Judgment :- A-1 and A-2 are the appellants in Crl. A. Nos.957 and 958 of 2004 respectively and they are challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.C. No.16 of 2002 by the judgment dated 30.06.2004 convicting both the accused for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of corruption Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and sentencing them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting them under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act and sentencing them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently in these appeals. 1. The first charge against the accused is that A-1 and A-2 were working as Inspector and Constable at Triplicane Prohibition Wing and the first accused demanded Rs.4,500/- as ‘mamool’ every month from P.W.2 who was managing the wine shop of P.W.4 under the name and style as “senthil Wine Shop”, on 012. 2001 and even earlier and threatened, further, the first accused instructed p.w.2 to give monthly ‘mamool’ amount before the evening of 012. 2001 otherwise he would be implicated in a prohibition case and the wine shop would be sealed. In pursuance of the said demand on 012. 2001 at 6.00 p.m. A-1 said to have received a sum of Rs.4,500/- as illegal gratification from P.W.2 and A-2 in spite of knowing that the said amount is a bribe amount received the same and put it in a cover and kept the same in his room and as such both of them were liable to be punished for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. 2. 2. The second charge is that both A-1 and A-2 misused their official position for the purpose of getting pecuniary advantage of Rs.4,500/- as illegal gratification from P.W.2 and as such they are liable to punished for the offence under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Act. 3. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges again the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 10, filled Exs. P.1 to P.17 besides marking M.Os.1 to 8. 4. 3. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges again the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 10, filled Exs. P.1 to P.17 besides marking M.Os.1 to 8. 4. The prosecution version as unfolded during the trial are as follows: (i) P.W.2 was managing the wine shop owned by P.W.4 under the name and style as “Senthil Wines” at Egmore, Chennai. The wine shop is a licensed one. A-1 was working as Inspector and A-2 was working as Constable. A-1 is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.4,500/- as monthly ‘Mamool’ and in the event of non-payment threatened that he wine shop would be sealed by implicating P.Ws.2 and 4 in a prohibition case. P.W.4 has not inclined gratification as demanded by A-1 and as such decided to give a complaint by instructing P.W.2. .(ii) P.W.2 went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption police on 012. 2001 at 2.00 p.m. and gave the report to the Additional Superintendent of Police by name Murugesan. The Additional Superintendent of Police instructed P.W.9 to take action on the complaint. P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, registered the case in Crime No.6/2001/AC/CC/11 Under Section 7 of the Act. Ex.P.14 is the report. Ex.P.15 is the First Information Report. P.W.9 registered the case against A-1. He has examined P.W.2. (iii) P.W.9, thereafter, arranged for conducting a trap on the basis of the complaint given by P.W.2. He has summoned two witnesses, viz., P.W.3 and another. P.W.3 was working as Assistant attached to the Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai. P.W.9 introduced P.W.3 and another witness to P.W.2 and received Rs.4,500/- in the denomination of Rs.500/- rupee notes and 25 of Rs.25/- from P.W.2 and demonstrated the phenolphthalein test. M.Os.1 and 2 series are the currency notes. P.W.9 instructed P.W.2 to go to his shop and wait for the accused as the accused informed him that he would visit the shop for the purpose of receiving the illegal gratification. P.W.9 has also instructed P.W.3 to accompany P.W.2 to watch the transaction between P.W.2 and A-1. Ex.P5 mahazar prepared in respect of the proceedings held at the Vigilance office prior to the trap. At 3.45 p.m., the raiding party under P.W9 including P.Ws.2 and 3 left the vigilance office to the wine shop of P.W.4. (iv) At 4.30 p.m., they reached the wine shop. Ex.P5 mahazar prepared in respect of the proceedings held at the Vigilance office prior to the trap. At 3.45 p.m., the raiding party under P.W9 including P.Ws.2 and 3 left the vigilance office to the wine shop of P.W.4. (iv) At 4.30 p.m., they reached the wine shop. According to P.W.3, A-1 has not come to the wine shop and thereafter, P.W.2 contacted him over the phone. While he questioned P.W.2 about the discussion, P.W.2 stated to him that A-1 asked him to come to his office at Chintadtripet Prohibition Wing. Thereafter, P.W.3 and P.W.2 came out of the shop and informed P.W.9, the Inspector of Police. The raiding party along