against both the accused the fresh charge was framed under Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. It is further contended that in both the charges, there is no reference about the demand made by the first accused and as such, the entire trial is vitiated and conviction becomes illegal. 9. This contention, in my view, is not tenable. Even in the judgment rendered by the trial Court, it has been specifically mentioned by the Special Judge that earlier is predecessor framed charges only under Secs.7 and 12 read with 7 of the Act and after evidence was over, an application was filed by the prosecutor requesting to add the charge under Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and after hearing the counsel for both the parties, that application was allowed and consequently, the charge under Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) was framed against both. It is also specifically mentioned in the judgment that after framing the charges, the accused were questioned and they were also given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined earlier, however, they said no further cross. It is to be noticed that when the application by the prosecutor was allowed by the trial Court, no challenge was made before the higher forum regarding the adding of the charge. Furthermore, as indicated above, the opportunity was given to the witnesses after framing of the additional charge and the same was not availed of. 10. In this context, it would be relevant to quote Sec.216, Crl.P.C. by which any Court may add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. As provided in the section, after the addition of charge, the said charge shall be read and explained to the accused. After the alteration of the charge, if the Court is of the opinion that it would prejudice the accused in defence or the prosecutor, the Court may in its discretion proceed with the trial as if the added charge is the original charge. 11. In this case, no prejudice was complained by the accused. On the other hand, the accused were given opportunity by the Court to recall the witnesses earlier examined for cross-examination but the counsel for both the accused said, no further cross-examination and as such, the opportunity that was given by the Court was not availed of. From this, it is clear that no prejudice has been caused to the accused by adding the charge under Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by framing the same on 1.3.1994 after the evidence was over. 12. It is contended that the word ‘demand’ is not mentioned in both the charges framed on 18.7.1989 and 1.3.1994. Though the word ‘demand’ is not mentioned in both the charges, it is specifically stated in those charges that A-1 obtained Rs.150 through A-2 as a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward in the exercise of A-1’s official duty for not filing any case under the Food Adulteration Act against the State Express Ice Company. 13. The omission of the word ‘demand’ in these charges would not mean that there are no materials for the demand. But, Sec.7 of the Act is the analogous provision of Sec.161, Indian Penal Code. 13. The omission of the word ‘demand’ in these charges would not mean that there are no materials for the demand. But, Sec.7 of the Act is the analogous provision of Sec.161, Indian Penal Code. The reading of Sec.7 would make it clear that the demand also is included in the said Section . On the other hand, Sec.13(1)(d) would only refer the public servant obtaining the pecuniary advantage. Therefore, though the word ‘demand’ has not been used, the framing of the charge under Sec.7 would prove that the amount was received on 27.9.1988 was in presence of the demand which was made by the first accused earlier as well as on 27.9.1988. 14. Furthermore, Sec.464, Criminal Procedure Code would clearly provide that no finding or sentence rendered by the Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground of any error or omission or irregularity in the charge, unless in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. 15. In this case, though the word ‘demand’ has been omitted in the charges, the prosecution has let in evidence to show that the first accused demanded by the bribe money for not putting case against P.W.3 on earlier occasions and in pursuance of the said demand, he received the money of Rs.150 through A-2. Under these circumstances, no prejudice can be pleaded by the counsel for the first accused merely on the ground that the word ‘demand’ has been omitted in the charges framed. 16. In regard to the competency of the investigation, the counsel for the second accused would submit that under Sec.17(c) of the Act, the Deputy Superintendent of Police alone is competent to investigate and in this case, the Inspector investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and therefore, the entire investigation is illegal and consequently, the conviction has to be set aside. 