Judgment Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the conviction and sentence dated 18.04.2002 passed in Special Calendar Case No.1 of 1998, by the Additional District cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai. 2. The epitome of the prosecution case is that the accused by name Jayaraman has served as Junior Assistant, in the office of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited (TADHCO), Pudukottai, during the relevant period i.e. from 17.07.1992 to 20.11.1996. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant by name K.Tamilselvan, son of Karuppan belongs to Hindu Adi-Diravidar Community and on 08.08.1996 he submitted an application with all enclosures for getting a loan of Rs.77, 360/- in Co-operative Land Development Bank, Annavasal so as to purchase a Xerox machine. On 25.07.1996 he submitted an application for sanctioning of marginal money and subsidy in the office of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, (TADHCO), Pudukkottai. The special Officer, Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Annavasal has sent Form-III to the Office of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, (TADHCO), Pudukottai. The application of the complainant has been dealt with by the accused. On 07.11.1996 the accused has demanded Rs.3, 000/- from the complainant by way of illegal gratification. On 19.11.1996 also the accused has demanded Rs.3, 000/-from the complainant and then reduced the amount to the tune of Rs.2, 500/- and also directed him to pay Rs.1, 000/-as first instalment and the complainant has expressed his inability, but the accused has asked him to pay Rs.800/- as first instalment and further he directed the complainant to give the same on 19.11.1996 at about 3.00 p.m. by putting the same in a cover and accordingly, on the same date, the accused has received the said sum of Rs.800/- from the complainant and under the said circumstances, the accused is said to have committed offences under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The investigating agency, after completing investigation, has laid a final report on the file of the trial Court and the same has been taken on file in Special Calendar Case No.1 of 1998. 4. 3. The investigating agency, after completing investigation, has laid a final report on the file of the trial Court and the same has been taken on file in Special Calendar Case No.1 of 1998. 4. On the basis of the alleged culpability of the accused, the trial Court has framed first charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the second charge under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the said Act and the same have been read over and explained to him. The accused has made a candid denial and also claimed to be tried. 5. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P24 and MOs.1 to 6 have been marked. 6. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crimes. However no oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused. 7. On the basis of available evidence on record, the trial Court has found the accused guilty under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for each offence sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-with default clause. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present criminal appeal has been filed at the instance of the accused as appellant. 8. Before excogitating the rival submissions made by either counsel, it would be more useful to look into the necessary factual and legal aspects so as to attract the penal provisions of Sections 7 & 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 9. In a case like this, the following factual and legal aspects are very much essential; a) There must be a demand of gratification other than legal remuneration by the concerned accused. b) The concerned accused must have accepted the same or agreed to accept it. c) If the concerned trap has been done due to motive, the concerned accused should prove the same. 10. With these legal and factual aspects, the Court has to perpend the present case. 11. b) The concerned accused must have accepted the same or agreed to accept it. c) If the concerned trap has been done due to motive, the concerned accused should prove the same. 10. With these legal and factual aspects, the Court has to perpend the present case. 11. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant by name Tamilselvan belongs to Hindu Adi Diravidar Community. On 08.08.1996 he submitted an application in the Co-operative Land Development Bank, Annavasal for getting a loan of Rs.77, 360/-so as to purchase a Xerox machine and during the relevant period, the accused has served as Junior Assistant in the Office of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, (TADHCO), Pudukottai and the application of the complainant has been dealt with by the accused and on 07.11.1996 the accused has demanded Rs.3, 000/- from the complainant and also directed him to pay Rs.1000/-as initial payment. On 19.11.1996 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant has again met the accused in his office and he demanded Rs.3, 000/-from the complainant and subsequently reduced the same to the tune of Rs.2, 500/-and also directed him to pay Rs.1000/- as initial payment and the complainant has expressed his inability and therefore, the accused has directed him to pay Rs.800/-by placing the same in a cover, on the same day, at about 3.00 p.m. and accordingly, on the same day, at about 4.50 p.m. the accused has received Rs.800/-from the complainant by way of gratification other than legal remuneration. 