with P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the prohibition wing, Chintadtripet. P.Ws.2 and 3 went inside the police station. But at that time, A-1 was not found inside, therefore they came out and they were waiting outside the police station and only at 5.45 p.m. A-1 was inside the cabin separated by a glass partition. P.Ws.2 and 3 went inside. A-1 came to the police station. Again P.Ws.2 and 3 went inside. A-1 was inside the cabin separated by a glass partition. P.W.2 went inside the cabin and p.w.3 was waiting outside the cabin by sitting on a stool. P.w.2 handed over the amount to A-1. A-1, in turn, handed over the amount to the constable A-2 and asked him to keep it. A-2 went inside the cabin and took the amount from A-1 and thereafter p.w.2 came out of the cabin and both P.Ws.2 and 3 came inside. P.W.2 gave the pre-arranged signal by folding his shirt sleeves. P.W.9 went inside the police station along with P.W.2. P.W.2 identified A-1 to P.W.9 and thereafter P.W.2 came out. P.W.9 conducted phenolphthalein test. The test proved positive as the colour of the solution turned pink. P.W.9 put the solution in two different bottles marked as M.Os.3 and 4. Thereafter, he questioned the accused about the bribe amount. A-1 informed that the amount is in the table of A-2. P.W.9 asked A-2 to take the amount. A-2 opened the drawer of the table and handed over a cover. P.w.9 put the solution in two different bottles marked as M.Os.3 and 4. Thereafter, he questioned the accused about the bribe amount. A-1 informed that the amount is in the table of A-2. p.w.9 asked A-2 to take the amount. P.W.9 asked A-2 to take the amount. A-2 opened the drawer of the table and handed over a cover. P.w.9 put the solution in two different bottles marked as M.Os.3 and 4. Thereafter, he questioned the accused about the bribe amount. A-1 informed that the amount is in the table of A-2. p.w.9 asked A-2 to take the amount. A-2 opened the drawer of the table and handed over a cover. P.W.9 asked the prosecution witnesses to open the cover to find out whether the money is there or not. While p.w.3 opened the cover an amount of Rs.4,500/- was found. The numbers of the notes were compared as noted in Ex.P.5. Thereafter, p.w.9 conducted phenolphthalein test in respect of A-2 and the solution turned mild pink colour. The solutions were filled up in two bottles, viz., M.Os.5 and 6. The proceedings were recorded under Ex.P.6, mahazar signed by P.W.3 and another. P.W.9 arrested both the accused at 8.15 p.m. and thereafter searched their house and no incriminating documents or materials were recovered from their house. Ex.P.7 is the search mahazar for A-1 and Ex.P.8 is for A-2. After completion of the trap proceedings the mahazar, Ex.P.6, the accused 1 and 2 were released on bail by P.W.9 on 012. 2001. (v) P.W.10 took up further investigation in this case and verified the materials already collected by P.W.9. He has sent M.Os.3 to 6, bottles containing solutions for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused after obtaining sanction from the competent authority under Ex.P1 against A-1 and A-2 on 23.09.2002 for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Act. 5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, both A-1 and A-2 have denied each and every circumstances put to them as false and contrary to the facts and both A-1 and A-2 also filed a written statement under Sections 313 read with 243 (1) of Cr.P.C. it is stated by A-1 in that statement that on 012. 2001 at 6.30 p.m. while he was in his office room P.W.2 came there and told him that he has to remit the amount and A-1 questioned him whether he has any fine amount, but P.W.2 has not given any proper reply, it was only stated by P.W.2 has not given any proper reply. it was only stated by P.W.2 that his owner instructed him to give that amount. A-1 pushed the hands of P.W.2 and thereafter P.W.2 left his room. A-2, on the other hand, stated that on 012. 2001 at 6.00 p.m., he was present in the office. P.Ws.5, 7 and 7 were also present. At that time A-1 was sitting in his cabin and the same was separated by a partition. A-1 has not called him inside his cabin and he has never handed over any amount to him. 6. Me. V. Madhavan, learned counsel appearing for A-1 vehemently contended the at he prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing clear and cogent evidence. The learned counsel put forward the following contentions: .(i) There is absolutely no proof for the alleged demand of the bribe amount of Rs.4,500/-by A-1 .(ii) P.W.2 was working under P.W.4, who is the owner of the wine shop, and both P.Ws.2 and 4 turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. therefore, there is no evidence available on record for the alleged demand of bribe made by A-1. (iii) Even P.W.3, the trap witness, who has accompanied with P.W.2 at the time of P.W.2 went inside the cabin of A-1 in his office, has not stated anything about the demand said to have been made by A-1. Therefore, in the event of non-proving the alleged demand of bribe made by A-1, the further receipt of the bribe amount of Rs.4,500/- is unacceptable and unbelievable. .