17. This submission has to be rejected on two reasons: (1) No questions were put to P.W.11, the Inspector of Police with retard to the incompetency in conducting investigation. As a matter of fact, P. W.1 initially gave complaint only to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Salem. Mr.Velliangiri, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of the complaint Ex.P-1 given by P.W.1, directed P.W.11, Inspector of Police to register the case and investigate the matter. As a matter of fact, P. W.1 initially gave complaint only to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Salem. Mr.Velliangiri, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of the complaint Ex.P-1 given by P.W.1, directed P.W.11, Inspector of Police to register the case and investigate the matter. Accordingly, the case was registered. The charge sheet was filed after obtaining sanction from the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Madras. (2) Under Sec.17(c), proviso the State Government through the general or special order authorise the Inspectors of Police to investigate any offence under this Act and as such, the Inspectors of Police as per the authorisation by the Government would become competent to investigate the matter. The learned Government Advocate has produced G.O.Ms.No.269 issued by the Government authorising Inspectors of Police of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption to exercise the powers of investigation of the Deputy Superintendent of Police for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1968. The learned Government Advocate also produced G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 10.1.1966 authorising all the Inspectors of Police of the Directorate of Vigilant and Anti-corruption to exercise the powers of investigation for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Therefore the submissions would fail. 18. Yet another submission made by the counsel for the second accused is that the sanction had been obtained by P.W.11 for prosecuting the second accused from the Director of Public Health, whereas the authority competent to remove the second accused is the Commissioner of Municipality and as such, the sanction is invalid. 19. This submission also is wrong, in view of the fact that admittedly, the officer who had granted sanction, who was examined as P.W.8 is the superior officer to the sanctioning authority. It is held in Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1407: 1982 Crl.L.J. 1973, that the sanction to prosecute the public servant can be granted both by appointing authority or any authority superior to the said competent authority. Thus, this argument also would fail. 20. Let us now appreciate the evidence available on record against both the accused. 21. Thus, this argument also would fail. 20. Let us now appreciate the evidence available on record against both the accused. 21. According to the prosecution, the first accused who was working as a Food Inspector in 6th Division of Salem Municipality, demanded bribe from P.W.3 for not filing food adulteration case against him on 26.9.1988 and in pursuance of the demand, he received the amount from P.W.1 who is the Manager of P.W.3 through A-2 who is working as a Maistry in the Salem Municipality. Regarding the demand of the money, the prosecution has let in evidence through P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4. 22. P.W.4, on 21.9.1988, was selling the ice cream in the Sevvaipettai area which is under the jurisdiction of the first accused. At about 12.30 p.m., when he was doing his business in the road side, the first accused took him and made him to sit in the municipal office. Then, he was asked to contact the owner of the ice factory through phone and ask him to come and meet him. Accordingly, as directed P.W.4 phoned up to the ice factory. At that time, P.W.3 was not available, but P.W.1, the manager was available. 23. On receipt of the phone message that the ice cream vending cart was detained in the municipal office. P.W.1 rushed there and met the first accused. The first accused asked about the whereabouts of P.W.3. P.W.1 said that P.W.3 had gone to Madras. Then, he instructed P.W.1 to ask P.W.3 to come and meet him. However, on that day he did not take sample from the ice cream vending cart and sent P.W.4 along with the cart. 24. Next day, i.e., on 22.9.1988, P.W.3 came back from Madras. On being informed by P.W.1. P.W.3 said that he was tired and therefore, P.W.1 himself could go and meet the first accused and get the details. However, on that day he did not take sample from the ice cream vending cart and sent P.W.4 along with the cart. 24. Next day, i.e., on 22.9.1988, P.W.3 came back from Madras. On being informed by P.W.1. P.W.3 said that he was tired and therefore, P.W.1 himself could go and meet the first accused and get the details. Under those circumstances, P.W.1 went and met the first accused on that day at 2.30 p.m. At that point of time, the first accused told P.W.1 that already on 24.3.1988 P.W.3 had been fined in a food adulteration case filed by one Thiagarajan, Food Inspector in Senthalpettai and if yet another case is booked up by the first accused against P.W.3, he would have to pay the money of Rs.4,000 or Rs.5,000 as fine and therefore, if the amount of Rs.200 is paid to him, he would not file any case against him. He further instructed that regarding this P.W.3 should come and meet him in person. This was conveyed to P.W.3 by P.W.1. 