Judgment :- Accused 1 to 3 in Spl. C.C. 194/1989 on the file of Special Judge/I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem are the appellants. By the Judgment dated 31-7-1997, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The gist of the charge and the findings of the trial Court and sentence imposed on the accused could briefly be stated thus :- A-1 Selvaraj was working as Forester, Karipathi Section, Rasipuram Range. A-2 Krishnasamy was working as Forest Guard, Jarugumalai North Beat, Rasipuram Range. A3 David was working as Forest Watcher, Jarugumalai North Beat, Karipathi Section. From the evidence and materials placed, case of the prosecution could be stated thus : Complainant Dhanapal (P.W. 1) residing in their farm-house at Veerasamy Pudhur, Kattuvalavu along with his parents, his brother Palanisamy (P.W. 3) and his sister Annakodi (P.W. 7). P.W. 1 is working in Ammapet Co-operative Mill. His father and P.W. 3 were looking after the lands and also the sheep. On the night on 2-1-1989, P.W. 1 had gone to the Mill to attend the night shift. Taking P.W. 3 to custody on the night of 2-1-1989 : P.W. 3 was sleeping in the Goats Pen (Ml; Lg; gl;o) to guard the sheep. In the house, P.W. 7 - Annakodi along with her sister's 7 year old son Thangavelu alone were there. Their father had gone to the fields to sleep in Engine room. At about 1.00 a.m. (3-1-1989), A-1 - Forester Selvaraj, A-3 - Watcher David, P.W. 6 - Radhakrishnan (another Forest Watcher) along with three others went to the goats pen (Ml; Lg; gl;o) of P.W. 3 - Palanisamy in a taxi TMJ 1417 driven by P.W. 4 Ganesan and A-1 called the said Palanisamy. When he came out, A-1 enquired whether he had cut any trees in the forest. Though P.W. 3 denied, he was taken by A-1 in the taxi. Then all of them have gone to the farm-house and searched the house of P.W. 3. No materials (like cut trees) were recovered. At the time of search, P.W. 3 was in the taxi under custody. Though Annakodi P.W. 7 was able to see her brother - P.W. 3 in the taxi under custody, she was not able to talk to him anything. No materials (like cut trees) were recovered. At the time of search, P.W. 3 was in the taxi under custody. Though Annakodi P.W. 7 was able to see her brother - P.W. 3 in the taxi under custody, she was not able to talk to him anything. Then A-1 and A-3 along with others left the place, taking P.W. 3 along with them. After night rounds, on 3-1-1989 - 8.00 a.m., they returned to the Rasipuram Range Office. As per the directions of A1, A2 Forest Guard, who was in the Range Office, and A3 Watcher kept the said Palanisamy in a room in the Range Office, situated at the western side and guarded. When P.W. 1 returned to his house after night duty, he came to know about the incident through his sister Annakodi P.W. 7. Then immediately he proceeded to Rasipuram Range Office to see his brother. At about 10.00 a.m. on 3-1-1989, he met A1 and A3 at Rasipuram Range Office and requested to release his brother P.W. 3. At that time, A1 demanded Rs. 1000/- to release his brother. Though P.W. 1 represented that his brother has not cut any trees, A1 did not concede the request and left the place. P.W. 1 has seen that his brother was kept locked up in a room. Having waited till night, P.W. 1 returned to his village and informed the fact to his father and sister. On the next day, i.e. on 4-1-1989. P.W. 1 along with his cousin - P.W. 5 Sekar and neighbouring land owner one Muthusamy came to the Rasipuram Range Office at about 11.00 a.m. A2 and A3 were present. He enquired about the first accused and was informed that A1 has gone outside. Then he requested A2 and A3 to release his brother P.W. 3 by saying that he has not cut any trees. Both A2 and A3, in turn told P.W. 1 that unless P.W. 1 pays Rs. 1000/- as per the directions of A1, they cannot release P.W. 3. At that time, P.W. 5 and Muthusamy were present. After some time both P.W. 5 Sekar and Muthusamy left the Office leaving P.W. 1. Lodging the Complaint and registration of the case : As P.W. 3 did not commit any offence, the demand of Rs. 1000/- by the accused was found to be unfair to P.W. 1. At that time, P.W. 5 and Muthusamy were present. After some time both P.W. 5 Sekar and Muthusamy left the Office leaving P.W. 1. Lodging the Complaint and registration of the case : As P.W. 3 did not commit any offence, the demand of Rs. 1000/- by the accused was found to be unfair to P.W. 1. As there was no other alternative, he preferred a complaint - Ex. P-1 in the Salem Vigilance & Anti-corruption Office. The oral Complaint was reduced into writing by Inspector of Police - Mr. Asokan. On the basis of Ex. P.1. P.W. 14 - Inspector of Police registered the case in Cr. No. 1/AC/Spl/89 under Sec. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act under Ex. P. 36 - First Information Report. Then as per the directions of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-corruption, Special Cell, Salem, P.W. 14 - Inspector of Police took up the investigation in this case. Ex. P-2 - Entrustment Mahazar : A trap was arranged by P.W. 14 - Investigating Officer in the presence of P.W. 2 - Venugopal and another one Thirugnanasambandam (both are Government servants). P.W. 1 was having Rs. 500/- only with him. He had decided to go and meet the accused with that amount and request for the release of his brother, even though there was a demand of Rs. 1000/- by the accused. The amount of Rs. 500/- produced by P.W. 1 was entrusted to him after Phenolphthalein test and P.W. 2 was also requested to accompany P.W. 1 with instructions that the amount should be paid only on demand by accused. Payment of Rs. 500/- to A2 : Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Range Office at about 5.45 p.m. on the same day. At that time, A2 was standing near the underground Water Tank. A3 and P.W. 3 were sitting in a bench kept on the western side of the building, outside the office. The father of P.Ws. 1 and 3 was also sitting opposite to A3 and P.W. 3. In the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, again A2 and A3 reiterated their earlier demand as per the directions of A1 and asked them to wait in the office till the arrival of A1. The father of P.Ws. 1 and 3 was also sitting opposite to A3 and P.W. 3. In the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, again A2 and A3 reiterated their earlier demand as per the directions of A1 and asked them to wait in the office till the arrival of A1. Having waited for 15 minutes, P.W. 1 again requested A2 and A3 to release his brother by pointing out the approach of night time and saying that he was having only Rs. 500/- that too, without having any money for their expenses. Then A2 and A3 conceded the request of P.W. 1 and told that they would accept it and release P.W. 3 and inform A1 on his arrival. A2 demanded Rs. 400/- from him. P.W. 1 paid Rs. 400/- from the amount of Rs. 500/- he was keeping and retained Rs. 100/- with him. A2 received the amount and kept it in his shirt pocket. A2 and A3 informed P.W. 3 if A1 did not agree for the amount received by them, they would come and collect the balance in the village. Then A2 obtained signatures from P.Ws. 1 and 3 in two separate blank white sheets - Exs. P-3 and P-4. It was 6-30 p.m. by then. P.Ws. 1 and 3, their father and P.W. 2 all came out and P.W. 1 showed the prearranged signal. P.W. 14 - Investigating Officer and his party rushed to the spot and took P.W. 2 along with them. P.Ws. 1, 3 and their father waited outside. P.W. 14 and his party were obstructed from entering into the office by one Sivasubramaniam, another Forester, who was present there. Even after P.W. 14 disclosed their identities the said Sivasubramaniam did not immediately allow them by saying that in the absence of Ranger, they would not allow the party of Vigilance & Anti-corruption inside the office. Only after P.W. 14 explained the purpose of their visit, he allowed P.W. 14 and others inside the office. Trap and Ex. P-7 - Mahazar : All the six forest officials including A2 and A3 who were standing near the Main gate were asked by P.W. 14 to go inside. In the meantime, due to power failure, all the six persons were asked to stand in the verandah. Trap and Ex. P-7 - Mahazar : All the six forest officials including A2 and A3 who were standing near the Main gate were asked by P.W. 14 to go inside. In the meantime, due to power failure, all the six persons were asked to stand in the verandah. The power resumed shortly and on resumption of the power supply, the said six persons were asked to go inside the office. At that time, P.W. 2, the accompanying official witness identified A2 and A3 and told the fact about the receipt of the amount by A2. On such identification the hands of A2 were subjected to Phenolphthalein test and the test proved positive. As the test confirmed that A2 had received the amount, P.W. 14 asked about the amount received from P.W. 1. Having admitted the receipt of money from P.W. 1, A2 told that he had thrown out the amount taking advantage of power failure at that time. Then, A2 pointed out the place and took four 100 rupee notes and produced the same to P.W. 14. The Numbers of the currency notes tallied with the Numbers noted in the Entrustment Mahazar - Ex. P-2. Both A2 and A3 were arrested and documents - Exs. P-10 to P-14 were recovered. In the meantime, P.W. 12 - Appasamy, Ranger came to his office at about 8.30 p.m. and through him, P.W. 14 collected the records. Ex. P.7-Mahazar was prepared by P.W. 14 and copies were also furnished to A2 and A3 under acknowledgment. At about 9.15 p.m. P.W. 1 was called inside and the balance amount of one 100 Rupee note was also recovered from him under Ex. P.5 - Mahazar. During the course of the investigation, after examining the witnesses, A1 was also arrested on 21-1-1989 and released on bail. After completing investigation, sanction under Sec. 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained from P.W. 10 - District Forest Officer, Salem and chargesheet was filed against the accused under Secs. 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial Court, P.Ws. 1 to 14 were examined. Exs. P-1 to P-36 were marked, M.Os. 1 to 10 were produced. The accused were questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr. P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and evidence. 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial Court, P.Ws. 1 to 14 were examined. Exs. P-1 to P-36 were marked, M.Os. 1 to 10 were produced. The accused were questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr. P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and evidence. Denying the same, the accused had stated that a false case is foisted against them at the instance of P.W. 1. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that P.W. 1 Dhanapal was found to be a reliable witness. On the evidence of P.W. 1, demand of bribe amount by A1 was found to be proved. On the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 2, acceptance of bribe amount as per the direction of A1 by A2 and A3 was found to be proved. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Special Judge found that receipt of bribe amount of Rs. 400/- by A2 was for himself and on behalf of A1 and A3. On the point urged with respect to the Sanction Order, the trial Court found that the Sanctioning Authority - District Forest Officer (P.W. 10) had issued Ex. P.25 - Sanction Order after considering the materials and applied its mind before issuing the Sanction Order. After elaborately considering the evidence and finding P.W. 1 is a reliable witness, whose evidence is corroborated in material particulars, the trial Court convicted Appellants/A1 to A3 for the offences and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and also imposed fine as aforesaid in para (2). Assailing the trap organised, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram has contended that P.W. 2 being Junior Assistant lower in rank then that of A1 Forester, clause 41 of the Manual of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption (for short 'Vigilance Manual') that a public servant whose rank is preferably higher then that of the officer to be trapped was not followed, which has resulted in serious prejudice to the 1st accused. Assailing the reasonings and conviction, the learned senior counsel inter alia raised the following contentions : (i) evidence of P.W. 1 being in the nature of decoy which need to be corroborated in material particulars; while so, demand of Rs. 1000/- by A1 on 3-1-1989 for release of P.W. 3 is not corroborated. Likewise, demand of Rs. Assailing the reasonings and conviction, the learned senior counsel inter alia raised the following contentions : (i) evidence of P.W. 1 being in the nature of decoy which need to be corroborated in material particulars; while so, demand of Rs. 1000/- by A1 on 3-1-1989 for release of P.W. 3 is not corroborated. Likewise, demand of Rs. 1000/- by A2 and A3 also remains uncorroborated; (ii) since money was not recovered from A1 and A3, Complicity of A1 and A3 cannot be inferred by recovery of the amount from A2; (iii) A2 was nowhere in the picture either on the night of 2-1-1989 or on 3-1-1989. In that circumstance, alleged demand of bribe amount by A2, recovery of bribe amount from near the steps/water tank said to be at the instance of A2 throws serious doubts on the prosecution case; (iv) non-mention of the name of A2 in Ex. P-1. A vague mention of "guard" in Ex. P-1 would not refer to A2; (v) intention of P.W. 1 seems to be to trap the accused one way or other even by a lesser amount and the confidence with which trap party proceeded raises suspicion. It is contended that the trial Court has not considered the above aspects and the analysis of evidence by the trial Court is erroneous and the conviction cannot be sustained. Taking me through the evidence, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr. Thambidurai submitted that the demand of bribe amount by A1 on 3-1-1989 is well proved by the evidence of P.W. 1. It is further submitted that the demand of bribe amount by A2 and A3 on the morning of 4-1-1989 is also well proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5. It is submitted that by overwhelming evidence. Prosecution has clearly proved the charges framed against the accused both on oral and documentary evidence. The learned Government Advocate has mainly relied upon the fact - that Sodium Carbonate solution turning pink when the hands of A2 and his shirt pocket were dipped. Countering the arguments on the non-compliance of Rr. 41 and 53 of Vigilance Manual, the learned Government Advocate further submitted that those Rules are framed for the guidance of Vigilance officials are only directory and non-observance of the same would not in any way affect the trap nor vitiate the Prosecution case. Countering the arguments on the non-compliance of Rr. 41 and 53 of Vigilance Manual, the learned Government Advocate further submitted that those Rules are framed for the guidance of Vigilance officials are only directory and non-observance of the same would not in any way affect the trap nor vitiate the Prosecution case. In any event, it is submitted that P.W. 2 being an official witness has no motive or ill-will to implicate the accused in a trap case and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 2 on the ground that he is a public servant of inferior tank than A1. It is further submitted that Rule 53 of Vigilance Manual that investigating officer himself cannot take up further investigation and lay charge-sheet was issued only in 1991 and not applicable to the case in hand, whereas the occurrence was in 1989 and chargesheet filed even on 12-10-1989. Upon reassessment of the evidence and materials on record, impugned judgment and submissions of both sides, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal : (1) Whether demand of bribe amount by A1 to A3 to release P.W. 3 Palanivelu is proved by the Prosecution ? (2) Whether acceptance of bribe amount by A2 to do an official favour to release P.W. 3 Palanivelu is established by the Prosecution ? (3) Whether receipt of bribe amount by A2 is proved to be received by him for himself and on behalf of A1 and A3 ? (4) Whether the non-compliance of Rr. 41 and 53 of Manual of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption would vitiate the Prosecution case as contended by the accused ? (5) Whether the conviction of Appellants/A1 to A3 under Secs. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentence of imprisonment warrant any interference ? This case arises out of peculiar facts and circumstances. Demand of Rs. 1000/- by A1 Forester, whereas receipt of amount is by A2 - Guard said to be received by him on behalf of A1 and A3. In the trial Court, the charge was framed under Secs. 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) as additional charge alleging that. In that circumstance, it is to be carefully considered whether demand of bribe amount by A1 to release P.W. 3 and receipt of that amount by A2 on behalf of A1 and A3 is proved by the Prosecution. In the trial Court, the charge was framed under Secs. 