(iv) There are contradictory versions in respect of the phenolphthalein test proving positive between the evidence of P.W.3 and other witnesses and coupled with the documents available under Ex.P.6 and under Ex.P.17, requisition sent for the chemical examination. .(v) P.W.3 stated that P.W.2 handed over only three covers and the same was received by A-1. If such version is true, there is no question of A-1’s hand staining with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter, proving the phenolphthalein test as positive. .(v) P.W.3 stated that P.W.2 handed over only three covers and the same was received by A-1. If such version is true, there is no question of A-1’s hand staining with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter, proving the phenolphthalein test as positive. .(vi) P.W.9, the Inspector of Police who has arranged for the trap, also stated that A-2 produced only three covers and the amount was found inside the cover and that too two covers containing different amount which were nothing to do with the present case. Therefore, even the evidence of P.W.9 discloses that there is no question of handling the currency notes by A-1 and thereby staining the hands with the phenolphthalein powder and as such the claim of prosecution that the phenolphthalein test proved positive is unbelievable. (vii) The categorical version of the evidence available on record through the evidence of P.W.3 and the evidence of p.w.9 clearly shows that p.w.3 was sitting outside the cabin of A-1 and the cabin of A-1 is partitioned with a glass cum aluminum portion and 3/4th of the partition contains aluminum partition and as such it is not at all possible for P.W.3 to see the transaction said to have taken place between P.W.2 and A-1. 7. Mr. V. Arul, learned counsel appearing for A-2 while re-iterating the contagions of A-1 in respect of the demand and recovery of the alleged bribe amount of Rs.4,500/- also contended that even as per the admitted version of the prosecution, A-2 has never made any demand at all. It is contended that even P.W.2 has not implicated A-2 in this case. Therefore, even admitting the entire prosecution case, no offence is made out against A-2. 8. Per contra, Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear, cogent and consistent evidence through P.Ws.3 and 9. It is submitted that though P.W.2 and his owner P.W.4 have turned hostile, the prosecution has substantiated its case through the evidence of P.W.3 who is an independent witness and coupled with the evidence of P.W.9. The Inspector of Police, who has conducted the trap. It is submitted that though P.W.2 and his owner P.W.4 have turned hostile, the prosecution has substantiated its case through the evidence of P.W.3 who is an independent witness and coupled with the evidence of P.W.9. The Inspector of Police, who has conducted the trap. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the evidence of P.W.3 as P.W.3 has categorically stated that P.W.2 first taken the raiding party to the wine shop of P.W.4 and they were waiting for the arrival of A-1 and as A-1 has not turned out P.W.2 contacted A-1 over the phone and A-1 instructed him to come and meet him in his office. It is contended that only at the instruction of A-1, P.W.2 went tot eh office of A-1 followed by P.W.3, who was sitting just outside the cabin and P.W.3 can very well see the transaction between P.W.2 and A-1 and A-1’s cabin was partitioned with only glass and aluminium partition. It is further contended that even the prosecution proved the demand as well as receipt of the amount as the phenolphthalein test conducted in respect of A-1 as well as A-2 proved positive. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case in all aspects beyond reasonable doubt. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scrutinized the entire materials available on record coupled with the perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction. 10. The prosecution initially placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.2, the complainant on whose complaint the trap was conducted and the evidence of P.W.3, the trap witness said to have been accompanied with P.W.2 to the office of A-1 and coupled with the evidence of P.W.9, the Inspector of police, who has conducted the trap. The fact remains that P.w.2 has turned hostile and he has given a total go-by to his earlier version and even disowned the contents of the complaint except admitting his signature. P.W.4, the owner of the wine shop has not supported the prosecution case and he has turned hostile. It is well settled that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto and any portion available in their evidence which is either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defense, could be placed reliance by the Court. It is well settled that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto and any portion available in their evidence which is either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defense, could be placed reliance by the Court. But the fact remains that both the witnesses have completely turned hostile and as such this Court is left with no other alternative except to exclude their evidence out of its consideration. Now, this Court is left with the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 9. 11. As far as P.W.3 is concerned, he is a trap witness and he was instructed by P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, to accompany P.W.2 to watch the transaction between P.W.2 and A-1. It is the prosecution version that A-1 was already informed P.W.2 that he would be visiting the wine shop, but the fact remains that A-1 has not came to the wine shop of P.W.4. The raiding party as well as P.Ws.2 and 3 were waiting for more than an hour. It is the further version of the prosecution that thereafter, P.W.2 contacted A-1 over the phone voluntarily and A-1 instructed him to come and meet him in his office. Even in respect of this aspect, in view of P.W.2 turning hostile, there is no material available on record as P.W.3 has also categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen P.W.2 contacting A-1 over the phone and he has not heard any transaction said to have taken place between P.W.2 and A-1 over the phone. Therefore, it is very clear that the raiding party was waiting outside the wine shop of P.W.2 expecting the arrival of A-1 as claimed by P.W2 contacting A-1 over the phone and he has not heard any transaction said to have taken place between P.W.2 and A-1 over the phone. Therefore, it is very clear that the raiding party was waiting outside the wine shop of P.W.2 expecting the arrival of A-1 as claimed by P.W.2. Therefore, it is very clear that the raiding party was waiting outside the wine shop of P.W.2 expecting the arrival of A-1 as claimed by P.W.2. But A-1 has not come to the wine shop of P.W.2 and as such even the earlier version of P.W.2 is also unbelievable and if really A-1 informed P.W.2 that he would visit the wine shop A-1 could have very well come to the wine shop or he could have very well informed PW.2 about his inability to come and on the other hand, it is the version of the prosecution that P.W.2 has contacted A-1 over the phone and thereafter A-1 said to have called P.W.2 to his office and even in respect of this prosecution version there is no material as P.W.2 turned hostile. Thereafter, it is the version of P.W.3 that he along with P.W.2 came out of the wine shop and informed P.W.9 the Inspector and thereafter, all of them left for the office of A-1, Viz., Prohibition Enforcement Wing police station. It is the version of the prosecution that P.W.3 was instructed to accompany P.W.2 to watch the transaction between P.W.2 and A-1. But it is curious to note that P.W.3 admittedly, remained outside the cabin of A-1 and as such it is crystal clear that he could not have seen or heard the alleged transaction took place between A-1 and P.W.2. 12. Yet another disturbing feature in this case if that admittedly P.W.3 was waiting outside the cabin of A-1 sitting on a stool and the partition in respect of that cabin consisting of ¾ of aluminium and ¼ of glass portion. The height to that partition is 5 ½ feet. Therefore, the version of P.W.3 that he was sitting in a stool outside the cabin of A¬1 and watching the transaction between P.W.2 and A-1, on the face of it, is highly doubtful and unbelievable. The height to that partition is 5 ½ feet. Therefore, the version of P.W.3 that he was sitting in a stool outside the cabin of A¬1 and watching the transaction between P.W.2 and A-1, on the face of it, is highly doubtful and unbelievable. It is also curious to note that P.W.3 himself as admitted the above said fact of partition and the height of the partition of his admission is also corroborated by P.W.5 and P.W.9 as P.W.5, the Sub Inspector of Police, who is one of the police official accompanied with the raiding party admitted that he was working as Sub Inspector of police in the office of A-1 and he has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the height of the partition is 5 ½ feet and the same contains both the aluminium and glass partition. P.W.9 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination to the effect that the partition is about 10 to 12 feet and ¾ of the partition is of glass and the remaining portion is of aluminium. Be it as it may in view of the specific and definite statement of P.W.3 to the effect that he was sitting in a stool outside the cabin and thereafter, witnessing the transaction said to have taken place between P.W.2 and A-1 inside the cabin is inherently importable. 