25. On 26.9.1988 at about 3.45 p.m., P.W.3 went to the municipal office and met the first accused. The same thing regarding the demand of Rs.200 as bribe was reiterated by the first accused to him. P.W.3 said that he would not be able to pay Rs.200. Ultimately, the first accused reduced the amount of Rs.200 into Rs.150. He assured that if the amount is given to him, he would not file any case against him. Then, P.W.3 said that he would send Rs.150 through his manager (P.W.1) next day. 26. However, P.W.3 did not incline to give the money to the first accused as bribe. Therefore, he instructed P.W.1 that he shall give a complaint to vigilance next day, as he was leaving for Madras on the same day. Accordingly, P.W.1 went and gave the complaint Ex.P-1 to the Vigilance. 27. These details mentioned above have been given in Ex.P-1, the earlier document in this case. There is no dispute in the fact that on that day, the first accused was in charge of the 6th Division where the Sevvaipettai is situate. There is also no dispute in the fact that on these dates, namely, 21.9.1988, 22.9.1988 and 26.9.1988, the first accused attended the municipal office. There is no dispute in the fact that on that day, the first accused was in charge of the 6th Division where the Sevvaipettai is situate. There is also no dispute in the fact that on these dates, namely, 21.9.1988, 22.9.1988 and 26.9.1988, the first accused attended the municipal office. It is also not the case of defence that the prosecution witnesses P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were inimical towards the first accused. 28. It is admitted by both P.W.1 and P.W.3 in Ex.P-1 as well as in the deposition that P.W.3 was earlier convicted in the food adulteration case on the complaint filed by one Thiagarajan, another Food Inspector in other area of the Salem municipality. It is also admitted in the cross-examination by P.W.3 that he had grievance against the said Thiagarajan who filed the case against him by giving wrong particulars. The reading of the evidence of P.W.3 would go to show that even though the said case was not a true case, he did not want to contest the matter and paid the fine after making the plea of guilty. 29. Thus, it is clear that there was no necessity for these persons either to give complaint against the first accused or to state the money was demanded as bribe by him for not putting a false case. As admitted by the counsel for the first accused, there are several jurisdictions in Salem municipality and each jurisdiction is named by one Food Inspector. Under these circumstances, P.W.1 and P.W.3 need not choose the first accused alone who is having Sevvaipettai jurisdiction to give a false complaint against him to the Vigilance. 30. Furthermore, P.W.4 is one of the hawkers who used to sell the ice cream in the vending cart in the road side and he need not state anything against the first accused. As a matter of fact, he would specifically state that he was detained in the municipal office by the first accused and on his instruction, he phoned up to P.W.1 that he was being detained by the accused with his vending cart. On receipt of the said message, P.W.1 came and nut the first accused. On that day, both P.W.4 and the vending cart were released. 31. It is true that no sample was taken on that day. On receipt of the said message, P.W.1 came and nut the first accused. On that day, both P.W.4 and the vending cart were released. 31. It is true that no sample was taken on that day. It is also true that there was no case pending against P.W.3 in the first of the first accused. But, it should be noticed that the demand of money, as per prosecution, was not for dropping the case but for not filing a case against P.W.3. In fact, P.W.1 and P.W.3 were reminded by the first accused about the earlier suffering that P.W.3 experienced during the case filed by another Food Inspector Thiagarajan. So, this was taken as an opportunity by the first accused to demand money from P.W.1 and P.W.3 for not filing a case against him. 32. As a matter of fact, P.W.4 is an important witness who speaks about these happenings which paved the way for the first accused to demand the bribe from P.W. and P.W.3. So, the reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 would make it clear that P.W.1 met the first accused for the first time only on 21.9.1988 on receipt of the phone message from P.W.4 and again, P.W.1 met the first accused on 22.9.1988 at the instance of P.W.3, who is the owner of the ice factory, since he was unable to meet the first accused as he was so tired and on that date, the bribe of Rs.200 was demanded. Only on the basis of this information, P.W.3 had to go and meet the first accused on 26.9.1988 at about 3.45 p.m. As a result of the conversation between P.W.3 and the first accused the amount of Rs.200 was reduced to Rs.150. Only thereafter, P.W.3 was constrained to give a complaint to vigilance through P.W.1. 