JUDGMENT: The first accused, as appellant, has filed this criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500 and in default two months rigorous imprisonment under Sec.7 and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500 and in default two months rigorous imprisonment under Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’), on 27.3.1995 in Special C.C.No. 104 of 1993 on the file of the Special Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode. 2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode has filed the final report against the appellant, Accountant, Madhavakrishnan, the first accused before the trial Court and the Assistant Manager, Kandasamy, the second accused before the trial Court, working in Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, Erode (herein after referred to as ‘TAHDCO’) stating that both the accused, who are public servants, have demanded and received illegal gratification as motive or reward a sum of Rs. 300 from the complainant Subramaniam to recommend at the earliest stage, a loan of Rs.6,000 out of which Rs.3,000 was paid as subsidy under the Self Employment Scheme, at 11.15 a.m. on 20.3.1992 in their office in the abovesaid Corporation with common intention and thereby committed offences punishable under Secs. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act and read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. 3. Copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the appellant and the second accused, Kandasamy under Sec. 207, Crl.P.C. 4. The learned Special Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode framed charges under Sec.7 of the Act against the appellant, under Sec.7 of the Act read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. against the second accused, Kandasamy and under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act and read with Sec. 34,I.P.C. against the appellant and the second accused, Kandasamy, read over and explained to both the appellant and the second accused and they denied the charges framed against them. 5. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and Exs.P-1 to P-20 were filed apart from marking M.O.1 series to M.O.5 before the trial Court. The brief facts of the case for disposal of this criminal appeal are as follows: P.W.2 Subramaniam is residing at Harijan Colony, Rangasamudram in Sathyamangalam. 5. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and Exs.P-1 to P-20 were filed apart from marking M.O.1 series to M.O.5 before the trial Court. The brief facts of the case for disposal of this criminal appeal are as follows: P.W.2 Subramaniam is residing at Harijan Colony, Rangasamudram in Sathyamangalam. P.W.6, who is known to P.W.2 for 4 years, informed P.W.2 about the scheme of the Government to end loan for self employment to Schedule Caste people. P.Ws.2 and 6 decided to avail loan of Rs.6,000 out of which Rs.3,000 was paid as subsidy, for starting a shop for sale of cheppals. An application was presented to the District Collector, Erode as seen in Ex.P-5 along with xerox copies of age certificate Ex.P-6, community certificate Ex.P-7 and family card Ex.P-8. One year after filing the abovesaid application, an officer from Panchayat Union office at Sathyamangalam and another officer of Indian Overseas Bank at Sathyamangalam came and enquired P.W.2 Subramaniam in connection with the loan applied for by him for starting a business under the Self Employment Scheme. This was informed to P.W.6 by P.W.2. P.Ws.2 and 6 went to Indian Overseas Bank at Sathyamangalam and on enquiry, the Manager of the said bank informed that the bank had sent a claim statement for giving loan to P.W.2 to the office of TAHDCO. The Manager of the bank had also informed them that on receipt of subsidy of Rs.3,000 from TAHDCO a sum of Rs.6,000 will be paid by the bank to P.W.2. P.Ws.2 and 6 went to the office of TAHDCO on Wednesday at 3.00 p.m. on 18.3.1992 and enquired in the office about the abovesaid loan. They were informed to meet the appellant, the Accountant and Assistant Manager, Kandasamy, the second accused. They asked second accused Kandasamy about the sending of claim statement by Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam and requested to look into it. The second accused informed P.Ws.2 and 6 that the work will be completed, if necessary payment is made. So saying, the second accused left the office stating that he has got urgent work and asked to contact the appellant in the office. P.Ws.2 and 6 approached the appellant and informed about the claim statement sent by the abovesaid bank to TAHDCO for six persons including P.W.2. So saying, the second accused left the office stating that he has got urgent work and asked to contact the appellant in the office. P.Ws.2 and 6 approached the appellant and informed about the claim statement sent by the abovesaid bank to TAHDCO for six persons including P.W.2. The appellant said that the claim statement had come from the said bank and also said that out of the total amount of Rs.6,000, a sum of Rs.3,000 will be paid to P.W.2 as subsidy. The appellant also informed that if a sum of Rs.300, at the rate of Rs.100 per thousand from and out of subsidy amount of Rs.3,000, is paid he will make necessary arrangements for immediate payment of the sum of Rs.6,000. P.Ws.2 and 6 left the office saying that they will come and meet at 3.00 p.m. on the next day. 6. P.Ws.2 and 6 went to Rangasamudram and met P.W.7 Chittan, who is the uncle of P.W.2. P.W.2 informed P.W.7 Chittan that a sum of Rs.300 has to be paid for sanction of loan in TAHDCO and therefore a sum of Rs.300 may be given to him. P.W.7 gave Rs.300, viz., fifty rupee denomination four notes and hundred rupee denomination one note. P.Ws.2 and 6 stayed at Rangasamudram and left on the next day morning. P.W.2 changed his mind with regard to the payment of illegal gratification as a motive or reward for discharging of an official act of the appellant and the second accused and therefore he went along with P.W.6 to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at Erode and lodged a complaint Ex.P-2 on 19.3.1992 to the Inspector of Police in the abovesaid office and also explained as to what had happened between P.Ws.2 and 6 and the appellant and the second accused on the previous day. P.W.13 Thiru M. Subramaniam registered a case in Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Crime No.3/AC/92-PD under Sec. 7 of the Act against the appellant and the second accused Kandasamy and prepared the first information report Ex.P-16. Necessary permission was obtained from the Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption through phone and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 and 6. At the request of P.W.13, P.W.3 K. Palanichamy, Assistant Engineer working in Highways Department and Agricultural Officer Thiru Selvin Durai came to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at 2.10 p.m. on 19.3.1992. Necessary permission was obtained from the Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption through phone and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 and 6. At the request of P.W.13, P.W.3 K. Palanichamy, Assistant Engineer working in Highways Department and Agricultural Officer Thiru Selvin Durai came to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at 2.10 p.m. on 19.3.1992. P.W. 13 introduced P.Ws.2 and 6 to the abovesaid officers and also gave Ex.P-2 to the abovesaid officers who have to accompany as witnesses in the trap case. Both have gone through the complaint Ex.P-2. P.W. 13 explained and experimented the phenolphthalein test and Sodium Carbonate solution test to them. P.W. 13 asked P.W.2 to hand over the sum of Rs.300, which he brought, and the said amount was handed over to P.W. 13, the four fifty rupee notes and one hundred rupee note totalling to Rs.300 and the numbers of the abovesaid notes were noted by P.W. 13. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the abovesaid five notes. After touching the abovesaid rupee notes by P.W.3, Palanichamy, he was asked to dip his fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution prepared and kept in the tumbler and the said solution has changed to pink colour, even though the said solution has not changed colour after dipping the fingers of P.W.3 who had touched the currency notes before smearing phenolphthalein powder. The said solution was packed in a dry bottle and sealed the same after closing it with cork covering with cloth and tying with a thread. The sum of Rs. 300 smeared with phenolphthalein powder, viz., M.O.1 series was handed over to P.W.2 by P.W. 13 to give to the appellant, if he demands. Ex.P-3 containing the numbers of currency notes is the entrustment mahazar prepared in the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 and Selvin Durai signed in the abovesaid Mahazar. P.W. 13 along with P.Ws.2, 3 and 6, Selvin Durai and police party left the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at 3.20 p.m. in the jeep owned by the said department and reached Rana Thirumanamandapam at 3.30 p.m. on 19.3.1992. P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 were asked to go to TAHDCO office followed by P.W. 13 and his police party without giving any room for suspicion. P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 were asked to go to TAHDCO office followed by P.W. 13 and his police party without giving any room for suspicion. P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 entered into the abovesaid office at about 3.45 p.m. and came out of the office by about 5.00 p.m. P.W.2 did not give any signal as instructed by P.W. 13. They assembled at Teachers’ Colony in Erode at about 5.15 p.m. on 19.3.1992 and P.W.2 informed P.W.13 that the appellant was not in the office and he had gone out. P.W.13 informed P.Ws.2 and 6 that if they are interested in pursuing the trap, they can come to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on 20.3.1992. P.W.3 and Selvin Durai were also asked to come to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on the next day in connection with the abovesaid trap. 7. P.W.3 and Selvin Durai came to the office of P.W.13 at 9.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992. P.W.2 only came to the said office immediately thereafter since P.W.6 had gone to Sathyamangalam to meet P.W.8 Madhesh and others. P.W.8 Madhesh, who had also applied for loan for self employment, was also not inclined to pay Rs.300 for sanction of the loan of Rs. 6,000 including subsidy of Rs.3,000. P.W.2 insisted for action on the complaint Ex.P-2 given by him and handed over the sum of Rs.300, which was handed over to him by P.W. 13 to give the same to the appellant if the appellant demands from P.W.2. The four fifty rupee notes and one hundred rupee note totalling to Rs.300 were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the numbers of the abovesaid notes were also noted in the mahazar Ex.P-4 prepared in the office of P.W. 13 at 10.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992. The abovesaid witnesses attested the abovesaid mahazar again. P.Ws.2 and 3, Selvin Durai, P.W. 13 and his police party went in the jeep bearing registration No.TSJ 4949 owned by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department and P.Ws.2 and 3 were dropped at Teachers’ Colony to proceed to the office of TAHDCO. Selvin Durai, P.W. 13 and his police party were watching the office of TAHDCO from East-West Bharathidhasan Street. P.Ws.2 and 3 entered into the abovesaid office at 10.45 a.m. on 20.3.1992 and found the second accused Kandasamy alone, but not the appellant in the office. Selvin Durai, P.W. 13 and his police party were watching the office of TAHDCO from East-West Bharathidhasan Street. P.Ws.2 and 3 entered into the abovesaid office at 10.45 a.m. on 20.3.1992 and found the second accused Kandasamy alone, but not the appellant in the office. The second accused, after ascertaining whether the other five applicants had come or not, asked as to whether they had come with what they asked. P.W.2 replied stating that he has brought the money to the extent possible. The second accused asked P.Ws.2 and 3 to wait since the appellant will come to the office within a short while. P.Ws.2 and 3 were waiting outside the office and the appellant came at about 11.00 a.m. to the office. P.Ws.2 and 3 approached the appellant and the appellant asked P.W.2 as to whether he had brought as it was informed to him already. P.W.2 answered in the affirmative. He also ascertained as to whether the other applicants had also come on that date, but P.W.2 replied in the negative. The appellant demanded the money and P.W.2 gave the sum of Rs.300 to the appellant. The appellant received the said money with his right hand. At that time P.W.6, Selvaraj also came there and noticed the receipt of the sum of Rs.300 by the appellant from P.W.2. The second accused informed P.W.2 after handing over the abovesaid sum of Rs. 300 to the appellant that they will take care of the loan proceedings. Thereafter P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 came out of the office by 11.20 a.m. and gave signal to P.W.13 by folding lungi, which P.W.2 was wearing, to the level of his knees. P.W.13 immediately rushed to the scene and asked as to who had received the said sum of Rs. 300. P.Ws.2 and 3 informed P.W.13 that the appellant had received the money and also identified the appellant. Thereafter P.Ws.2 and 6 were asked to go to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption by P.W.13. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 and to the extent of receiving the said sum of Rs.300 by the appellant from P.W.2 by P.W.6. 8. P.W. 13 prepared Sodium Carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked the appellant to dip his right hand fingers in one tumbler and the left hand fingers in another tumbler containing Sodium Carbonate solution. 8. P.W. 13 prepared Sodium Carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked the appellant to dip his right hand fingers in one tumbler and the left hand fingers in another tumbler containing Sodium Carbonate solution. The Sodium Carbonate solution, in which right hand fingers were dipped, changed into pink colour while the Sodium Carbonate solution, in which left hand fingers were dipped, changed into light pink colour. P.W. 13 asked the appellant as to whether he received the amount from P.W.2 and the appellant took out that money from a steel almirah in the said office by opening the door by using the key and handed over the money to P.W. 13. P.W. 13 found four fifty rupee notes and one hundred rupee note and the numbers were also verified with reference to the numbers noted in the mahazar Ex.P-4 prepared at the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on 20.3.1992. The Sodium Carbonate solution in both glass tumblers were packed separately in two glass bottles and they were closed with corks covered with cloth and tied with thread. Thereafter, the bottles were sealed at the scene of occurrence and the initials of the appellant, second accused Kandasamy, P.W.3 and Selvin Durai were obtained apart from P.W.13 himself signed in the label and pasted on the bottles. M.Os.3 and 4 are the bottles containing the abovesaid solution. The sample of the seals were affixed on white cloth and the same is M.O.5. Apart from M.O.1 series, Rs.300 recovered from the appellant, the appellant was also having personal money of Rs.26 and the said sum of Rs.26 was returned to the appellant himself. M.O.1 series, M.Os.3 to 5 were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-9 and thereafter the appellant was arrested at about 1.00 p.m. on 20.3.1992. P.W.2 and Selvin Durai had attested the abovesaid mahazar along with P.W. 13 at the scene of occurrence. The records of the office of TAHDCO were verified between 1.15 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. on 20.3.1992 and in connection with the same, the mahazar Ex.P-10 was prepared at the scene of occurrence. 9. P.W.9, Ramasamy, the District Manager of TAHDCO who is in-charge of the office of TAHDCO at Erode had come at about 2.30 p.m. to the scene of occurrence and he was informed about the trap. 9. P.W.9, Ramasamy, the District Manager of TAHDCO who is in-charge of the office of TAHDCO at Erode had come at about 2.30 p.m. to the scene of occurrence and he was informed about the trap. P.W.9 had spoken about the receipt of applications, procedure of processing the said applications, the grant of subsidy of 50% and the balance 50% by way of loan by Indian Overseas Bank and also about the other facts. 10. P.W. 13 received Ex.P-11 draft proceedings in No. 712/91/A2 dated 3.3.1992 relating to the sanction of Rs. 15,500 through Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam Branch in favour of P.W.2 Subramaniam and five others and subsidy of Rs. 3,000 each totalling to Rs. 15,500 aggregating to Rs. 31,000 along with letter dated 3.3.1992 of Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam, the list of borrowers numbering six and Ex.P-12 attendance register of TAHDCO in connection with the investigation on acknowledgment Ex.P-17 issued by P.W.13 to the TAHDCO on 20.3.1992. The appellant was brought to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode and he was released on bail at 5.30 p.m. on 20.3.1992. The abovesaid documents were sent to the Court immediately on the same day itself. 11. P.W.14 Mr. Thirumurthi, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, took up the investigation and recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses inclusive of P.W.11 Arumugam, Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam. P.W.11 speaks about the meeting of P.W.2 with him and about the processing of the application after production of Ex.P-14, no due certificate from other banks. P.W.11 has also stated that they had processed the application and selected six persons to give loan including P.W.2 and sent a letter Ex.P-11 dated 3.3.1992 asking TAHDCO to issue cheque for the said subsidy amount of Rs.3,000 each to pay the loan of Rs.6,000 inclusive of subsidy amount of Rs.3,000 by the Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam. 12. P.W.4 Pichandi and P.W.5 Manoharan speak about the receipt of 52 applications for loan by TAHDCO and also about the receipt of claim statement from Indian Overseas Bank, Sathhyamangalam for six persons including P.W.2. P.Ws.4 and 5 speak as to when the appellant as well as the second accused Kandasamy were present in the office, as to when they had gone on camp and as to when they were not in the office. They also speak about the attendance register Ex.P-12. P.Ws.4 and 5 speak as to when the appellant as well as the second accused Kandasamy were present in the office, as to when they had gone on camp and as to when they were not in the office. They also speak about the attendance register Ex.P-12. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 would also disclose about the fact of P.Ws.2 and 6 coming to the TAHDCO office on 18.2.1992, 19.2.1992 and also on 20.2.1992 in connection with the abovesaid loan and also about the trap by the Officer of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at Erode. 13. P.W.14 approached P.W. 1 K.M. Subramaniam, who was working as Manager in Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, to obtain sanction to prosecute second accused Kandasamy, the Assistant Manager of TAHDCO at Erode. After perusing the records including first information report, statements of witnesses, etc., sanction order Ex.P-1 was accorded by P.W.1 to prosecute the second accused Kandasamy. P.W.14 also approached P.W.12 Kannan, the then District Collector of Erode, to obtain sanction to prosecute the appellant. After perusing the first information report, statements of witnesses, mahazars, etc., P.W.12 accorded sanction Ex.P-15 to prosecute the appellant. 14. P.W.10 Shanmugam has spoken about the processing of the application and about the enquiry by P.W.2 and others with regard to grant of loan and also about the sending of recommendations to TAHDCO for sanction of loan. 15. After completing the investigation, P.W.14 filed the final report against the appellant and the second accused under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act and read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. on 21.9.1992 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. 16. The appellant and the second accused Kandasamy were examined under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence available against both the accused and they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. The appellant and the second accused Kandasamy had not chosen to examine any defence witness on their side. 17. 16. The appellant and the second accused Kandasamy were examined under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence available against both the accused and they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. The appellant and the second accused Kandasamy had not chosen to examine any defence witness on their side. 17. After considering the material evidence available on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has found the first accused, viz., the appellant guilty under Sec.7 of the Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500 and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months and also found guilty under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500 and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months, both sentences to run concurrently. The trial Court has found that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the second accused beyond all reasonable doubt and giving benefit of doubt acquitted the second accused charged for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Act and read with Sec. 34,I.P.C. and under Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act and read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. under Sec. 248(1), Crl.P.C. 18. Aggrieved at the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused, Madhavakrishnan, the first accused as appellant, has come forward with this criminal appeal. 19. The fact remains that P.W.2 Subramaniam residing at Harijan Colony in Rangasamudram in Sathyamangalam village at the instance of P.W.6 Selvaraj, presented an application Ex.P-5 along with age certificate, Ex.P-6, community certificate, Ex.P-7 and family card, Ex.P-8 to the Collector, Erode to avail loan of Rs.6,000 out of which Rs.3,000 was paid as subsidy for starting business of selling cheppals by P.W.2. The abovesaid scheme has been implemented by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the uplift of Adi Dravidars in Tamil Nadu. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.8, Madhesh, residing at Kumarapalayam in Sathyamangalam that he has also applied for the abovesaid loan. The evidence of P.W. 10 P.C. Shanmugam would disclose that the application presented by Adi Dravida loanees will be processed by him and submit the abovesaid applications to the Additional Block Development Officer and he in turn will forward the abovesaid applications along with his recommendations to the District Manager, TAHDCO, Erode. The evidence of P.W. 10 P.C. Shanmugam would disclose that the application presented by Adi Dravida loanees will be processed by him and submit the abovesaid applications to the Additional Block Development Officer and he in turn will forward the abovesaid applications along with his recommendations to the District Manager, TAHDCO, Erode. The evidence of P.W.10 further would disclose that 52 applications, viz., Ex.P-13, in which the application, Ex.P-5 of P.W.2, Subramaniam was numbered as 33rd application, were sent to the District Manager, TAHDCO, Erode. 20. The evidence of P.W.5, Manoharan, who was working as Junior Assistant in TAHDCO, Erode would disclose that the said office received Ex.P-13, applications from the Additional Block Development Officer and the said applications were placed before the Screening Committee in Nambiyur Panchayat Union on 15.10.1991 for selection of candidates for sanctioning of loan of Rs. 6,000 out of which Rs. 3,000 will be subsidy. The Manager of TAHDCO, Erode had participated in the said Screening Committee meeting and he accompanied the said Manager at that time. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.5 that 16 candidates approved for sanctioning loan by the Screening Committee were sent to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank at Sathyamangalam for consideration and sanction of loan from the abovesaid bank. The evidence of P.W.4, Pichandi, Record Clerk working in TAHDCO, Erode who is assisting P.W.5 in processing the applications received from the Additional Block Development Officer, Sathyamangalam has corroborated the evidence of P.W.5 in this respect. 21. P.W.11 is the Manager of Indian Overseas Bank in Sathyamangalam at the time of forwarding 16 applications by the Screening Committee to him as the Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam. The evidence of P.W. 11 would disclose that the name of P.W.2, Subramaniam was also found place in the abovesaid 16 applications. P.W.2 was asked to meet P.W.1 along with no due certificate and accordingly P.W.2 produced Ex.P-14, no due certificate for considering his name for sanction of loan. After processing the abovesaid 16 applications, P.W. 11 has selected only six applicants out of which, P.W.2 was also one and sent the abovesaid six names along with a letter Ex.P-11 to TAHDCO, Erode for issuing cheques towards subsidy of Rs.3,000 each to the selected loanees. After processing the abovesaid 16 applications, P.W. 11 has selected only six applicants out of which, P.W.2 was also one and sent the abovesaid six names along with a letter Ex.P-11 to TAHDCO, Erode for issuing cheques towards subsidy of Rs.3,000 each to the selected loanees. The evidence of P.W.11 would disclose that orders were passed on 2.4.1992 for sanction of loan of Rs.6,000 including the subsidy of Rs.3,000 to the abovesaid applicants. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 would also disclose about the fact of the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam recommending six names for sanction of subsidy of Rs.3,000 each by TAHDCO, Erode under Ex.P-11 and the receipt of the same by TAHDCO, Erode on 12.3.1992. Therefore, it is evident from the evidence of the witnesses referred to above that Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam had agreed to give a loan of Rs.3,000 along with subsidy of Rs.3,000 totalling to Rs.6,000 on sanctioning of Rs.3,000 as subsidy by TAHDCO, Erode. 22. The evidence of P.W.2, Subramaniam and P.W.6 Selvaraj, would disclose that they went to the office of TAHDCO, Erode at about 3.00 p.m. on 18.3.1992and enquired about the sanctioning of loan at P.Ws.4 and 5 and they informed to meet the appellant Madhavakrishnan and the Assistant Manager, Kandasamy, who are in a room. The evidence of P.W.2 supported by the evidence of P.W.6 would disclose that they met the appellant at his seat in the abovesaid office and the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 100 per thousand totalling to Rs. 300 for Rs. 3,000 paid as subsidy to see the disbursement of loan to him. The second accused Kandasamy, who was also present at that time, had left the office thereafter. The evidence of P.W.4 would disclose about the fact of P.Ws.2 and 6 meeting the Accountant Madhavakrishnan, the appellant and the Assistant Manager, Kandasamy at 3.00 p.m. on 18.3.1992 and thereafter leaving of the office by Assistant Manager, Kandasamy and also about the leaving of the office by P.Ws.2 and 6 thereafter. The evidence of P.W.4 would disclose about the fact of P.Ws.2 and 6 meeting the Accountant Madhavakrishnan, the appellant and the Assistant Manager, Kandasamy at 3.00 p.m. on 18.3.1992 and thereafter leaving of the office by Assistant Manager, Kandasamy and also about the leaving of the office by P.Ws.2 and 6 thereafter. It is evident from the evidence of the abovesaid witnesses that P.Ws.2 and 6 had gone to the office of TAHDCO, Erode and met the appellant as well as the second accused, Assistant Manager in connection with the loan to be disbursed to P.W.2 and there was a demand of Rs.300 at the rate of Rs.100 per thousand for the subsidy of Rs.3,000 from the appellant for enabling P.W.2 to get the loan of Rs.6,000. 23. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 would disclose that P.Ws.2 and P.W.6 went to Rangasamudram to meet P.W.7, Kittan, who is none other than the uncle of P.W.2 and requested to give Rs.300 for payment of bribe for receiving the loan of Rs.6,000. P.W.2 received Rs.300 from Kittan, as seen from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 is supported by the evidence of P.W.7, Kittan with regard to the request of P.W.2 to give him Rs.300 in connection with getting of loan and also about the receipt of fifty rupee denomination numbering four and hundred rupee denomination numbering one totalling to Rs.300. 24. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 would disclose that they have approached P.W.13, Thiru M. Subramaniam, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Erode and met P.W.13 on 19.3.1992 and made complaint about the demand of Rs.300 made by the appellant for disbursement of loan of Rs.6,000 including subsidy of Rs.3,000 by TAHDCO, Erode through Indian Overseas Bank at Sathyamangalam, since P.W.2 did not want to give bribe to the appellant for the abovesaid purpose. The evidence of P.W.13 would disclose that the statement (complaint) Ex.P-16 given by P.W.2 was recorded by P.W. 13, read over to him and obtained the signature of P.W.2 in the abovesaid complaint. It is also evident from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 that they signed in Ex.P-16 as complainant and as witness respectively after the contents of Ex.P-16 was read over to them. It is also evident from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 that they signed in Ex.P-16 as complainant and as witness respectively after the contents of Ex.P-16 was read over to them. It is thereafter, P.W.13 registered the complaint in Erode Vigilance and Anti Corruption Crime No.3/AC/92/PD under Sec.7 of the Act and prepared the first information report Ex.P-16. 25. The evidence of P.Ws.2, 6 and 13 would disclose that P.W. 13 asked P.Ws.2 and 6 to wait in the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption at Erode and asked P.W.3, K. Palanisamy, Assistant Engineer working in Highways Department at Uttukuli and Thiru Selvin Durai, Agricultural Officer working at Erode to come to the abovesaid office. It is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses referred to above that they reached the office at 2.10 p.m. on 19.3.1992. It is evident from the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 that P.W. 13 introduced P.Ws. 3 and Thiru Selvin Durai to P.Ws.2 and 6 and gave the complaint given by P.W.2 to go through it. It is thereafter P.W. 13 explained to the abovesaid witnesses about the phenolphthalein powder test and also Sodium Carbonate solution test and as to how the Sodium Carbonate solution will change into pink colour if any article smeared with phenolphthalein powder was touched and thereafter dipped into the abovesaid solution. It is also evident from the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 6 and 13 that P.W. 13 received the sum of Rs.300, M.O.1 series, brought by P.W.2 to give as bribe to the appellant and smeared the abovesaid four fifty rupee notes and one hundred rupee note with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to P.W.2 to give to the appellant, if he demands bribe from P.W.2. The entrustment mahazar, Ex.P-3 was prepared by P.W. 13 noting the numbers of the rupee notes, M.O.1 series and other facts of transfer between them in the office and obtained the signatures of P.Ws.2, 3, 6 and Selvin Durai. It is also evident from the evidence of the abovesaid witnesses that P.W.3, K. Palanisamy was asked to accompany P.W.2 to watch the demand and receipt of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act by the appellant from P.W.2. It is also evident from the evidence of the abovesaid witnesses that P.W.3, K. Palanisamy was asked to accompany P.W.2 to watch the demand and receipt of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act by the appellant from P.W.2. It is also evident from the abovesaid witnesses that P.Ws.2, 3, 6 and 13 and his police party left the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at Erode in the jeep bearing registration No.TSJ 4949 at 3.20 p.m. on 19.3.1992 to the office of TAHDCO, Erode and they reached the said office at 3.45 p.m. on that date. P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 went inside the abovesaid office while Selvin Durai, P.W. 13 and his police party were waiting in Bharathidasan Salai near Teachers’ Colony. As the appellant as well as Kandasamy, Assistant Manager were not present in the office of TAHDCO, they waited upto 5.00 p.m. and thereafter left the office and informed to P.W. 13. P.W. 13 informed P.Ws.2, 3, 6 and Selvin Durai that the matter that had taken place on 19.3.1992 need not be disclosed to anybody, that if P.W.2 wants to pursue the complaint, he can come on the next day morning to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode. P.W.3 and Selvin Durai were also requested to come to the office of P.W. 13 on 20.3.1992 as seen from the evidence of the abovesaid witnesses. 26. The evidence of P.W.2 would disclose that P.Ws.2 and 6 stayed in the bus stand at Erode on 19.3.1992 night and P.W.6 left to Sathyamangalam early morning stating that he will come after seeing some other persons. According to P.W.2, he went to the office of P.W. 13 at 9.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992 and at that time P.W.3, K. Palanisamy and Selvin Durai were present in the office of P.W. 13. P.W.3 came to the said office at that time. P.W. 13 obtained a statement from P.W.2 and thereafter the sum of Rs.300 brought by him to pay as bribe to the appellant was also received by P.W. 13. The numbers were verified and thereafter phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the abovesaid notes. P.W.3 came to the said office at that time. P.W. 13 obtained a statement from P.W.2 and thereafter the sum of Rs.300 brought by him to pay as bribe to the appellant was also received by P.W. 13. The numbers were verified and thereafter phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the abovesaid notes. The said notes given to P.W.2 with instruction that the said amount should be paid to the appellant only if he demands that money, M.O.1 series, were received and kept in the pocket of P.W.2 and a mahazar, Ex.P-4 was prepared containing the numbers of the rupee notes in M.O.1 series and obtained the signatures of P.Ws.2, 3, and Selvin Durai in Ex.P-4 apart from, the said mahazar being signed by P.W. 13. They started from the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at Erode to the office of THADCO in the police jeep and P.Ws.2 and 3 were also asked to go to the office of TAHDCO and asked to pay M.O.1 series if there is demand and to give signal by folding the lungi worn by P.W.2 upwards. The police party and Selvin Durai were waiting near Teachers’ Colony and P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the office of TAHDCO at about 10.45 a.m. P.Ws.2 and 3 met Assistant Manager, Kandasamy, who was arrayed as second accused and enquired about the appellant. P.Ws.2 and 3 were informed by Kandasamy that the appellant will come, and asked them to wait outside the room as seen from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The appellant came to the office at 11.00 a.m. and some time later P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the seat of the appellant as seen from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. It is also evident from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that the appellant asked P.W.2 as to whether he brought the money and he replied in the affirmative. Thereafter the appellant had demanded the money from P.W.2 and P.W.2 paid the sum of Rs.300 to the appellant who received it in his right hand as seen from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. It is also evident from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that P.W.6 had come to the office of TAHDCO at the time of handing over the money by P.W.2 to the appellant and had seen it. It is also evident from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that P.W.6 had come to the office of TAHDCO at the time of handing over the money by P.W.2 to the appellant and had seen it. Since the appellant had informed P.W.2 that he will take care of the matter, P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 left the office and P.W.2 gave the signal as already instructed by P.W.13. It is thereafter P.W.3, Selvin Durai and P.W.13 and his police party entered into the office of TAHDCO and introduced themselves to the appellant. P.Ws.2 and 6 had left the office of TAHDCO and went to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode after P.W.2 identified the appellant in the office of TAHDCO. 27. P.W.13 prepared Sodium Carbonate solution in 2 glass tumblers and asked the appellant to dip his fingers of his right hand in one tumbler and left hand fingers in another tumbler containing Sodium Carbonate solution. On dipping of fingers of hands in the solution by the appellant, the Sodium Carbonate solution changed into pink colour. Thereafter, P.W.13 asked the appellant to give the amount received by him as illegal gratification from P.W.2. The appellant took the M.O.1 series from his bureau stating that the said amount was placed in drawer of his table. P.W.13 verified the numbers of Rs.300 recovered from the appellant, viz., M.O.1 series with the mahazar already prepared containing the numbers of the abovesaid rupee notes and they tallied. The Sodium Carbonate solution in both the tumblers were separately packed in two bottles and sealed by P.W.13. They are M.Os.3 and 4. The model seal affixed on the bottle is M.O.5. P.W.13 prepared the mahazar, Ex.P-9 in the scene of occurrence and completed the same at 1-05 p.m. on 20.3.1992. The file, Ex.P-11 relating to loan and attendance register Ex.P-12 were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-10 at about 2.45 p.m. on 20.3.1992 as seen from the evidence of P.W.13 corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3. The appellant was arrested. The house of the appellant was searched and thereafter he was taken to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at Erode. The appellant was released on bail at 5.30 p.m. on 20.3.1992 as seen from the evidence of P.W. 13. The appellant was arrested. The house of the appellant was searched and thereafter he was taken to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at Erode. The appellant was released on bail at 5.30 p.m. on 20.3.1992 as seen from the evidence of P.W. 13. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 6 would disclose that the appellant had not only demanded a sum of Rs.300 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act which he bound to do and has accepted the said amount at about 11.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 which are corroborative to each other and also supporting the evidence of P.W.13. The evidence of P.W.6 also supports the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to the demand on 18.3.1992 from P.W.2 by the appellant and also receipt of the sum of Rs.300 by the appellant at about 11.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992 in the office of TAHDCO, Erode. 28. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that P.W. 8 had stated in his evidence that P.W.6 was at Sakthi Kumarapalayam at the noon time on 20.3.1992 and therefore, P.W.6 could not have come to the office of TAHDCO to see the receipt of Rs.300 from P.W.2 by the appellant. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) contends contra by stating that P.W.8 has not stated that P.W.6 was present at noon on 20.3.1992, but had referred to the earlier visit of P.W.6 to Sakthi Kumarapalayam. The evidence of P.W.8 in cross-examination by the second accused would disclose that P.Ws.2 and 6 had been to his house two days earlier for getting a loan of Rs.300 stating that if the said amount is paid, the cheque will be given to P.W.2. The time when such loan was asked was noon time according to P.W.8. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that P.W.6 was present at noon time on 20.3.1992 at Sakthi Kumarapalayam and therefore, P.W.6 could not have been present in the office of TAHDCO, Erode at about 11.00 a.m. On 20.3.1992, cannot be accepted. 29. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that P.W.6 was present at noon time on 20.3.1992 at Sakthi Kumarapalayam and therefore, P.W.6 could not have been present in the office of TAHDCO, Erode at about 11.00 a.m. On 20.3.1992, cannot be accepted. 29. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant was on camp on 18.3.1992 as seen in the entry made in the attendance register Ex.P-12 and that therefore P.Ws.2 and 6 could not have met the appellant so as to enable the appellant to demand bribe of Rs.300 for helping P.W.2 to secure loan of Rs.6,000 out of which Rs.3,000 is subsidy. Of course a perusal of Ex.P-12 would disclose that there is an entry of indicating the appellant going for camp on 18.3.1992. P.W.4 is none other than Record Clerk working in the office of TAHDCO at Erode. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.4 that his duty is to receive tapal to enter the same in register, to send tapal to the respective Sections in the office, to despatch tapal to be sent from the office and also to assist P.W.5, Manoharan in the office of TAHDCO. P.W.4 would state that himself, P.W.5, Muthumahalingam, appellant and Kandasamy were in the office of TAHDCO on 18.3.1992 and that P.Ws.4 and 5 were in the hall while the appellant and the second accused Kandasamy were in a room separately. P.W.4 would also state that at about 3.00 p.m. on 18.3.1992 P.Ws.2 and 6 came to the office and enquired about the loan for which P.W.2 had applied and he informed them to meet the appellant and Kandasamy who are in the room at that time. P.W.4 would also state that P.Ws.2 and 6 went to the room and met them and thereafter the second accused Kandasamy left the office. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.4 that it is thereafter P.Ws.2 and 6 left the office informing him that they will come and see the appellant and the second accused on the next day. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.4 that P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 came to the office of TAHDCO, Erode at about 4.00 p.m. on 19.3.1992 and they enquired about the subsidy and also about the appellant and the second accused. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.4 that P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 came to the office of TAHDCO, Erode at about 4.00 p.m. on 19.3.1992 and they enquired about the subsidy and also about the appellant and the second accused. P.W.4 would also state that he had informed that the second accused Kandasamy had gone on camp on 19.3.1992 while the appellant had gone on half a day casual leave on the afternoon of 19.3.1992 and asked to come on the next day. P.W.4 would also state that on 20.3.1992 at about 10.30 a.m. P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the office and met the second accused Kandasamy. Since the appellant was not present in the office at that time and on the instruction given by the second accused Kandasamy, P.Ws.2 and 3 left the room where the appellant and the second accused were sitting, and sat in the bench placed behind the hall of the office. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.4 that the appellant came to the office at 11.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992 and P.Ws.2 and 3 met the appellant thereafter. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.4 that P.Ws.2 and 3 left the room, where the appellant is sitting, 10 minutes thereafter and after five minutes the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption along with his police party entered into the room and were enquiring the appellant. 30. The evidence of P.W.5, Manoharan, who is working as Junior Assistant in the office of TAHDCO, Erode would disclose that the appellant informed him that he will go on camp on 18.3.1992, that therefore he entered into the attendance register Ex.P-12 as representing to go on camp on 18.3.1992 and that the appellant had left for camp only at 4.00 p.m. on 18.3.1992. The evidence of P.W.5 further would disclose that P.Ws.2 and 6 came to the office of TAHDCO at about 3.00 p.m. on 18.3.1992 and met the appellant and the second accused Kandasamy and thereafter left the office of TAHDCO, Erode after meeting P.W.4 saying that they will come on the next day. It is thereafter, according to P.W.5, the second accused Kandasamy left the office. It is thereafter, according to P.W.5, the second accused Kandasamy left the office. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.5 that the appellant had not gone for camp on 18.3.1992 even though an entry was made in the attendance register by P.W.5 as informed by the appellant to go on camp on 18.3.1992. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.5 that the appellant came to the office on 19.3.1992 and informed him that he will go on camp for half a day in the morning and on casual leave for half a day in the afternoon. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.5 that the appellant had left the office by 11.00 a.m. The second accused Kandasamy, who was present in the office on 19.3.1992, wanted to make entries in the attendance register, Ex.P-12 by himself and therefore Ex.P-12 was handed over to the second accused according to the evidence of P.W.5. According to the evidence of P.W.5, P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 came to the office at about 3.00 p.m. on 19.3.1992 and met the second accused Kandasamy and had conversation with the second accused. It is thereafter, the second accused Kandasamy left the office according to P.W.5. P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 left the office after second accused left the office as seen from the evidence of P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.5 would clearly go to show that the second accused Kandasamy has not gone on camp as stated by him even though he had stated to him that he will go on camp. The attendance register Ex.P-12 was in the custody of the second accused Kandasamy on 19.3.1992, according to P.W. 5. It is also stated that normally if the second accused gone on camp, he will inform and entries will be made in the attendance register by P.W.5, but on 19.3.1992 he had retained the attendance register with himself by making entry as if he is going on camp, but by remaining in the office on that day. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.5 that the second accused, Kandasamy had come to the office TAHDCO at 10.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992, but the appellant had come to the office later. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W. 5 that P.Ws. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.5 that the second accused, Kandasamy had come to the office TAHDCO at 10.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992, but the appellant had come to the office later. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W. 5 that P.Ws. 2 and 3 went to the room of the appellant after his arrival to the office and they were talking. Sometime later, P.Ws.2 and 3 came out of the office and thereafter Vigilance Inspector and his party entered into the office and were enquiring and recording statements in the said office. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.5 that P.W.9, V. Ramasamy, who was working as Manager in TAHDCO at Coimbatore and in-charge of the Manager of TAHDCO at Erode came at 2.30 p.m. on 20.3.1992 and the Vigilance Inspector was sitting with him. According to P.W.5, P.W.9 left the office saying that he is going to his native place. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 are corroborative with each other and there is no acceptable motives suggested against P.Ws.4 and 5 to depose against the interest of the appellant or the second accused, Kandasamy. The fact remains that the appellant was present in the office on 20.3.1992, but he has not signed on 20.3.1992 in the attendance register. The attendance register is blank on 19.3.1992 and 20.3.1992 for the appellant. No reason was given as to why no entry was made for 19.3.1992 and 20.3.1992 in connection with the attending of the office by the appellant. The entry on 20.3.1992 in the attendance register for the second accused, Kandasamy would disclose that he was on camp on 20.3.1992, but he was admittedly present in the office on 20.3.1992 and had also initialed the label pasted on the glass bottles recovered under Ex.P-9 on 20.3.1992 at about 11.30 p.m. The above facts would clearly go to show that Ex.P-12 attendance register maintained in TAHDCO, Erode, was not maintained properly and the officers, viz., the appellant as well as the second accused are used to make entries in the attendance register to suit their convenience for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, the entries made in the attendance register Ex.P-12, for going on camp on 18.3.1992 and by the second accused on 19.3.1992 cannot be safely acted upon. Therefore, the entries made in the attendance register Ex.P-12, for going on camp on 18.3.1992 and by the second accused on 19.3.1992 cannot be safely acted upon. It is relevant to point out that the post of Manager of the TAHDCO, Erode was vacant. Therefore, the appellant and the second accused, Kandasamy, who are in official cadre are making entries in the said attendance register to suit their convenience. In the light of the evidence given by P.Ws.4 and 5 and in the light of the other factors mentioned above, the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was not present in the TAHDCO office on 18.3.1992 to make any demand from P.W.2 and second accused, Kandasamy was also not present and he was on camp on 19.3.1992 as per Ex.P-12 and that therefore the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 in that respect should not be accepted, cannot be accepted. 31. It is yet another contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the money M.O.1 series were placed in the drawer of the appellant before he reached the office at 11.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992, that the appellant, who was not aware as to whom the abovesaid money belongs, had kept the money in the almirah and that therefore, he had not demanded and received any illegal gratification from P.W.2 on 20.3.1992. 32. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would disclose that they had been to the office of TAHDCO and met the second accused at about 10.45 a.m. on 20.3.1992. The second accused, Kandasamy informed P.Ws.2 and 3 that the appellant will come to the office and asked them to wait outside the office and therefore they went out of the office and were sitting in the bench kept behind the hall. The abovesaid evidence of P.W.2 would disclose that they left the room where the appellant and the second accused were sitting as per the instruction of the second accused at about 10.45 a.m. on 20.3.1992. Therefore nothing can be done by P.W.2 at the table of the appellant in the presence of the second accused. P.W.4 would also state in his evidence that P.Ws.2 and 3 came and met the second accused on 20.3.1992 and thereafter they were sitting in the bench kept behind the hall. Therefore nothing can be done by P.W.2 at the table of the appellant in the presence of the second accused. P.W.4 would also state in his evidence that P.Ws.2 and 3 came and met the second accused on 20.3.1992 and thereafter they were sitting in the bench kept behind the hall. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.4 that P.Ws.2 and 3 entered into the room and had conversation only after the arrival of the appellant to his seat in the office at about 11.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992. The evidence of P.W.5 would disclose that P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the office even prior to the arrival of the appellant to the said office and that they met the appellant after his arrival to the office and were having conversation with him. The evidence of P.W.5 would also disclose that P.Ws.2 and 3 were in the office room of the appellant before the appellant came to the office. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.5 that the second accused Kandasamy was in the office from 10.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992. If the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 are taken into consideration, it is evident that P.W.2 could not have placed the sum of Rs.300 in the drawer of the table of the appellant during his absence at the office. Even if the said contention of the appellant is taken into consideration for arguments sake, no acceptable explanation is given by the appellant as to why he had kept the sum of Rs. 300 in the bureau in his occupation in the office. If the said money is kept in the drawer of the table even before his arrival, he ought to have enquired with the second accused Kandasamy and other staff of the office as to whom this money belongs, but he has not chosen to do as seen from the material evidence available on record. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant had demanded and received the sum of Rs.300 from P.W.2 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act of paying a loan of Rs.6,000 inclusive of subsidy of Rs.3,000 to P.W.2 and kept it in the almirah. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant had demanded and received the sum of Rs.300 from P.W.2 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act of paying a loan of Rs.6,000 inclusive of subsidy of Rs.3,000 to P.W.2 and kept it in the almirah. It is only to escape from the trap made by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode, in the presence of witnesses referred to above, the appellant has taken a stand that the money was placed in his table drawer during his absence and he has kept the same in the bureau without knowing as to whom this money belongs. Such contention of the appellant cannot be accepted for the reasons already stated supra. 33. The learned senior counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 677 in support of his contention relating to sanction of prosecution in this case. In that case it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that the sanctioning authority should satisfy that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence and while sanctioning the prosecution, it should be done in two ways either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. In Charles Waker Devadas v. State by the Inspector of Police, etc., 1993 L.W. (Crl.) 346, a learned single Judge of this Court has held that mere repetition of the allegations in the charge sheet and mechanical approach without application of mind or without giving reason for granting sanction by the authority, will vitiate the sanction order. In State of Tamil Nadu v. M.M. Rajendran, 1998 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1000, the Honourable Apex Court has held that failure to place all the relevant materials including the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer before the Detaining Authority and sanction accorded on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Department, will vitiate the order of sanction given by the sanctioning authority. In A. Sankaranarayanan and another v. State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjore, 1998 M.L.J. (Crl.) 445, a learned single Judge of this Court has held that referring to the report of the prosecuting authority and connected records in his order and making a detailed reference to allegations made against the accused in the order of sanction by the sanctioning authority complied with the essential requirements of valid sanction order and therefore such sanction order has to be held as valid. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Damodaran, 1992 Crl.L.J. 522, the Honourable Apex Court has held that sanction accorded by the sanctioning authority after fully applying his mind with regard to all the relevant materials placed before him, is a valid sanction order. 34. P.W.12, Thiru Kannan, Collector of Periyar District at Erode was examined and he has deposed that after going through the entire records such as copies of first information report, statements of witnesses, mahazars and other records and the report of the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras, placed before him, he had satisfied himself and accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant R. Madhavakrishnan in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sec.19(1)(c) of the Act. A perusal of Ex.P-15, the sanction of prosecution by P.W. 12 would disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the application made by P.W.2, Subramaniam for loan for running a cheppal manufacturing business under the TAHDCO Self Employment Scheme, processing of application and approval of the Screening Committee and forwarding of the application to the Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam branch for consideration. P.W. 12 has also considered the selection of six applicants including P.W.2, Subramaniam for sanction of loans by Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam, sending of a communication by the said bank to District Manager, TAHDCO, Erode to send cheque for eligible subsidy amounts totalling to a sum of Rs. 15,500 in respect of the selected six applicants and about the receipt of the said communication on or before 12.3.1992 and pending further action in the office of TAHDCO, Erode. P.W. 12 has also taken into consideration the approach made by P.W.2 along with P.W. 6 Selvaraj at 3.00 p.m. on 18.3.1992 and meeting of the second accused, Kandasamy and the appellant R. Madhavakrishnan and also about the demand of Rs.300 at Rs. P.W. 12 has also taken into consideration the approach made by P.W.2 along with P.W. 6 Selvaraj at 3.00 p.m. on 18.3.1992 and meeting of the second accused, Kandasamy and the appellant R. Madhavakrishnan and also about the demand of Rs.300 at Rs. 100 per thousand for the subsidy amount of Rs.3,000 from P.W.2 by the appellant. P.W. 12 had also considered the complaint given by P.W.2 to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and registering of the case in Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Crime No.3/AC/92/PD and arranging for a trap at about 3.45 p.m. on 19.3.1992. P.W.12 has also considered that the rap could not be made since the appellant R. Madhavakrishnan had already left the office and was informed that he will come to the office only on 20.3.1992 morning. P.W. 12 also considered the fact of P.Ws.2 and 3 Palanisamy, Assistant Engineer, Highways Department, Uttukuli gone to the TAHDCO Office, Erode at about 10.30 a.m. on 20.3.1992 and meeting the second accused Kandasamy and after ascertaining the fact of bringing money by P.W.2, the instruction of the second accused Kandasamy to wait till the arrival of the appellant who was expected to come to the office then. P.W. 12 had also considered the fact of the said appellant coming to the office by 11.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992 and the conversation between P.W.2 and the appellant and the fact of demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.300 from P.W.2 at 11.15 a.m. on 20.3.1992 as a motive or reward for arranging to send the subsidy cheque in respect of P.W.2 to the Indian Overseas Bank, Sathyamangalam to enable him to obtain the loan at an early date. P.W. 12 has also taken into consideration of the further instruction given by them in connection with the other loanees and also about the recovery of the sum of Rs.300 which was kept in his bureau by the appellant after doing phenolphthalein test by asking the appellant to dip his fingers of both hands in separate glass tumblers in which Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and also about the arrest of the appellant. It is after considering the abovesaid facts and other facts in detail, P.W. 12 had satisfied himself in the light of the material documents placed before him that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec.7 and Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act and read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. It is thereafter, P.W. 12 has accorded sanction as contemplated under the law. The abovesaid facts would clearly go to show that the sanctioning authority had considered all the relevant materials placed before him and accorded sanction by mentioning each and every details in the sanction order, Ex.P-15 against the appellant. In the light of the abovesaid facts, the cases cited on the side of the appellant will not help him in any respect to hold that there is no valid sanction order in this case against the appellant. 35. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court, the decision reported in Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration), 1980 M.L.J. (Crl.) 73 and contends that mere recover) of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused under Sec. 5(2) of the Act and Sec. 161, I.P.C. Of course it was held so when the substantive evidence in that case was held to be not reliable. It is not so in this case as the evidence of P.W.2 is not only supported by P.W.3, but also supported by P.W.6 with regard to the demand and acceptance of the bribe of money by the appellant. 36. The learned senior counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court, the decision reported in Ayyasami v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 644, wherein it was held that for demand of bribe there was no independent evidence and the evidence available on record is not proving guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that therefore, the conviction based merely on probabilities is liable to be set aside. In this case there is independent evidence of P.W.3 even if the evidence of P.W.6 is considered to be interested. The Court below has not convicted the appellant based on probabilities, but was on concrete evidence only. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant will not also come to rescue of the appellant. 37. In this case there is independent evidence of P.W.3 even if the evidence of P.W.6 is considered to be interested. The Court below has not convicted the appellant based on probabilities, but was on concrete evidence only. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant will not also come to rescue of the appellant. 37. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also brought to the notice of this Court the decision reported in Som Parkash v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 665, wherein it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that witnesses forming part of raiding party are not independent witnesses and that conviction cannot be sustained as the evidence regarding handing over of money to the accused was unbelievable. In that case, the Head Master of a Government high school was tried for accepting the illegal gratification from a teacher of the same school for showing favour in signing a bill relating to arrears of his salary. The Special Judge, after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution held that the appellant was guilty for the offence under Sec. 5(2) of the Act and Sec. 161, I.P.C. The High Court found that the witnesses who were associated in the conduct of the raid for recovery of tainted money from the appellant could not be termed as independent witnesses and also expressed doubt about veracity of the witness who claimed that money was actually handed over in his presence. The High Court drew an adverse inference against the appellant from the circumstance that the bill which was delayed for unreasonable period had suddenly been passed by the appellant. It is under the said circumstances, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold as mentioned above. But in this case, P.W.3 is an independent witness even if P.W.6 is considered to be a witness interested in the welfare of P.W.2. Therefore, the decision referred to above will have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. 38. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court the decision reported in M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 509. Therefore, the decision referred to above will have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. 38. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court the decision reported in M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 509. In that case, the Honourable Apex Court has pointed out the distinction between a person who offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and one who is forced to offer bribe under coercion. It was held by the Honourable Apex Court that the former can be treated as an accomplice while the latter should be treated as an interested witness whose evidence requires corroboration in a general way and not in material particulars, though the evidence must be scrutinized carefully. It is also held that whether the evidence of a forced bribe-giver requires corroboration or not would be within the discretion of the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, even if P.W.2 is considered to be a forced bribe-giver, there is sufficient and reliable independent evidence for the demand and acceptance of bribe amount from P.W.2 by the appellant. Therefore, the decision referred to above will not also help the appellant in any respect. 39. The learned senior counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in M.S. Ramanathan v. The State represented by Inspector of C.B.I., Madras, 1982 L.W. (Crl.) 224. In this case, the seizure of the currency from the accused was underneath the file. The question that arose for consideration in that case was whether phenolphthalein solution turning pink in the phenolphthalein test will be a conclusive proof of taking of bribe by the accused. The learned single Judge of this Court has held that inference of bribe taking, cannot be drawn in the absence of proof that the accused demanded payment of bribe and the evidence of Investigation Officer alone, without corroboration, cannot be sufficient to sustain conviction. The position is not like that in this case and therefore, the decision referred to as mentioned above will have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. 40. The position is not like that in this case and therefore, the decision referred to as mentioned above will have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. 40. The learned senior counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision reported in Meena (Smt.) W/o. Balwanth Hemke v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 S.C.C. (Crl.) 878, in support of the case of the appellant. In that case, the charge against the accused who is a Revenue Record Keeper in Collectorate, demanding and accepting Rs.20 as illegal gratification for doing an official act of sending the relevant records to copying section. The currency note of Rs.20 denomination was found to be lying on the pad of the table. The phenolphthalein test conducted by the Investigating Officer had shown positive result. But the accused had taken a stand that the currency note when attempted to be thrust into the appellant’s hands by P.W. 1, the appellant pushed it away and in the process the note fell on the pad of the table. In the circumstances of the said case one shadow witness in the trap party was not examined and mother shadow witness was treated as hostile by the prosecution. Other material witnesses were not also examined by the prosecution and therefore there was wanting of evidence for corroboration of trap. It is under the said circumstances, it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that mere recovery of currency note and positive result of the phenolphthalein test were not enough in the peculiar circumstances of the case to establish the guilt of the accused (appellant) on the basis perfunctory nature of materials and prevaricating type of evidence. It was also held that the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in that case there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant. The circumstance is entirely different to the one. In this case there is trap witnesses and there is also independent evidence which is corroborating the evidence of P.W.2, the complainant. The demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the case law cited above will also not extend any help to the appellant to escape from the charges stands proved against him. 41. The demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the case law cited above will also not extend any help to the appellant to escape from the charges stands proved against him. 41. The evidence available on record would clearly establish that the appellant had demanded and accepted the gratification of the sum of Rs. 300 as a reward or motive for doing his official act from P.W.2 at about 11.15 a.m. on 20.3.1992 in the office of TAHDCO, Erode and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.7 of the Act. The conduct of receiving the illegal gratification of Rs. 300 or a reward or motive for doing the official act from P.W.2 at 11.15 a.m. on 20.3.1992 will certainly amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant and such criminal misconduct stands proved by acceptable evidence on the side of prosecution. Therefore, the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2)of the Act. 42. The learned Special Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode has convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500 and in default two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec.7 of the Act and also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also a fine of Rs.500 and in default two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act, the sentence to run concurrently. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant as mentioned above. 43. In fine, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant as mentioned above are confirmed and the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The learned Special Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode, is hereby directed to issue warrant to apprehend the accused to undergo unspent portion of the period of conviction in this case. No costs.