13. In the light of the above background and scenario of the face, let me consider whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the alleged demand of bribe made by A-1 prior to the trap and at the time of trap. 14. As far as the demand portion of the prosecution case relating prior to the trap is concerned, as already stated, both P.Ws.2 and 4 have given a total go-by to their earlier version and therefore, there is absolutely no evidence at all available on record to establish that A-1 has demanded any bribe at any point of time prior to the trap. At the risk of repetition, it is to be re-iterated that the alleged version of the prosecution to the effect of A-1 informed P.W.2 that he would be coming to his wine shop for receiving the bribe amount is also not proved as admittedly A-1 has not come down to the wine shop of P.W.2 and admittedly P.W.3 has categorically stated that he has not heard the alleged conversion took place between P.W.2 and A-1 over the phone from the wine shop and thereafter, A-1 calling P.W.2 to come to his office, viz., prohibition wing office. Therefore, there is absolutely no acceptable evidence at all to establish the alleged demand of bribe made by A-1 prior to the trap proceedings. Now this Court is left with the solitary testimony of p.w.3 in respect of the alleged demand of bribe said to have been made by A-1 at the time of trap as P.W.2 has completely turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.3 even as per the chief examination clearly shows that A-1 has never demanded any amount at all and it is only P.W.2 has voluntarily given the amount to A¬ 1. Even this version of P.W.3 is unacceptable and unbelievable in view of his specific admission as pointed out earlier that he was sitting on a stool outside the cabin of A-1 and there is a partition in the cabin containing both the aluminium and glass partition and as such P.W.3 could not have witnessed and heard the transaction between P.W.2 and A-1. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the first and foremost ingredient in a corruption case viz., demand of bribe and as such the entire prosecution case would collapse. .15. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Ayyasami V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1992 SC 644 as follows: .“2. ….There is no independent evidence to show that the appellant demanded Rs. 100/-as bribe from the complainant. The chemical solution did not inculpate him. The money was recovered from the drawer. There is no evidence apart from the complainant to show that the money was placed in the drawer by the complainant at the asking of the appellant. ….There is no independent evidence to show that the appellant demanded Rs. 100/-as bribe from the complainant. The chemical solution did not inculpate him. The money was recovered from the drawer. There is no evidence apart from the complainant to show that the money was placed in the drawer by the complainant at the asking of the appellant. Under the circumstances we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction is based more on probabilities than on the evidence proving the guilt against him beyond reasonable doubt”. .16. In yet another decision in State of Tamil Nadu V. Krishnan & Another reported in VII (2000) SLT 266 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: .“The version of planting the amount by the prosecution witness is probabilised coupled with the fact that the prosecution version of the demand of bribe and the circumstances under which the said demand was made is suspect”. .17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Subramanian V. State of T.N. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 401 has held as follows: .“Mere proof of receipt of money by accused, in absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification, not sufficient to establish guilt of accused”. 18. The above well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also the prosecution has not proved the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by A-1. 19. Now let me consider the evidence available on record in respect of the actual receipt of the bribe amount as well as the recovery of the bribe amount made by P.W.9 after conducting the phenolphthalein test. In respect of the receipt of bribe amount by A¬1, again this court left with the sole and solitary evidence of P.W.3 alone. At one stage P.W.3 has stated that P.W.2 handed over the currency notes and in the very same chief examination in another stage he has stated that P.W.2 handed over three covers which were received by A-1 and A-1 in turn gave the said amount to A-2. At one stage P.W.3 has stated that P.W.2 handed over the currency notes and in the very same chief examination in another stage he has stated that P.W.2 handed over three covers which were received by A-1 and A-1 in turn gave the said amount to A-2. It is the further version of P.W.3 in the Chief examination that on enquiry of P.W.9, A-2 took three covers and placed it on the table and thereafter, P.W.9 asked him to verify the cover and on verification Rs.4,500/- found inside the cover. P.W.9, the Inspector, also stated that on his enquiry A-2 has produced only three covers and thereafter he has instructed P.W.3 to verify the covers and P.W.3 verified those covers and found those R.4,500/- in one cover and differed amounts of Rs.5,000/- and Rs. 5,500/- in the other two covers. If only covers were handed over to A-1 by P.W.2, then there is absolutely no possibility of A-1’s hands staining with phenolphthalein powder. 20. At the risk of repetition, it is to be re-iterated that P.W.3 could not have seen the transaction between P.W.2 and A-1 as well as A-1, in turn, handed over the amount to A-2 as he was sitting outside the cabin of A-1 on a stool and there was a partition consisting both aluminium and glass in the cabin. There are contradictions even in respect of handing over the money to A-2. P.W. 9 stated that while he questioned A-1 after conducting phenolphthalein test about the money, A-1 told him that after counting the amount, he has handed over the amount to A-2. This factor of A-1 counting the amount, he was handed over the amount to A-2. This factor of A-1 counting the amount and thereafter, handing over to A-2 was not stated by P.W.3. Apart from that material contradiction, P.W.3 has categorically stated in his chief examination that while P.W.9 questioned A-1 about the amount A-1 informed him that the amount was at the table of A-2 and there is absolutely no statement to the effect that A-1 informing P.W.9 that he has counted the amount and handed over to A-2. Therefore, there is no consistent version from the prosecution even in respect of A-1 handing over the amount to A-2. 21. Therefore, there is no consistent version from the prosecution even in respect of A-1 handing over the amount to A-2. 21. As already stated, as per the version of P.W.3, A-2 handed over three covers which were taken from his table drawer and as directed by P.W.9, P.W.3 opened the cover and found Rs. 4,500/-. It is curious to note that prior to the recovery of the amount, admittedly, P.W.9 has not categorically admitted in his cross examination that before the recovery of the Amount, A-2 was not subjected to phenolphthalein test by P.W.9. The Chief examination of P.W.9 also clearly discloses that only after the recovery of the amount, P.W.9 conducted phenolphthalein test in respect of A-2. Therefore, it is very clear that conducting phenolphthalein test is a futile exercise as the same was conducted after the alleged recovery of the amount from A-2. 22. Added to the above said infirmities, it is pertinent to note that P.W.9 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that it is mentioned in Ex.P.6 that the solution turning pink is not at all visible and there is no clear mention in the mahazar, Ex.P.6 prepared after the completion of trap proceedings to the effect that the solution turned pink as it is clearly stated in Ex.P.6 that the colour of the solution is not visible to the naked eye. A perusal of Ex. P.6 also makes it crystal clear that the solutions after subjecting A-1 as well as A-2 into the test do not turn pink at all as it is specifically mentioned in Ex.P.6 that the colour is not visible to the naked eye. A perusal of Ex.P.17, requisition, given to the learned special Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, discloses that it is specifically mentioned by P.W.9 as follows: “The tested solution from the right hand of the accused Tr. V. Natarajan (A-1) changed into pink in colour and the remaining fingers of left hand of Tr.V. Natarajan (A-1) and both the hand fingers of Tr. Udayasuriyan (A-2) were not changed into as pink in colour for the naked eye.” 23. From these admitted facts coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 9 that on enquiry by P.W.9, A-2 only handed over the three covers, it is crystal clear that there is no question of A-2’s hands staining with phenolphthalein powder. Udayasuriyan (A-2) were not changed into as pink in colour for the naked eye.” 23. From these admitted facts coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 9 that on enquiry by P.W.9, A-2 only handed over the three covers, it is crystal clear that there is no question of A-2’s hands staining with phenolphthalein powder. It is also pertinent to be noted that there is not an iota of evidence available on record to the effect of A-2 demanding any illegal gratification or A-2 was having any knowledge about the alleged demand of bribe by A-1. Therefore, the entire prosecution case bristled with suspicious circumstances, infirmities, inconsistencies and improbabilities throwing considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. 24. For the aforesaid reasons this Court is constrained to allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, viz., A-1 and A-2 by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, in C.C.No.16 of 2002 by the judgment dated 30.06.2004 are hereby set aside. Fine amounts paid, if any, are directed to be refunded to the appellants. Bail bonds executed, if any, are directed to be cancelled.