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) as additional charge alleging that. In that circumstance, it is to be carefully considered whether demand of bribe amount by A1 to release P.W. 3 and receipt of that amount by A2 on behalf of A1 and A3 is proved by the Prosecution. Narration of events of the Prosecution is comprised in at least 4 sequence of events :- (1) A1 and A3 and P.W. 6 - Watcher had secured P.W. 3 and taken him to custody on the night of 2-1-1989. There was search of the house of P.Ws. 1 and 3 and thereafter P.W. 3 was taken into custody to Forest Range Office, Rasipuram. (2) On 3-1-1989 - 10.00 a.m., A1 and A3 and others were in Range Office at Rasipuram. Demand of Rs. 1000/- by A1 from P.W. 1 to release his brother P.W. 3. (3) On the forenoon of 4-1-1989 - 11.00 a.m. - A2 and A3 have reiterated the demand of Rs. 1000/- made by A1. (4) Handing over of Rs. 400/- by P.W. 1 to A2 in Ranger's Office, who is said to have received the same for himself and on behalf of A1 and A3. In the light of elaborate evidence adduced, it is to be carefully considered whether the above aspects are firmly established by the Prosecution to sustain the conviction. The most important aspect to be kept in mind is viz., taking custody of P.W. 3 - Planisamy into custody of A1 and A3 and keeping him in wrongful confinement in Rasipuram Range Office from the early morning of 3-01-1989 to 4-1-1989 - 6.30 p.m. till the trap was laid. Till laying of trap, no Office Report (O.R.) was registered against P.W. 3. In his evidence, P.W. 12 Appasamy, Ranger, Rasipuram has clearly spoken about the Circular issued for the night rounds to prevent sandalwood smuggling. On the night of 2-1-1989, it was the turn duty of A1. Since the office jeep was on repairs, P.W. 6 Forest watcher was asked to engage a private taxi to conduct the vehicle check up on the night of 2-1-1989 till the next day forenoon. P.W. 6 engaged the taxi of P.W. 4 (TMJ 1417). On the night of 2-1-1989, it was the turn duty of A1. Since the office jeep was on repairs, P.W. 6 Forest watcher was asked to engage a private taxi to conduct the vehicle check up on the night of 2-1-1989 till the next day forenoon. P.W. 6 engaged the taxi of P.W. 4 (TMJ 1417). Engagement of taxi by P.W. 4 and that A1, A3 and P.W. 6 and three others travelled in the taxi is clearly brought out from the evidence of P.W. 4 - taxi driver. His evidence is strengthened by entries - Ex. P-17 in Ex. P-16 trip sheet. As per the entries in Ex. P-17, the trip is shown as. Thus the night duty of A1 and A3 in Veerasamy Pudhur and their travel in the taxi is well proved by the evidence of P.W. 4 (taxi driver) and P.W. 6 (Forester). Taking of P.W. 3 into custody on the night of 2/3-1-1989 : P.W. 3 Palanisamy was sleeping in the land guarding the sheep. In the midnight at about 1.00 a.m. A1, A3 and P.W. 6 along with three others went to the Goats Pen of P.W. 3 Palanisamy. P.W. 3 was enquired. On enquiry whether he had cut any trees, P.W. 3 denied. P.W. 3 was taken in the same taxi and A1, A3 and others have gone to the farm house of P.W. 3 and searched the house where P.W. 7 Annakodi was in the house alone with her sister's son. Though P.W. 7 Annakodi was able to see her brother - P.W. 3 in the taxi under custody, she was not able to talk to him anything. After night rounds, the party returned to Rasipuram Range Office. As per direction of A1, A2 and A3 locked P.W. 3 in a room and kept guard. Evidence of P.W. 6 - Radhakrishnan, Watcher, who accompanied A1 and A3 in the taxi, clearly brings out the fact that P.W. 3 was taken into custody and detained in the Forest Range Office. Evidence of P.W. 7 Annakodi also strengthens the Prosecution case about the search of the house and that P.W. 3 was taken into custody. No Office Report was registered against P.W. 3. Higher Officer - P.W. 12 Ranger was also not informed about the custody of P.W. 3. Evidence of P.W. 7 Annakodi also strengthens the Prosecution case about the search of the house and that P.W. 3 was taken into custody. No Office Report was registered against P.W. 3. Higher Officer - P.W. 12 Ranger was also not informed about the custody of P.W. 3. As per the direction of A1, A2 and A3 were guarding P.W. 3 in the Range Office. Thus taking into custody of P.W. 3 and keeping him under confinement is, in fact, well spoken to by the spontaneous narration of events by P.W. 3 himself. Confinement of P.W. 3 is further strengthened by the evidence of P.W. 1, who went to the Range Office on the morning of 3-1-1989 and saw his brother P.W. 3 locked up in a room. P.W. 3 himself has clearly spoken about his being taken to custody and his house being searched on the night of 2/3-1-1989. From the evidence of P.W. 3, it is clear that A2 and A3 kept watch over him. Parents of P.Ws. 1 and 3 brought food to P.W. 3, who was kept in custody in the Range Office. Father of P.Ws. 1 and 3 was also waiting in the office to get his son released. The reason for keeping P.W. 3 in illegal custody from the early morning of 3-1-1989 to 4-1-1989 - 6-30 p.m. is not at all explained by the accused. A1 being the Forester incharge of Karipathi Section is bound to explain the circumstances under which P.W. 3 was kept in custody without any case being registered against him. As said earlier, the same was not reported to the Higher Officer P.W. 12 also. Such illegal confinement of P.W. 3 is a strong militating circumstance against the accused for the alleged demand of bribe amount. Custody of P.W. 3 and A2 and A3 keeping watch over P.W. 3 is further strengthened by documentary evidence. Entries in Diaries of A1 to A3 (Exs. P-19 to P-21) have clearly indicated that a person was brought from Veerasamy Pudhur and that A2 and A3 were assigned the guard duty to P.W. 3. Entries in Exs. P19 to P21 were attacked by the defence on the ground that they were subsequently manipulated by P.W. 14. This suggestion is falsified by the specific evidence of P.W. 9 Dhanalakshmi-Assistant in the Range Office. Entries in Exs. P19 to P21 were attacked by the defence on the ground that they were subsequently manipulated by P.W. 14. This suggestion is falsified by the specific evidence of P.W. 9 Dhanalakshmi-Assistant in the Range Office. She has categorically stated that she has received the Diaries of A1 to A3 for the week ending 7-1-1989 and they were forwarded to P.W. 14 - Investigating Officer only subsequently. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the accused on the Diary entries in Exs. P-19 to P-21. First Demand by A1 - On 3-1-1989 - 10.00 a.m : P.W. 1 met A1 and A3 in Forest Range Office. At that time, A1 is said to have made the demand of Rs. 1000/-. It is necessary to refer to the evidence of P.W. 1 on this aspect :- P.W. 1 waited till 9.00 O'clock in the night. Finding that nothing seems to turn out and no signal of his brother being released. P.W. 1 returned back to his house. Next day - 4-1-1989; P.W. 1 took his cousin - P.W. 5 Sekar and one neighbouring land owner Muthusamy and went again to Range Office on 4-1-1989 - 11.00 a.m. A2 and A3 were in the Office guarding P.W. 3. A2 and A3 reiterated the demand as per the direction of A1 and insisted P.W. 1 to bring Rs. 1000/-. In his evidence, P.W. 1 stated : This demand by A2 and A3 was again reiterated on the eve of trap on the evening of 4-1-1989. P.W. 5 has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 on the demand made by A1, P.W. 3, who was under custody himself is the witness for the demand by A2 and A3 as per the direction of A2. Thus the first demand made by A1, which was reiterated by A2 and A3, is clearly established by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Evidence of P.W. 1 is seriously assailed contending that his evidence is in the nature of accomplice and that his evidence is to be corroborated in material particulars. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants/accused has relied upon (1979) 4 SCC 526 : (1979 Cri LJ 936) (Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra); 1981 SCC (Cri) 586 : (1960 Cri LJ 1096), (Gulam Mahmood A. Malek v. State of Gujarat). The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants/accused has relied upon (1979) 4 SCC 526 : (1979 Cri LJ 936) (Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra); 1981 SCC (Cri) 586 : (1960 Cri LJ 1096), (Gulam Mahmood A. Malek v. State of Gujarat). Laying down that the evidence of the Complainant in a trap case is to be corroborated in material particulars, in the aforesaid second decision, the Supreme Court has held thus :- "Criminal Trial - Trap witness - The Complainant himself is in the nature of an accomplice and his story is prima facie suspect for which corroboration in material particulars is necessary". Of course, the evidence of the Complainant need to be corroborated on material particulars. Now, coming to the nature of corroboration that is required, it is well settled that "No general rule can be laid down with respect to quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of a trap witness which again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances like the nature of the crime, the character of trap witness, etc. and other general requirements necessary to sustain the conviction in that case. The Court should weigh the evidence and then see whether corroboration is necessary. Therefore as a rule of law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon. Whether corroboration is necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case". In this case, let us consider whether there is anything to suggest to doubt the character of the bribe giver - P.W. 1. P.W. 3 Palanisamy was grazing the sheep. The family owns lands with oil engine. Family of P.W. 1 are simple rustics. Basically they are agriculturists and own few goats and lamb. In fact, on the night of 2-1-1989, their father went to the field and slept in the engine room. P.W. 1 though said to be employed in Ammapet Co-operative Mill, the fact remains he also hails from the simple agricultural family. Family of P.W. 1 are no way connected with the Forest Department. P.W. 1 has no personal grudge or motive to implicate the accused in a corruption case. P.W. 1 though said to be employed in Ammapet Co-operative Mill, the fact remains he also hails from the simple agricultural family. Family of P.W. 1 are no way connected with the Forest Department. P.W. 1 has no personal grudge or motive to implicate the accused in a corruption case. The mere background of P.W. 1 and the request for releasing of his brother - P.W. 3 from custody and waiting of P.W. 1 in vain for the whole day on 3-10-1989 itself ensures the credibility of P.W. 1. That apart, evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 and the surrounding circumstances also lend assurance to the testimony of P.W. 1. Let us consider whether evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated on material particulars. According to P.W. 1, after meeting A2 and A3 on 4-1-1989 - 11.00 a.m. and after knowing that A2 and A3 also reiterated the demand for payment of Rs. 1000/-, P.W. 1 straight went to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Office at Salem. Evidence of P.W. 1 and his conduct in straight going to the Vigilance Office is assailed on the following grounds; (i) P.W. 1 did not have money. If really he did not have money, there is no evidence showing as to wherefrom he got Rs. 500/-; (ii) If P.W. 1 really had money what prevented him from tendering the same to A2 and A3 even on the forenoon of 4-1-1989; (iii) While P.W. 5 and neighbouring land owner Muthusamy had accompanied P.W. 1 to Range Office, there is no evidence showing both of them have accompanied P.W. 1 to Vigilance and Anti-corruption Office. Absence of evidence as to the whereabouts of P.W. 5 and the said Muthusamy during P.W. 1's visit to Vigilance Office undermines the reliability of P.W. 1. None of the above contentions either individually or collectively undermine the reliability of P.W. 1. As noted earlier, P.W. 1 though employed in Co-operative Mill, is a simple rustic person. Even when he started in the morning of 4-1-1989, he had taken money with him. Admittedly, he had taken bus ticket for P.W. 5 and Muthusamy which is clear from his evidence. The contention why P.W. 1 did not give the amount to A2 and A3 in the forenoon of 4-1-1989 is purely argumentative. Even when he started in the morning of 4-1-1989, he had taken money with him. Admittedly, he had taken bus ticket for P.W. 5 and Muthusamy which is clear from his evidence. The contention why P.W. 1 did not give the amount to A2 and A3 in the forenoon of 4-1-1989 is purely argumentative. P.W. 1 had taken his cousin P.W. 5 Sekar and neighbouring landowner Muthusamy to persuade the Forest officials to get his brother released. Things were not favourably moving. It is to be noted that P.W. 1 waited for the whole day on 3-1-1989 to see his brother being released and for another half day on 4-1-1989. In that situation, P.W. 1 might not have thought fit to meet the demand of A2 and A3. P.W. 1 might have approached the Vigilance Office without tendering the amount to A2 and A3. Demand by A2 is very much assailed on the ground that his name is not mentioned in Ex. P. 1 - Complaint. Of course in Ex. P-1, there is no mention of name of A2 - Krishnasamy. There is merely mention of "guard". Pointing out the non-mention of the name of A2 in Ex. P-1, it is contended that the mention of "guard" in Ex. P-1 cannot be relied upon to base the conviction of A2. Of course in Ex. P-1, P.W. 1 has only stated, and A2 is not named by his name. By the statement of P.W. 1 in Ex. P-1 cannot be read in isolation dissociated from other evidence and materials. As noted earlier, in his cross-examination, P.W. 1 has stated that he and his family are not concerned with the Forest Department. While so, P.W. 1 might not have known the name of 2nd accused. Demand of bribe amount by A2 cannot be doubted on the ground of non-mention of his name in Ex. P-1. The trial Court has well considered this aspect and rejected the point urged by the defence. By clinching evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5, Prosecution has proved that there has been demand by A1 on 3-1-1989 - 10.00 a.m. and demand by A2 and A3 on the direction of A1 on the forenoon of 4-1-1989. Acceptance of illegal gratification by A2 on behalf of A1 and A3 as against the demand amount of Rs. 1000/-. P.W. 1 had only Rs. 500/-. But in Ex. Acceptance of illegal gratification by A2 on behalf of A1 and A3 as against the demand amount of Rs. 1000/-. P.W. 1 had only Rs. 500/-. But in Ex. P-1, P.W. 1 has indicated his intention to pay only Rs. 500/- and that he is going to persuade A1 to A3 to release his brother Palanisamy. After registration of case and pre-trap preparations, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Range Office at about 5.45 p.m. on the same day 4-1-1989. A2 was standing near the underground Water tank. A3 and P.W. 3 Palanisamy were sitting in a bench kept in the western side of the building outside the office. Father of P.Ws. 1 and 3 was also sitting opposite to A3 and P.W. 3. In the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, again A2 and A3 reiterated their earlier demand as per the directions of A1 and asked P.W. 1 to wait in the office till the arrival of A1. After waiting for few minutes, P.W. 1 requested A2 and A3 to release his brother saying that he had brought Rs. 500/- and that they are having no money even for their own expenses. A2 and A3 asked P.W. 1 to keep Rs. 100/- himself for his expenses. So saying A2 received Rs. 400/-. A2 and A3 told P.W. 1 that they would release P.W. 3 and inform A1 on his arrival and would see whether A1 would receive that amount and if A1 is not satisfied they would further contact P.W. 1. So saying, A2 received the amount and kept it in his shirt pocket. Thereafter A2 obtained signatures from P.W. 1 and 3 in separate blank white sheets (Exs. P-3 and P-4) at 6.30 p.m. When P.Ws. 1 and 3 and their father and P.W. 2 came out, P.W. 1 showed the prearranged signal. P.W. 14 and his party went inside the office and recovered the amount from near the water tank. Thus receipt of money by A2 is well brought out by the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Being a public servant, P.W. 2 has no motive to speak against A1 to A3 and to implicate them in a corruption case. The sodium carbonate solution turned pink when A2 dipped his both hands. The solution also turned pink when the shirt pocket of A2 was dipped in the solution. 1 to 3. Being a public servant, P.W. 2 has no motive to speak against A1 to A3 and to implicate them in a corruption case. The sodium carbonate solution turned pink when A2 dipped his both hands. The solution also turned pink when the shirt pocket of A2 was dipped in the solution. Evidence of P.W. 1 coupled with the turning of colour of sodium carbonate solution is the strong evidence establishing the receipt of money by A2. P.W. 2 is a Junior Assistant in Agriculture Deputy Directorate Office. He has no motive to speak against A1 to A3. Evidence of P.W. 2 is seriously assailed on the ground that he is lesser in rank than that of A1, who is a Forester. The learned senior counsel for the Appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 41 of Vigilance. Rule 41 deals with organisation of traps. As per Rule 41. Wherever possible the assistance of two public servants whose ranks are preferably higher than that of the officer to be trapped may be taken to figure as witnesses - one of whom may be so positioned as to function as a hearing witness. Laying emphasis upon Rule 41, it is contended that in the instant case. Rule 41 is not compiled with and the non-compliance of Rule 41 vitiates the trap. Evidence of P.W. 2 is assailed on the ground that being a Junior Assistant, lower in rank, and he is only an obliging witness to the Vigilance Officials. Taking the assistance of a public servant, who is lesser in rank than the officer to be trapped, might be non-compliance of Rule 41; but in my view, it does not in any way vitiate the trap. The administrative guidelines issued by the Vigilance Manual is only directory and not mandatory. It is to be noted that the expression used in Rule 41 is only ........ preferably. ....." The contention urged on the non-compliance of Rule 41 does not in any way undermine the reliability of P.W. 2 particularly when it is not shown in what respect he has obliged the Vigilance officials or that any prejudice being caused to the 1st accused. The guidelines given as per the Vigilance Manual are only directory and administrative directions. ....." The contention urged on the non-compliance of Rule 41 does not in any way undermine the reliability of P.W. 2 particularly when it is not shown in what respect he has obliged the Vigilance officials or that any prejudice being caused to the 1st accused. The guidelines given as per the Vigilance Manual are only directory and administrative directions. Any omission on the part of Investigating Officers to strictly comply with those administrative guidelines would not in anyway vitiate the trap. In 2002 (1) Mad LW (Cri) 136 : (2001 Cri LJ 4139), Justice M. Karpagavinayagam while dismissing the Criminal Original Petition filed for quashing the proceedings, has also observed that Rules under Vigilance Manual are only administrative and on non-observance of the same there is no mandatory violation, which would affect the validity of the Prosecution. At this juncture, we may also refer to another contention raised by the defence on the non-observance of Rule 53 of Vigilance Manual. As per Rule 53, P.W. 14 is the trap laying officer. After laying the trap and seizure of all the documents, P.W. 14 himself had taken up further investigation. He himself had filed the final report. As per rule 53 of Vigilance Manual. "As soon as a trap is successfully laid the investigation of the case should be taken over by another officer of the Department". Therefore it is contended that there is violation of Rule 53 of Vigilance Manual which vitiates the investigation. This contention cannot be raised at all to the case in hand. Guidelines in Rule 53 of Manual of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption was issued on 18-9-1990. But, in this case, charge-sheet was filed even in 1989 - i.e. on 12-10-1989. Therefore, Rule 53 is not at all applicable to the case in hand. Subsequent conduct of A2 in throwing the amount : A2 received the amount of Rs. 400/- and kept it in his shirt pocket saying that of A1 did not agree for the amount received by them, they would come and collect the balance in the village. Thereafter, A2 obtained the signatures from P.Ws. 1 and 3 in 2 separate blank white sheets (Exs. P-3 and P-4). Thereafter, P.W. 3 was allowed to go at 6-30 p.m. P.Ws. 1 and 3, their father and P.W. 2 came out and P.W. 1 showed the pre-arranged signal. Thereafter, A2 obtained the signatures from P.Ws. 1 and 3 in 2 separate blank white sheets (Exs. P-3 and P-4). Thereafter, P.W. 3 was allowed to go at 6-30 p.m. P.Ws. 1 and 3, their father and P.W. 2 came out and P.W. 1 showed the pre-arranged signal. On seeing the signal, P.W. 14 - Investigating Officer and his party rushed to the spot and took P.W. 2 along with them. P.W. 14 and his party were prevented from entering into the office by one Sivasubramaniam, another forester, who was in the entrance. Even after P.W. 14 disclosed his identity, the said Sivasubramaniam was reluctant to allow them. Only after P.W. 14 explained the purpose of their visit, they were allowed to go inside. All the six forest officials including A2 and A3 who were standing near the main gate were asked to go inside. In the meantime, there was power failure. Hence, all the persons were asked to stand in the verandah. The power resumed shortly. On knowing about the raid by the trap party and taking advantage of the power failure, A2 had thrown out the amount near the undergoing water tank. P.W. 2 - accompanying official witness identified A2 and A3 and about the receipt of the amount by A2. Phenolphthalein test proved positive when A2 dipped his hands. As the test confirmed when A2 was questioned, he admitted having received the amount. When again being questioned, A2 had admitted that he had thrown out the amount taking advantage of the power failure. The place being identified, M.O. 1 series currency notes were seized from the underground water tank. Recovery of money at the instance of A2 from near the underground water tank is a strong evidence against A2. It is also to be noted that A2 had pointed out and shown the place where he had thrown the tainted money only when he was questioned by P.W. 14 - Investigating Officer after the test proved positive for his hands and shirt pocket. At this juncture, we may refer to the defence put forth on behalf of A2 that the amount was thrust in his pocket by P.W. 1. It would be well-nigh impossible for any person to put the amount or thrust the same into the inner shirt pocket in the presence of others. At this juncture, we may refer to the defence put forth on behalf of A2 that the amount was thrust in his pocket by P.W. 1. It would be well-nigh impossible for any person to put the amount or thrust the same into the inner shirt pocket in the presence of others. If really money was so thrust against the wishes of A2, he would have raised hue and cry. But his conduct was not to be so. The solution turned positive to the shirt pocket and throwing of tainted money outside - near the water tank are the strong evidence against A2. A2 is said to have handed over M.O. 2 - Torch light (of P.W. 3) to P.W. 8 Rangayyan another Forester on 6-1-1989 - 7.00 a.m. In turn, P.W. 8 handed over M.O. 2 to P.W. 11 on 8-11-1989. P.W. 14 Inspector of Police seized M.O. 2 on 14-1-1989. The seizure and recovery of torch light is long after the trap proceedings and is of no great assistance to the Prosecution except to the limited extent of pointing out that P.W. 14 has completed the formalities of the investigation. Whether receipt of bribe amount by A2 brings home the essential ingredients of Sec. 13(1)(d) against A1 and A3 : Main contention of the accused is receipt of the amount by A2 could not have been for and on behalf of A1 and A3 and that when money was not received by A1 and A3, they cannot be found guilty for the amount received by A2. Further contention of A1 Forester is that even if there is receipt of money by A2, the same cannot be attributed to A1 since he was nowhere in the scene in the Range Office on 4-1-1989. This contention is a far-fetched one. A2 was nowhere in the picture, in the episode of securing P.W. 3 on the night of 2-3-1989 and detaining him in illegal custody. Likewise, when A1 made demand of Rs. 1000/- on 3-1-1989, A2 was not present. Only on 4-1-1989 - 11.00 a.m., P.W. 1 claims to have seen the second accused. It is to be noted that immediately on receipt of money by A2, P.W. 3 was released. A2 had obtained the signatures of P.Ws. 1 and 3 (Exs. P-3 and P-4). Likewise, when A1 made demand of Rs. 1000/- on 3-1-1989, A2 was not present. Only on 4-1-1989 - 11.00 a.m., P.W. 1 claims to have seen the second accused. It is to be noted that immediately on receipt of money by A2, P.W. 3 was released. A2 had obtained the signatures of P.Ws. 1 and 3 (Exs. P-3 and P-4). Had there been no instructions from the higher officer namely A1, how could a guard like ......... 2nd accused would have released P.W. 3 immediately on receipt of money. From the fact that P.W. 3 was released immediately on receipt of money, the reasonable inference is that A2 had acted on the direction of his officer A1. The trial Court was right in finding that A2 received the bribe amount on the direction of A1 though lesser amount Rs. 400/-. Whether receipt of money by A2 would amount to receipt of the same for himself and on behalf of A1 and A3. Receipt of money by A2 would squarely fall within the meaning of Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Sec. 13(1)(d) says whoever by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Thus the acceptance of bribe amount not only for himself but for any other person would clearly fall within the ambit of Sec. 13(1)(d). Likewise, when a public servant accepts or obtains for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration ............ would fall within the meaning of Sec. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Prosecution has well proved that A2 and A3 demanded money at the instance of A1. It is also well proved that money was paid to A2, who received the same on behalf of A1. The trap and the prosecution case is mainly assailed on the grounds; (i) the confidence with which P.W. 1 and other trap party proceeded even with lesser amount of Rs. 500/-, even in that amount Rs. 100/- (smeared with Phenolphthalein) was retained by P.W. 1; had there been demand for Rs. 1000/-, the accused would not have accepted for Rs. The trap and the prosecution case is mainly assailed on the grounds; (i) the confidence with which P.W. 1 and other trap party proceeded even with lesser amount of Rs. 500/-, even in that amount Rs. 100/- (smeared with Phenolphthalein) was retained by P.W. 1; had there been demand for Rs. 1000/-, the accused would not have accepted for Rs. 400/-; (ii) persistence of P.W. 1 to hand over the money to anyone of A1 to A3 and somehow to see that they are trapped; Both the above contentions have no merits since it was the desire of P.W. 1 somehow to persuade the accused to release his brother as is clear from the following averments in Ex. P-1. Absolutely there is nothing unnatural in his conduct to hand over the money (though less amount) to anyone of A1 to A3. The instruction to P.W. 1 to pay the money to anyone of A1 to A3 without individually naming any of them does not in anyway lead to the conclusion that the intention of P.W. 1 was to somehow see that they are trapped. In the absence of any specific motive against the accused, no ill will could be attributed either to P.W. 1 or the Investigating Agency. As noted earlier, when P.W. 1 expressed his difficulties in arranging for the money, A2 and A3 showed him concession in allowing him to retain Rs. 100/- which was seized from P.W. 1 under Ex. P.5 - Mahazar. There is nothing unnatural in allowing P.W. 1 to retain Rs. 100/-. Since A2 and A3 themselves informed him that they would give the amount of Rs. 400/- to A1 and if A1 does not agree, they would come to the village and collect further amount. Prosecution has well proved that A1 to A3 have misused their position for the purpose of securing consideration for doing an official favour. Further, Prosecution has placed sufficient evidence to show that A1 to A3 demanded the bribe amount and A2 accepted the bribe amount for himself and on behalf of A1 and A3. The Court below has rightly convicted A1 to A3 under Sec. 7; Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The finding of guilt and conviction of the Appellants/accused are to be sustained. This Appeal has no merits and is bound to fail. The Court below has rightly convicted A1 to A3 under Sec. 7; Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The finding of guilt and conviction of the Appellants/accused are to be sustained. This Appeal has no merits and is bound to fail. Therefore, the judgment of Special Judge/I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in Special C.C. No. 194/1989 convicting A1 to A3 under Secs. 7; 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, sentence of imprisonment and fine amount imposed are confirmed and this Appeal is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take immediate steps for securing the accused to commit them to prison for serving the remaining period of sentence. Appeal dismissed.