33. Thus, the perusal of the deposition of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 would clearly show that the events took place till the filing of the complaint on 27.9.1988 are chronological and natural. Under those circumstances, the evidence given by P.W.1 and P.W.3 regarding demand is well corroborated not only by P.W.4 but also by the contents of the complaint given by P.W.1. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the demand of bribe from P.W.1 and P. W.3 made by the first accused for not filing food adulteration case against P.W.3 has been established. 34. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the demand of bribe from P.W.1 and P. W.3 made by the first accused for not filing food adulteration case against P.W.3 has been established. 34. In regard to the evidence relating to the receipt of gratification, we would now discuss about the materials placed before the Court. 35. According to prosecution, the first accused Food Inspector directed the second accused Maistry to receive the amount of Rs.150 on his behalf and instructed P.W.1 to give the said amount to A-2. In pursuance of the said instruction, P.W.1 gave the amount of Rs.150 to A-2 near a dispensary situate in the municipal compound. According to the first accused, he never gave such instructions to P.W.1 and did not direct the second accused to receive the amount on his behalf. To prove the aspect of the receipt of the amount by A-2 on the basis of the direction of A-1, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2. 36. As indicated earlier, P.W.1 went and met D.S.P., on 27.9.1988 at 2.00 p.m. and gave the complaint. As directed P.W.11 Inspector of Police registered the case. At about 2.30 p.m., two officers were requested to be present to watch the trap proceedings. Among those two officers, Abdul Rahman who is working in the Highways Department was examined as P.W.2. In the presence of these two officers, the entrustment mahazar was prepared by P.W.11 after explaining the significance of the phenolphthalein test. Ex.P-3 is the mahazar. 37. After this process was over, P.W.1, P.W.2 and other officers went in an Auto and in Appu Chetti Street where the municipal office is situate, P.Ws.1 and 2 were dropped. They were instructed to go to the office and meet the first accused. P.W.2 was specifically asked to watch the conversation between P.W.1 and the first accused and receipt of the money by him. Accordingly, both went inside the office. The moment the first accused saw P.W.1, he asked P.W.1 as to whether he was sent by his owner P.W.3 and whether he had brought the money of Rs.150. Stating that he had brought the money P.W.1 put his hands inside the pocket to remove the amount. 38. At that point of time, the first accused noticed the presence of P.W.2. Immediately he asked P.W.1 not to take out the money. Stating that he had brought the money P.W.1 put his hands inside the pocket to remove the amount. 38. At that point of time, the first accused noticed the presence of P.W.2. Immediately he asked P.W.1 not to take out the money. Then, he began to enquire P.W.1 as to who P.W.2 was. P.W.1 said that he was the company engineer who used to come to company for repairing machines. Then the first accused asked P.W.2 whether he knows how to assemble the machines. While conversing, the first accused stood up and asked Pachamuthu (A-2) and Mariappan (P.W.7), Maistries of the municipality to come near him and thereafter he murmured something to them. Then, he came near to P.W.1 and instructed him to give the amount to those Maistries outside and then go away. Accordingly, P.W.1 came out of the office to give the money to Maistry. At that time, the first accused was enquiring P.W.2 regarding engineering work. Therefore, P.W.2 was not able to accompany P.W.1. 39. Then, P.W.1 went outside and gave the money to A-2. A-2 said that money need not be given there and so saying he took him to nearby dispensary. P.W.7 another maistry also accompanied them. Near the dispensary P.W.1 gave the amount of Rs.150 to the second accused. He received the same and put it in his pant pocket. Thereafter, P.W.1 came back to the office and told the first accused in the presence of P.W.2 that he handed over the money to the second accused as instructed by him. Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 came out of the office within few minutes. Then, P.W.1 gave the prearranged signal. On getting signal, P.W.11 along with the officers and P.W.2 went inside the office and introduced themselves to the first accused who was about to leave the office. 40. This aspect of the evidence has been adduced by P.W.2 also. According to P.W.2 when both of them went inside the office, the first question that was asked by the first accused to P.W.1 is whether he was sent by his owner and he had brought the money of Rs.150. When the money was attempted to be given, the first accused on noticing the presence of P.W.2, who accompanied P.W.1, asked P.W.1 to wait for some time. P.W.2 would further state that he enquired P.W.2 and was in conversation with him for some time. When the money was attempted to be given, the first accused on noticing the presence of P.W.2, who accompanied P.W.1, asked P.W.1 to wait for some time. P.W.2 would further state that he enquired P.W.2 and was in conversation with him for some time. Then he called second accused and P.w.7, maistries who were standing outside and told something to them. He, also instructed something to P.W. 1 in a low voice. Then, he signalled P.W.1 to give the money to those maistries by showing gestures. Accordingly, P.W.1 went outside along with the second accused and P.W.7. Within few minutes, P.W.1 came back and told the first accused that he gave the money to the maistry. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 came out of the office. 41. This aspect of the evidence relating to the instruction given to P.W.1 and direction to the maistries has been clearly spelt out from the deposition of both P.W.1 and P.W.2. When P.W.1 attempted to remove the currency notes kept in the pocket in order to hand over the same to the first accused, he stopped P.W.1 from giving the amount, since he noticed the presence of a stranger along with P.W.1. 42. The reading of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would make it clear that he entertained some suspicion on seeing P.W.2. When P.W.1 said that he was a company engineer, he began to enquire P.W.2 by putting various questions with reference to the engineering work. At that point of time, he asked both the maistries, i.e., A-2 and P.W.7 to come near him and gave the direction to receive the money from P.W.1. He also gave a signal to P.W.1 through the hand that he could pay the money to those maistries. This shows that he was reluctant to receive the money from P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.2 who was introduced as a company engineer. Though on seeing P.W.1 the first accused asked him whether he brought the money sent by P.W.3, he did not choose to receive the money from him since he happened to see a stranger with P.W.1 and consequently, P.W.1 was asked not to take out the money, but to wait for some time. Only thereafter, the first accused decided to call the maistries to receive the money from P.W.1. 43. Up to this portion of the occurrence, we have got the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2. Only thereafter, the first accused decided to call the maistries to receive the money from P.W.1. 43. Up to this portion of the occurrence, we have got the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2. As indicated above, P.W.2 was not able to accompany P.W.1 to witness the receipt of the amount by A-2 from P.W.1 on behalf of the first accused. However, the other portion of the occurrence has been spoken to by P.W.1 in detail. 44. When P.W.1 came out of the office to give the amount to the second accused, he took him to a nearby dispensary and informed him that he as instructed by the first accused to receive Rs.150 from him. Accordingly, P.W.1 gave the amount which was received by A-2, who in turn, put it in his pant pocket. Though this aspect of the evidence as spoken to by P.W. 1 has not been corroborated by any independent witness, there is evidence through P.W.2 and P.W.11 that the said money was recovered from the pocket of A-2 after the phenolphthalein test was conducted on his fingers. 45. It cannot be contended that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were known to the first accused earlier and they were inimical towards him. As a matter of fact, the deposition given by P.W.2 both in chief and cross would clearly show that he was able to give the minute particulars about what happened inside the office. It is a clear statement by P.W.2 that the first accused asked P.W.1 whether he had brought the money sent by P.W.3 and gave the signal to P.W.1 to hand over the money to the maistries A-2 and P.W.7 as a gratification. 46. It is true that P.W. 1 did not state to the police that he was asked to give the money by mentioning the name of A-2. But, his consistent version is that he was asked to pay the amount to maistries A-2 and P.W.7. P.W.2 also would state both of them were c ailed inside and the first accused murmured something to them and thereafter asked P.W. 1 to give the money to them by showing gestures. 47. P.W.2 is an independent witness who is working in the Highways Department. There is no necessity for him to speak falsehood against the first accused. P.W.2 also would state both of them were c ailed inside and the first accused murmured something to them and thereafter asked P.W. 1 to give the money to them by showing gestures. 47. P.W.2 is an independent witness who is working in the Highways Department. There is no necessity for him to speak falsehood against the first accused. Even assuming that P.W.3, the owner of P.W.1 was having grievance against the Food Inspector for filing false cases, no such reason can be attributed to P.W.2 as against the first accused. Therefore, it is obvious that the first accused initially enquired P.W.1 as to whether he brought the money and after verification that he brought the money, he instructed P.W.1 to give the same to the maistries. 48. It is also to be noticed that the first accused instead of receiving the money directly from P.W.1, he called maistries inside the office and told them something in a low voice and instructed P.W.1 through the hand gestures asking him to give the money to maistries, which would go to show that the first accused did not incline to receive the money in the presence of P.W.2 who was a stranger to him. This itself would show the conduct of the first accused that he wanted the money to be handed over to the maistries by P.W.1 outside the office because the same was received as a gratification. 49. Regarding the recovery, as stated above, we have got the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.11. As soon as P.W.11 got the prearranged signal, he along with P.W.2 and other officials came inside the office and conducted the test on the fingers of the first accused. It is admitted by the prosecution that when the test was conducted on A-1, P.W.11 did not know that A-1 did not receive the money. P.W.2 also admitted that he did not inform P.W.11 that A-1 instructed P.W.1 to hand over the amount to maistries. This was the reason as to why the test conducted on the fingers of the first accused did not prove positive. Then, the fingers of A-2 were tested and the same was proved positive. Thereafter, A-2 was enquired. He informed P.W.11 that he was asked by A-1 to receive the money from P.W.11. 50. With reference to the recovery, the mahazar Ex.P-5 was prepared. Then, the fingers of A-2 were tested and the same was proved positive. Thereafter, A-2 was enquired. He informed P.W.11 that he was asked by A-1 to receive the money from P.W.11. 50. With reference to the recovery, the mahazar Ex.P-5 was prepared. In the said mahazar, refrence about the statement of the second accused regarding the direction given by A-1 has been stated. P.W.2 also would refer about the statement given by A-2 to P.W.11. This mahazar was signed by both the accused, P.W.7 and other witnesses. 51. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first accused, the statement given by one accused to the police officer implicating another accused is not admissible. However, the conduct of the accused relating to the removal of the currency notes from his pant pocket and handing over the same to P.W.11 is quite relevant. Furthermore, the currency notes which were recovered from him were found to be the same notes, which were given by P.W.11 to P.W.1 after smearing the phenolphtalein powder. Furthermore, the pant pocket was also subjected to test, which proved positive. 52. In the light of the above materials, the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 regarding the instruction given by the first accused to P.W.1 to hand over the money to the maistries is reliable and acceptable. 53. It is contended by the counsel for the first accused that Exs.D-1 and D-2 would show that there was enmity between the first accused and the second accused. 54. This submission, in my view, does not merit consideration. Ex.D-1 is a letter written by A-2 to the Health Officer, Salem Municipality that he rejoined duty on the 6th Division which was managed by the first accused on 26.9.1988. Ex.D-2 is a letter sent by the first accused on 22.9.1988 complaining about the conduct of the second accused in not attending the office from 16.8.1988. It is also mentioned in Ex.D-2 by the first accused that due to the irregular attendance of A-2 inconvenience was caused and therefore, the Health Officer was requested to send some other man as a substitute in the place of the second accused. 55. P.W.6 Varadhan, who was working in the same office would admit in the cross-examination that there was a wordy quarrel between the first accused and second accused on the first day when he rejoined the office. 55. P.W.6 Varadhan, who was working in the same office would admit in the cross-examination that there was a wordy quarrel between the first accused and second accused on the first day when he rejoined the office. This admission by P.W.6 and documents, Exs.D-1 and D-2 would not be sufficient to hold that both the accused 1 and 2 were inimically disposed of and that therefore, A-1 would not have instructed P.W.1 to give the amount to A-2. 56. According to prosecution, the occurrence took place on 27.9.1988. As per Ex.D-1, he rejoined on 26.9.1988. The attendance register Ex.P-6 which was seized in this case, and Ex.P-8 and P-16 would show that though the second accused was absent for some days, he rejoined on 26.9.1988 after getting permission from the Health Officer and from then onwards, he was allowed to function in the 6th Division under the first accused. Therefore, there was no necessity for A-2 to have any enmity against A-1, since there was no action taken against him as per Ex.D-2. The very fact that A-2 was working under A-1 from 26.9.1988 onwards would clearly reveal that there was no further misunderstanding between A-1 and A-2. 57. However, it should be noted, in this context, as admitted by P.W.1, that the first accused told him that he could hand over the money to the maistries by pointing out both A-2 and P.W.7. This is further corroborated by the fact that when the money was handed over to A-2 by P.W.1, P. W.7 also was present. Thus, it is clear that the first accused directed both the maistries to receive the money from P.W.1. Therefore, the question of enmity between A-1 and A-2 would not help the case of defence. 58. It may be true that P.W.6, another officer who was sitting in the office, while P.Ws.1 and 2 were present and talking to A-1, did not speak about the conversation between them. But, P.W.6, would admit that two persons came to the office and one person enquired P.W.6 about the procedure for registering the death in the municipality and another person was talking to the first accused. He would also admit that test was conducted on the fingers of A-2 and thereafter, A-2 took the money of Rs.150 and handed over the same to P.W.11. He would also admit that test was conducted on the fingers of A-2 and thereafter, A-2 took the money of Rs.150 and handed over the same to P.W.11. In the mahazar Ex.P-5 prepared tor seizure of the money, P.W.6 also signed as one of the witnesses. Though the evidence of P.W.6 would not corraborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, his evidence could be taken into consideration with reference to the presence of two persons and one person was talking to A-1 and thereafter, money was recovered from A-2. Thus, it is established by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the amount was handed over to A-2 on the instruction given by A-1 and through the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.6 and P.W.11 the same was recovered from A-2. 59. The learned counsel for the first accused would cite R.Venkatesan v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, 1979 L.W. (Crl.) 171, Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 707, Shantilal v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 S.C.C. (Crl.) 95 and Meena, W/o.Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra, (2000)2 C.T.C. 434, in order to substantiate his plea that the prosecution should prove that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive for doing any official act in favour of the witness in his official function and in the absence of the evidence relating to demand for bribe and when the evidence of decoy witness has not been corroborated by the independent witness, the conviction cannot be based. 60. It is also further contended on the strength of R.Venkatesan v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, 1979 L.W. (Crl.) 171, that the prosecution cannot rely or the phenolphthalein test as corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 because the recovery of the currency notes was not from the first accused and recovery of the currency notes from the accused is also an important in link proving the prosecution case and since the same is missing, prosecution cannot be said to have been established. 61. These contentions in my view, would not at all be applicable to the present case. As indicated above, there is a clear evidence relating to the demand of money as gratification by A-1 for not filing case against P.W.3 through P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4. 61. These contentions in my view, would not at all be applicable to the present case. As indicated above, there is a clear evidence relating to the demand of money as gratification by A-1 for not filing case against P.W.3 through P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4. Similarly, the receipt of the money by A-2 on the instruction of A-1 has been established through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the amount was recovered from A-2 has been established through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.11. 62. In the light of these abundant materials, this Court cannot hold that the evidence relating to demand by A-1 and receipt of the money by A-2 on behalf of A-1 is not supported by any corroborative evidence. On the other hand, the materials available on record, as discussed above, would clinchingly prove that the gratification was demanded by the first accused from P.W.1 and P.W.3 and in pursuance of the said demand, the amount was received by A-2 on behalf of A-1 as instructed by him. Thus, the conviction imposed upon the first accused is perfectly justified. 63. As regards the sentence, it is seen from the judgment of the trial Court that the first accused has been convicted for the offences under Secs.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default to under go rigorous imprisonment for two months on both the counts and the sentences to run concurrently. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the imprisonment of two years imposed on both these counts is reduced to one year imprisonment, which is a minimum imprisonment prescribed under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d). In other respects, both the conviction and sentence are confirmed. 64. Let us now come to the second accused. According to prosecution, A-2 received the money from P.W.1 on behalf of A-1 as per his instructions and so, he abetted A-1, thereby committed the offence under Sec.12 read with 7 of the Act. He was convicted on both the counts, namely, Sec.12 read with 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 65. Sec.12 provides that whoever abets any offence punishable under Sec.7 is liable to be punished. He was convicted on both the counts, namely, Sec.12 read with 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 65. Sec.12 provides that whoever abets any offence punishable under Sec.7 is liable to be punished. Sec.7 would provide that whoever being a public servant demands and accepts the gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for doing an official act in the exercise of his official function is liable to be punished. Sec.13(1)(d) would provide that if a public servant by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself or for any other person any pecuniary advantage, he is liable to be punished. 66. Though there is a separate charge as against A-2 under Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)(d), there is no separate charge framed against him under Sec.7. But, the main accusation as per the materials available on record is that he abetted the offence punishable under Sec.7. Since the charge under Sec.12 read with 7 was framed against him, it is manifest that the case of the prosecution that the second accused abetted the first accused, who committed the offence under Sec.7 of the Act. But for proving the offence under Sec.12, the prosecution has to establish that he actively participated by assisting the offence committed by the first accused under Sec.7. 67. According to prosecution, the first accused demanded the money from P.Ws.1 and 3 as bribe for not filing a case against him under Food Adulteration Act and consequently, he received the same through A-2, However, it is to be noticed that it is not the prosecution case that the second accused knew that the said demand was made by the first accused to P.W.1 and P.W.3 on earlier dates and only on the basis of the said demand, the bribe amount was handed over to A-2 on behalf of A-1. This is further made clear that there is no reference about the presence of A-2 either on 22.9.1988 when the first demand was made to P.W.1 or on 26.9.1988 when the demand was made to P.W.3, or in the complaint given by P.W.1. 68. It is also obvious that when the first accused asked P.W.1 whether P.W.3 sent the money through him, A-2 was not available inside the office. 68. It is also obvious that when the first accused asked P.W.1 whether P.W.3 sent the money through him, A-2 was not available inside the office. Only after getting instruction from the first accused, both A-2 and another maistry P.W.7 took P.W.1 to a nearby dispensary and received Rs.150 from him. 69. It is not the case of prosecution that when the money was received by A-2 on behalf of A-1 that A-2 knew that it is a gratification which was demanded by A-1 for the purpose of not filing a case against P.W.3. It may be true that P.W.1 was taken to a nearby dispensary and the amount was received by him from P.W.1. This conduct, though may create suspicion, would not clinchingly show that A-2 knew that he was asked to receive the money from P.W.1 as bribe on behalf of A-1. Unless this knowledge is established, the question of abetment does not arise. 70. This can be viewed from yet another angle. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as indicated above would make it clear that the first accused pointed out two Maistries, viz., P.W.7 and A-2 and signalised to P.W.1 to give the money to them. It is already pointed out that P.W.1 did not state to the police that he was asked to give the money to A-2 alone by mentioning the name. Thus, it is clear that both of them, namely, A-2 and P.W.7 were instructed by A-1 to receive the money from P.W.1 on his behalf. In that event, P.W.7 also in a way participated in the act of receipt of the amount by accompanying the second accused to receive the money from P.W.1. When the prosecution chose to examine one Maistry as a witness, there is no reason as to why the other Maistry was to be arrayed as an accused. 71. It is settled law that mere recovery of money would not be sufficient to hold that he received the money as bribe. As noted above, the prosecution has clearly proved that the money was recovered from A-2. This is not only spoken to by P.W.2 and P.W.11, but also spoken to by P.W.6 who is in a way tried to support the first accused. But, the fact remains, both P.W.7 and the second accused were directed by the first accused to receive the money from P.W.1. This is not only spoken to by P.W.2 and P.W.11, but also spoken to by P.W.6 who is in a way tried to support the first accused. But, the fact remains, both P.W.7 and the second accused were directed by the first accused to receive the money from P.W.1. At that time, both of these persons did not know that the amount was directed to be received on behalf of the first accused as bribe. In that event, the second accused also stands in a similar footing as that of P.W.7. 72. Under those circumstances, in the absence of any evidence to show that the money was received by A-2 on behalf of A-1 with the knowledge that it is a bribe. A-2 cannot be convicted. 73. In view of the above conclusion, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the second accused are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 74. In the result, C.A.No.274 of 1994 filed by Govindarajan (A-1) is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence alone and C.A.No.282 of 1994 filed by Pachamuthu (A-2) is allowed.