12. As adverted to earlier, the first two legal as well as factual aspects must be proved only by the prosecution. 13. The prosecution has set the law in motion on the basis of complaint alleged to have been given by the complainant on 19.11.1996 to the Inspector, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai and the same has been marked as Ex.P4, wherein it has been clearly stated about the factum of submission of necessary application by the complainant and also about the demand of money by the accused. 14. The author of Ex.P4 viz., complainant has been examined as PW2. He would say in his evidence that he has studied upto 10th standard and he is an unemployed and on 08.08.1996 he submitted an application for getting loan along with all relevant documents. 14. The author of Ex.P4 viz., complainant has been examined as PW2. He would say in his evidence that he has studied upto 10th standard and he is an unemployed and on 08.08.1996 he submitted an application for getting loan along with all relevant documents. On 30.10.1996, the Special Officer has passed necessary orders and after one week, he has gone to the office of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, (TADHCO), Pudukottai and met the Manager and he directed him to meet the accused viz., Jayaraman and after lapse of ten days, he appeared for interview. After three months, he again met the Manager and he directed him to meet the accused. On 07.11.1996, he met the accused and the accused has directed him to give Rs.3, 000/- for making necessary recommendations and he expressed to the effect that he is not in a position to give the same and the accused has told him that he should give Rs.1, 000/-for Deepavali Expenses. On 18.11.1996 he again went to the office of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, (TADHCO), Pudukottai and on that day, the accused has not come to the office and on 19.11.1996 at about 11.30 a.m. he met the accused and he demanded Rs.3, 000/-and he expressed his inability and ultimately told him that he would give Rs.800/- and the accused has directed him to give the said amount by way of putting the same in a cover and subsequently he has given Ex.P4 to the Inspector, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai and the signature found thereon is Ex.P5. On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m. two officials have come to the office of the Vigilance and Anticorruption and after five minutes, he has been directed to come inside and the Inspector has given the complaint given by him to the said officials and after reading the same, they ascertained its genuineness and subsequently the Inspector has observed all formalities and directed him and also the officer by name Srinivasan to go to the office of the accused and accordingly both of them have gone there at about 4.30 p.m. and both of them have met the accused. The accused has demanded money from him by way of making gesticulation and he replied to the effect that he has brought Rs.800/-as demanded by the accused and subsequently handed over the cover in question to the accused and he received the same by using his right hand and by using his left hand, he placed the same in a drawer of a table and after some time, he and the said Srinivasan have come out from the office of the accused and he has given necessary signal to the Inspector, Vigilance and Anticorruption and he and others have come to the office of the accused and he identified the accused to the Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption. 15. The decoy witness by name Srinivasan has been examined as PW3. He has stated in his evidence that on 19.11.1996 he served as Assistant Engineer in Veeran Alagumuthukone Transport Corporation and on the same day, at about 3.30 p.m. his higher official has received a secret information and directed him to go to the office of the Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai and accordingly he has gone there at about 4.00 p.m. and one Ramakodi, Assistant Engineer, has also come there and both of them have met the Inspector, Vigilance and Anticorruption and he introduced the complainant. The Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption, has given a complaint alleged to have been given by the complainant and both of them have read and ascertained its genuineness by way of enquiring the complainant and subsequently, the complainant has given Rs.800/-(Eight Hundred Rupees Currency Notes) and the Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption, after observing all formalities, has asked him and also PW2 to go to the Office of the accused and accordingly on the same day, at about 4.50 p.m. he and PW2 met the accused and the accused has demanded money from the complainant by way of gesticulation and the complainant has given the cover in question which contained Rs.800/-and the same has been received by the accused and further he has stated in his evidence that after some time, necessary signal has been given to the Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption and the complainant has identified the accused to the Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption and subsequently, all formalities have been observed and the Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption has seized the cover which contained Rs.800/-from the complainant and also another cover under mahazars. 16. The concerned Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai has been examined as PW7. He would say in his evidence that on 19.11.1996 he served as Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai and on the same day, PW2 has given the complaint which has been marked as Ex.P4, wherein it has been stated that the accused has demanded Rs.3, 000/-from him by way of gratification other than legal remuneration and he accepted to give Rs.800/-. After ascertaining the genuineness of the complaint, he sought the role of PW3 and one Ramakodi. The accused has given Rs.800/- (Eight Hundred Rupees Currency Notes) and after observing all necessary formalities, he directed PWs.2 & 3 to go to the office of the accused and accordingly they have gone there and after getting signal from PW2, he and others entered into the office of the accused and he has been enquired into about the money received by him and initially he refused and subsequently he produced the cover which contained Rs.800/-and after observing all formalities, he recovered the same. 17. The money, alleged to have been demanded and received by the accused, has been marked as MO.1 series and the covers in question have been marked as MOs.5 & 6. 17. The money, alleged to have been demanded and received by the accused, has been marked as MO.1 series and the covers in question have been marked as MOs.5 & 6. The concerned Chemical Analysist has been examined as PW8. She would say in her evidence that she examined all the materials objects in question and ultimately submitted her report which has been marked as Ex.P23. Therefore, from the conjoint reading of Ex.P4 as well as other documents and also testimonies of PWs.2, 3, 7 & 8, coupled with the materials objects referred to above, the Court can unflinchingly come to a conclusion that on 19.11.1996 the accused has demanded gratification other than legal remuneration from PW2 viz., complainant and accordingly, he received the same from the complainant on the same day. Under the said circumstances, there is no dubitation in coming to a conclusion that the accused has committed the offences mentioned in the charges. Therefore, it is quite clear that the prosecution has clearly established the first two factual and legal aspects. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has made his first attack to the effect that the uncle of the complainant by name Tamilselvan had tried to obtain bullock cart loan illegally and his attempt has been turned down by the accused and due to that a strong motive is in existence between the complainant and accused, and in order to wreck vengeance, Ex.P4 has been given erroneously and further the complainant has clearly admitted in his evidence that the accused has received the cover in question by way of thinking that the said cover only contains Form-III and therefore, the accused has not made any demand of gratification other than legal remuneration so as to invoke the penal provisions of Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore, the same are not present in this case and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are totally erroneous and the same are liable to be set aside. 19. Of-course it is true that PW2, viz., complainant during the course of cross-examination has admitted to the effect that his uncle's name is Tamilselvan. 19. Of-course it is true that PW2, viz., complainant during the course of cross-examination has admitted to the effect that his uncle's name is Tamilselvan. But, further he has stated in his evidence that he has not known about the alleged attempt made by the said Tamilselvan so as to get bullock cart loan illegally and the same has been rejected by the accused. If really the said Tamilselvan has applied for getting bullock cart loan and the same has been rejected by the accused, definitely, some documents would have emerged officially, but to utter dismay, no such document has been filed on the side of the defence. Further as stated earlier, PW2 viz., complainant has not at all accepted the alleged attempt made by the said Tamilselvan. Therefore, the alleged motive for trap has not at all been established on the side of the accused. It has already been pointed out to the effect that if the alleged trap has been done due to motive, the same should be proved by the accused. In the instant case, as animadverted to earlier, no acceptable and trustworthy evidence are placed on the side of the accused so as to explain the alleged motive for trap. Under the said circumstances, the first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused is sans merit. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has also advanced his inert argument to the effect that in the instant case, the alleged demand as well as receipt of the gratification other than legal remuneration on the part of the appellant/accused have not been proved by the prosecution, in view of the clear admission made by PW2 viz., complainant and the trial Court without considering the above aspect has erroneously invited the conviction and sentence against him and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. 21. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) has sparingly contended that in the instant case, the alleged demand as well as receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration by the accused have clearly been proved by PWs.2 & 3 and other connected witnesses, and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused is of no use and the same is liable to be eschewed. 22. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has advanced the above limb of argument on the basis of the evidence given by PW2 viz., complainant to the effect that the accused has received the cover in question by way of thinking that it contains Form-III. It is an everlasting principle of law that the evidence of witnesses should be read in whole and the Court cannot read a portion of evidence by way of pick and choose. In the instant case, PW2 viz., complainant has clinchingly stated in his evidence about the alleged demand made by the accused on 07.11.1996 and also on 19.11.1996 and further he stated in his evidence that on 19.11.1996, he and PW3 have met the accused and the accused has demanded money from him by way of making gesticulation. The decoy witness by name Srinivasan is an Assistant Engineer and he has been examined as PW3 and no motive has been suggested to him so as to give false evidence against the accused and his clear testimonies are that on 19.11.1996 as per the direction of the Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai, he and PW2 have met the accused in his office and he demanded money from PW2 by way of making gesticulation and PW2 has given the cover which contained Rs.800/- and the same has been received by the accused and subsequently placed the same in a drawer of a table and after getting signal from PW2, the Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption and others have come to the office of the accused and he recovered the amount in question from the accused. In fact, the evidence of PW2 has been clearly corroborated by unshattered evidence of PW3. By way of believing the testimonies given by PWs.2 & 3, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the accused has demanded the money in question from the complainant and the complainant has given the same to the accused and he accepted the same. 23. Of-course it is true that PW2, during fag end of his cross-examination, admits to the effect that the accused has received the cover in question thinking that it contains Form-III. But, as stated in many places, both PWs.2 & 3 have clearly stated in their evidence about the demand of money by the accused as well as receipt of the same by him. But, as stated in many places, both PWs.2 & 3 have clearly stated in their evidence about the demand of money by the accused as well as receipt of the same by him. Simply because PW2 has given evidence to the effect mentioned supra, the Court cannot belittle the remaining portion of evidence given by PW2 as well as the entire evidence given by PW3. Therefore, the second attack made on the side of the appellant/accused cannot be accepted. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has advanced his residual argument stating that the specific case of the prosecution is that the money alleged to have been given to the accused has been placed in a pink colour cover and the same has not been subjected to chemical analysis and therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected. 25. In order to analyse the above argument, evidence of PW7 should be scrutinished very carefully. It has already been pointed out that the concerned Inspector has been examined as PW7. He would say in his evidence that the accused has produced a pink colour cover and the same has been examined and found Rs.800/- (Eight Hundred Rupees Currency Notes) and its numbers have been compared with the numbers noted down in Ex.P6 and the same are tallied and further he would say in his evidence that a brown colour cover has also been taken and the same has been subjected to chemical examination and therefore, it is very clear that the cover which contained the money in question has not been subjected to chemical examination. It is only a flimsy mistake committed on the side of the prosecution. Further the alleged demand of money as well as receipt of the same by the accused from PW2 and also seizure have been clearly proved by the prosecution. Since the above factual and legal aspects have been clearly proved by the prosecution, it is needless to say that the said flimsy mistake committed by the prosecution has not at all impinched its case. Therefore, the residual argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused is also equally sans merit. 26. Now the Court has to analyse the quantum of sentence imposed against the appellant/accused under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the residual argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused is also equally sans merit. 26. Now the Court has to analyse the quantum of sentence imposed against the appellant/accused under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial Court has awarded two years rigorous imprisonment under the said Sections for each offence and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause (In aggregation Rs.2, 000/-). 27. Considering the quantum of amount received by the accused, this Court is of the view that one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and to that extent alone, the present criminal appeal can be allowed. 28. In fine, this criminal appeal is allowed in part. The conviction passed by the trial Court under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant/accused is confirmed, but, the sentence imposed against him, for each offence is modified as follows; The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for offences committed under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In other aspect, the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed.