JUDGMENT (1) THE appellants, who are accused 1 and 2, have come forward with these appeals challenging Their conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Nagercoil, in Special Case No.3 of 2002, dated 05.12.2007, convicting the first accused for an alleged offence under Section 7 (two counts) and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (two counts) and the second accused for an alleged offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. (2) THE following is the prosecution case shorn of necessary details: 2(a). P.W.2, on 04.10.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. was coming in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-72-5802, belonging to his brother-in-law Thangamuthu, from Kannangulam to Kottaram to purchase nails. Near old Registrar Office, along the Kottaram Periyavilai road, the first and second accused who are Sub- Inspector of Police and Head Constable respectively, working in Kanyakumari Police Station along with three other cops intercepted him and told him that his (P.W.2) brother's son Balakrishnan used to sell illicit liquor (Aristom) but he would not pay "mamool" to the police. They took him to Kanyakumari police station and asked him to sit There. THE first accused took Rs.370/- from P.W.2. P.W.2 pleaded not guilty however, They did not heed to his words. He was detained in the police station and on 05.10.1999 morning he was informed that They had registered a case against him, as if he possessed illicit liquor. At about 01.00 p.m. They brought him to police station, that the first accused told him that only if he admitted the offence he would return the motorcycle otherwise he would again arrest him and sent him behind the bars by registering a case that he was keeping Kanja in the motorcycle. Hence, P.W.2 admitted the offence in the Court and paid a fine of Rs.300/-. THE second accused paid the said amount out of Rs.370/- which was snatched from him. 2(b). He was taken to the police station at 4.00 p.m. and the first accused demanded him Rs.1,000/- for returning of his vehicle. Hence, P.W.2 admitted the offence in the Court and paid a fine of Rs.300/-. THE second accused paid the said amount out of Rs.370/- which was snatched from him. 2(b). He was taken to the police station at 4.00 p.m. and the first accused demanded him Rs.1,000/- for returning of his vehicle. Hence, P.W.2 went to the house and got Rs.1,000/- from his brother-in-law and came back to police station at 7.00 p.m. and gave the amount to the first accused, who after receiving the same, further demanded Rs.1,000/- and only on such payment, he would release the motorcycle. He was also threatened that he would foist the case that he was possessing kanja. He has told that he do not have money, for which, the first accused told to bring the amount before evening of Friday and take the vehicle and if he were not in the police station, he might pay the amount to the second accused. P.W.2 felt bad of giving bribe and hence, on 08.10.1999 at about 10.00 a.m. he gave the complaint Ex.P2 before the respondent police and the same was registered in Crime No.2/1999 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2(c). On receipt of the complaint, Ex.P17 First Information Report was lodged. P.W.19 the respondent police, after getting permission from P.W.20 Deputy Superintendent of Police, registered a case. He has sent the First Information Report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagercoil, and gave the copy of the same to P.W.2 on acknowledgment. He gave an intimation to P.W.3 THEivanayagam, who is an Agricultural Officer working in the Office of Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagercoil and one Mariapushbakaran, Office Superintendent in Chief Educational Office, Nagercoil to be witnesses. Both of them were called to the respondent office and They were introduced to P.W.2. THE witnesses were given copies of First Information Report which They read. P.W.2 admitted the contents as true. At the direction of P.W.19, P.W.2 gave the money to Mariapushbakaran who counted the same and told that They were ten notes of Rs.100/- denomination. P.W.19 asked Mariapushbakaran to place the currency on the table. He also arranged to prepare Sodium Carbonate solution in a glass and asked Mariapushpakaran to dip his right hand fingers in the solution and There was no change in colour. P.W.19 asked Mariapushbakaran to place the currency on the table. He also arranged to prepare Sodium Carbonate solution in a glass and asked Mariapushpakaran to dip his right hand fingers in the solution and There was no change in colour. P.W.19, directed the Head Constable Subramanian to apply phenolphthalein powder on the currencies on both the sides of each note, and he did it. P.W.19, further, asked Mariapushbakaran to count the notes and he counted. He asked the witness to dip his right hand fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution who did it which resulted in the change of colour into pink. P.W.19 demonstrated the phenolphthalein test and explained its significance. 2(d). After verifying the shirt pocket of P.W.2 whether it contained any other currencies or articles, and verified as the same was empty, the Head Constable placed the currencies into the pocket of P.W.2. P.W.19 asked P.W.2 to go to Kanyakumari police station, meet the first accused and to pay the amount only, if he demanded and if he received the amount he (P.W.2) had to come out of the police station and show signal to the respondent police by folding the left sleeves of his full hand shirt. He also requested P.W.3 to accompany P.W.2 and to watch the events. He prepared Ex.P4 Mahazar containing the above said particulars in which, the witnesses, P.W.19 Sub Inspector of Police and P.W.2 put Their signatures. P.W.19, despatched the said mahazar after 2.20 p.m. on 08.10.1999 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagercoil. THE said mahazar contained serial numbers of the currencies. 2(e). Afterwards, They proceeded in the Government vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-01-G-0001 and reached the Township lodge in Kanyakumari at about 2.50 p.m. P.W.19 asked P.Ws.2 and 3 to go to Kanyakumari police station and to act in accordance with the instructions given by him. At about 3.35 p.m. P.W.2 came out from police station and showed pre-arranged signal to the respondent police by folding his left hand sleeves of the shirt. Immediately, P.W.19 along with Mariapushbakaran and police party entered into the police station and saw both the accused sitting in writer's room. THE witnesses were introduced to both the accused. At about 3.35 p.m. P.W.2 came out from police station and showed pre-arranged signal to the respondent police by folding his left hand sleeves of the shirt. Immediately, P.W.19 along with Mariapushbakaran and police party entered into the police station and saw both the accused sitting in writer's room. THE witnesses were introduced to both the accused. P.W.19 prepared Sodium Carbonate solution and he enquired P.Ws.2 and 3 as to what happened, and P.W.2 responded that he came to the police station and the first accused asked him whether he brought money, for which, he answered in affirmative and he asked P.W.2 to give the amount to second accused, that the second accused took him to the verandah in the Women Police station and asked him to pay money and received it from P.W.2 by his right hand and put the same in his left shirt pocket and again came to writer's room and asked P.W.2 whether he had brought R.C. book for the vehicle, for which, he replied in negative and that he further told that the first accused insisted for the production of R.C. Book. 2(f). P.W.19, further asked the second accused to dip his right hand fingers into the Sodium Carbonate solution, who dipped and the solution turned to pink. While the second accused was quizzed about the money received from P.W.2, he produced the same from his left shirt pocket and placed it on the table. P.W.19 asked P.W.3 and Mariapushbakaran to compare the serial numbers of the currency notes with the numbers written in the mahazar. After comparing them, They told that both are alike. 2(g). P.W.19 got the shirt worn by second accused and dipped the left pocket portion into the Sodium Carbonate solution, which resulted in the turning of colour pink. THE second accused was given another shirt which was in the police station. P.W.19 also seized the Case Diary in Crime No.731, 732/99 registered under Section 4(1)(a) of Prohibition Act which was registered against P.W.2. While the second accused was queried, he told that on 04.10.1999, P.W.2 brought the motorcycle to the police station and kept the same and he directed P.W.2 to produce R.C. and take back the motorcycle. 2(h). P.W.19 prepared two samples of 180 ml. in two bottles which contained the pink turned solution at the time of dipping of fingers by the second accused and his shirt. 2(h). P.W.19 prepared two samples of 180 ml. in two bottles which contained the pink turned solution at the time of dipping of fingers by the second accused and his shirt. Both of them were recovered under mahazar. THE currencies, diesel bullet motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-72-5802 and its key were seized under cover of mahazar. P.W.19 arrested both the accused at 5.00 pm. in Kanyakumari police station, for which he prepared another mahazar which were signed by P.W.3, Mariapushbakaran and Sub Inspector of police Sarkaravarthy as well. He also prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch Ex.P8. 2(i). After sending the intimation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, P.W.19 proceeded to the residence of second accused in police quarters and made a search in the house. THEn, he went to Cauvery lodge at Kanyakumari and searched Room No.24, where the first accused was staying. He prepared search list in both the places which were inked by witnesses. P.W.19 also gave copy of search list to each of the accused. He also searched another residence of the second accused and the house of the first accused, prepared search list and obtained signatures of the witnesses. THE prior intimation to the Court is Ex.P39 with regard to the search. At about 10.00 p.m. on 08.10.1999, he brought the accused and case properties to the respondent police station and gave request to the Court to alter the provisions of law under Section 7 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) under Ex.P40. He sent both the accused for judicial custody and the case properties to the Court under Form 95. Thereafter, he placed the file for further investigation before P.W.20. 2(j). P.W.20 examined all the witnesses from P.Ws.2 to 18 and recorded Their statements. After completion of investigation, he sent the final report to the Director of Anti-Corruption Department and also made request to Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, for sanction to prosecute the accused. P.W.1 accorded sanction under Ex.P1. Thereafter, he laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) against the accused. When both the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both of them denied complicity in the offence. P.W.1 accorded sanction under Ex.P1. Thereafter, he laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) against the accused. When both the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both of them denied complicity in the offence. THE first accused submitted that he did not demand any bribe from P.W.2, that registration of the case is the outcome of hostility with P.W.2, his brother-in-law Thangamuthu and his confederate Ponniah against whom he initiated action on Their hooch trade, that from 05.10.1999 till 07.10.1999 he was in FLB School election counting centre on anti-sabotage check duty, that he did not keep the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-72-5802 in the police station, that the Inspector of Police of Kanyakumari police station knew about the parking of the vehicle There, that the motorcycle was kept in the police station by P.W.2 himself, that since he registered a case under Prohibition Act against P.W.2, he laid the complaint and that both P.W.2 and his associate Ponniah admitted the offence through Their lawyer and paid fine and that he is innocent. 2(k). THE second accused had submitted before the Trial Court that on 04.10.1999 he was deputed in process duty, that on 08.10.1999 after process duty was over at about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m., while he was standing near the Women Police Station, P.W.2 came There with money and while he tendered the same to him he asked for what reason he was giving the money, for which, he did not give any reply, however, he planted the money into his pocket. Immediately, he took the money and forcibly keep into the hands of P.W.2 and at that time vigilance police came and got the amount and that he is an innocent. Both the accused have not examined any witnesses and There was no documents marked on Their side. The point for consideration is, whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Point: P.W.1, the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District accorded sanction under Ex.P1 for prosecution of his subordinates, both the accused. He was examined and in his cross-examination, it was suggested that he had not carefully scrutinised the documents and that the sanction is illegal. He answered in negative. There is nothing to conclude that the sanction order suffers from any infirmity or illegality. (3) P.W.2 is the author of the complaint. He was examined and in his cross-examination, it was suggested that he had not carefully scrutinised the documents and that the sanction is illegal. He answered in negative. There is nothing to conclude that the sanction order suffers from any infirmity or illegality. (3) P.W.2 is the author of the complaint. As detailed in the complaint, he graphically narrated all the events contained in his complaint and oral evidence. His chief examination was recorded on 26.04.2004 and he was examined in cross on behalf of the first accused on 24.09.2004 and he was adhering to what he stated in his chief examination. As far as the materials available in the cross examination by the first accused is concerned, his evidence could not be discorded. However, while he was examined in cross on behalf of the second accused on 08.10.1999, he turned hostile to the prosecution. He disclaimed demand of bribe by the first accused and payment of money to second accused and other details as well. He would say that he went into the police station with money along with a Government witness and he got anxiety since the person concerned did not receive the money and hence, he asked the Government witness, to whom the money had to be paid, for which, he told that he may give it to anybody else and hence, he planted the money into the pocket of the second accused. He was treated as hostile witness and examined in cross by prosecution. In the cross examination by the prosecution, he says that the first accused asked him whether he brought the money and he asked him to give it to the second accused. (4) HE further confirmed in the cross examination that it is true to state that the first accused said so. HE also says that in his chief examination, he had paid the money to the second accused who received it and kept it in his shirt pocket and went into the police station asking him to bring R.C. book. In the chief examination and cross examination by the fist accused, P.W.2 has categorically stated that the first accused directed him to pay the money to the second accused and he paid the same to the second accused who received it and kept in his shirt pocket. In the chief examination and cross examination by the fist accused, P.W.2 has categorically stated that the first accused directed him to pay the money to the second accused and he paid the same to the second accused who received it and kept in his shirt pocket. In these circumstances, his hostility to the prosecution as far as the second accused is concerned, would not weaken the prosecution case. His evidence in cross examination by the second accused has to be disbelieved which is eschewed. P.W.3 is a responsible Government Officer who on the direction of the investigation officer accompanied P.W.2 to the police station and witnessed the events. He, in his oral evidence, has elaborately stated about what had happened in the police station. He is definite that the first accused asked P.W.2 whether he had brought money and he also directed him to pay the money to the second accused and the amount was tendered to the second accused near the Women Police station, who received the same and kept it in his shirt pocket. He further added that after receipt of the amount, the second accused entered into the police station and both the accused conversed in low voice. He also gave a detailed account with regard to the seizure of money from the second accused preparation of Sodium Carbonate solution, dipping of right hand fingers of the second accused, and colour change of solution into pink and the test his shirt, recovery of Case Diary filed in Crime Nos.731, 732/1999, and recovery of the motorcycle, etc. He also supported the prosecution case as to the search of houses of both the accused by P.W.19 and preparation of search list Exs.P8 and P9. He has also prepared two other mahazars Ex.P6 and P7 stated above. He revealed nothing adverse in his cross examination from what he deposed in his chief examination. He is a third person to both the accused. No motive could be attributed against him and no motive was suggested to him against the accused. There is no impediment for the Court to place reliance upon his oral evidence. (5) MR.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first accused would argue that when no demand is established by the prosecution, the entire case will go and the accused could not be held to be guilty. There is no impediment for the Court to place reliance upon his oral evidence. (5) MR.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first accused would argue that when no demand is established by the prosecution, the entire case will go and the accused could not be held to be guilty. It is his contention that There shall be material to show that There were demands and acceptance for discharge of an official duty and if the money was put elsewhere without his knowledge, he cannot be stated to have committed offence. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (2) Supreme Court 760 (Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana) wherein it is held thus: "11. To constitute an offence under Section 161 of the IPC it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that There was demand of money and the same was voluntarily accepted by the accused. Similarly, in terms of Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, the demand and acceptance of the money for doing a favour in discharge of its official duties is sine qua non to the conviction of the accused. In the case of M.K.Harshan v. State of Kerala ( 1996 (11) SCC 720 ), this Court in somewhat similar circumstances, where the tainted money was kept in the drawer without his knowledge, held as under: "... It is in this context the Courts have cautioned that as a rule of prudence, some corroboration is necessary. In all such type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, There must be a demand and secondly There must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification. Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important and when the accused has come forward with a plea that the currency notes were put in the drawer without his knowledge, then There must be clinching evidence to show that it was with the tacit approval of the accused that the money had been put in the drawer as an illegal gratification. Unfortunately, on this aspect in the present case we have no other evidence except that of P.W.1. Since P.W.1's evidence suffers from infirmities, we sought to find some corroboration but in vain. Unfortunately, on this aspect in the present case we have no other evidence except that of P.W.1. Since P.W.1's evidence suffers from infirmities, we sought to find some corroboration but in vain. There is no other witness or any other circumstance which supports the evidence of P.W.1 that this tainted money as a bribe was put in the drawer, as directed by the accused. Unless we are satisfied on this aspect, it is difficult to hold that the accused tacitly accepted the illegal gratification or obtained the same within the meaning of Section 5(1) (d) of the Act, particularly when the version of the accused appears to be probable." 12. Reliance on behalf of the appellant was placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of C.M.Girish Babu (supra) wherein the facts of the case the Court took the view that mere recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough in absence of substantive evidence for demand and acceptance. The Court held that There was no voluntary acceptance of the money knowing it to be a bribe and giving advantage to the accused of the evidence on record, the Court in para 18 and 20 of the judgment held as under: "18. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) [ 1979 (4) SCC 725 ] this Court took the view that (at SCC p.727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe." (6) AS far as the present case on hand is concerned, There is a definite version from P.Ws.2 and 3 that the first accused demanded bribe from P.W.2 and directed him to hand over it to the second accused and the same was also tendered to the second accused. AS per the clinching oral evidence, both the requirements supra, required by law are very much available. Even though There was no specific demand on the part of the second accused, while P.W.2 gave the amount he received the same and put it in his pocket. AS per the clinching oral evidence, both the requirements supra, required by law are very much available. Even though There was no specific demand on the part of the second accused, while P.W.2 gave the amount he received the same and put it in his pocket. Afterwards, he proceeded into the police station and the first accused spoke to him about the money in his pocket. While P.W.2 gave signal to the respondent police and investigation officer and other witnesses entered into the police station, both the accused were sitting in the writer's room, of course, with the money kept in the shirt pocket of second accused and only after the Sodium Carbonate solution prepared by the investigation officer he produced the money from his pocket. Hence, from receipt of the money from P.W.2 till the preparation of Sodium Carbonate solution by the investigation officer, the money was lying in the pocket of second accused. Neither he refused to get the money from P.W.2 nor had he placed it somewhere else other than his pocket. It is to be noticed that he was present while the first accused directed P.W.2 to pay the amount to him. He was keeping quite and he was consenting party to the receipt of bribe. Hence, the demand and acceptance by receiving the amount and keeping the same in his pocket are available in this case. The demand and acceptance on the part of both the accused have been proved by the prosecution. The learned Senior Counsel also garnered support from a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1408 (Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration)) in which it is held that in a case of bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. But, in the present case, not only the recovery of money but also other attending circumstances have been proved by the prosecution. (7) IN (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 401, (T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu), it is held that if the reason for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and reasonable, then the appellant had to be acquitted. (7) IN (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 401, (T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu), it is held that if the reason for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and reasonable, then the appellant had to be acquitted. In the case on hand, There is no such explanation from the accused side for the possession of the money. (8) IN (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 430 (Ramakrishnan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, D and VAC, Chennai), while dealing with the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, this Court, after referring to the decision in T.Subramanian case supra, has held as follows: "9. At the outset, it is to be stated that it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that mere proof of receipt of the money by an accused in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification will not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused in a corruption case. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil nadu reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 401 that: \"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. If accused offers reasonable and probable explanation based on evidence that the money was accepted by him, other than as an illegal gratification, accused would be entitled to acquittal". As adverted to supra, the demand and acceptance of money have been established by the prosecution. Mr.M.Pattu Rajan, learned counsel for the second accused would cite a decision reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1538 (Babu Lal Bajpai v. State of U.P.,) in which it is held as follows: "The case of the accused is that the complainant had tried to thrust the money in his pocket and he had resisted the said attempt, and thrown down the money on the floor. This version of the accused has been supported by the prosecution witness Raghubir Singh who is the adjacent shop-keeper and in whose shop the testing of ultra violet rays on the currency notes was made. Since he was aware of what was going to happen he had naturally moved near the shop of the trap. This version of the accused has been supported by the prosecution witness Raghubir Singh who is the adjacent shop-keeper and in whose shop the testing of ultra violet rays on the currency notes was made. Since he was aware of what was going to happen he had naturally moved near the shop of the trap. According to this witness he was standing outside the said shop and had heard the conversation inside the shop where the trap was laid. There is no reason why this witness who is a stranger both to the prosecution as well as to the accused would support the version of the accused, as stated above, if that was not the true version. The trial Court has also relied upon, and according to us rightly, this version of the said prosecution witness. These are two of the most important reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused. The High Court has ignored these reasons and has tried to substitute its own finding which unfortunately is based on surmises. We are, Therefore, more than satisfied that this was not a case where any interference with the finding of the trial Court was called for. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the appellant- accused should be acquitted of both the charges." (9) IN the above said case, while the money was thrusted into the pocket of the accused, he showed resistance and threw the money on the floor. But in the present case, it did not happen. The money was in the pocket of the second accused for a considerable time after he received it, till preparation of Sodium Carbonate solution by the INvestigation Officer. Had the second accuse refused to receive the money or he placed it elsewhere other then his pocket, he can take recourse to the principles in the above said decision. IN this regard, the oral evidence of P.W.3 has to be believed. (10) IN view of the above, the representation by the second accused that the P.W.2 had thrusted money in his pocket could not be believed. It is the representation of the first accused that he was in anti-sabotage check duty from 05.10.1999 to 07.10.1999, and that P.W.2 himself drove the vehicle into the police station and parked it. (10) IN view of the above, the representation by the second accused that the P.W.2 had thrusted money in his pocket could not be believed. It is the representation of the first accused that he was in anti-sabotage check duty from 05.10.1999 to 07.10.1999, and that P.W.2 himself drove the vehicle into the police station and parked it. He also attributes motive to P.W.2 and Ponniah P.W.18 that since he registered Prohibition cases against them They are hostile to him. P.W.4 is the Head Constable worked in Kanyakumari Police station during the relevant period. He says that the first accused on 04.10.1999 apprehended P.W.2 took him to police station along with motorcycle which was in front of the women police station till 08.10.1999. He was also in the police station while nabbing P.W.2 on 04.10.1999. He made the above entries in Ex.P12. P.W.5 was Grade I Police Constable in Kanyakumari police station. He was also in service There during the relevant point of time. His evidence is in line with that of P.W.4. He also went along with the first accused at the time of intercepting the motorcycle driven by P.W.2. He says that the first accused drove the motorcycle and parked in front of the women police station on 04.10.1999. P.W.7, who was also a Grade-I police constable in Kanyakumari police station who would depose about the apprehension of P.W.2 and Ponniah. He further states that the first accused took P.W.2 to the police station. He is categorical that on 04.10.1999 the first accused was in the police station relating to the prohibition case of P.W.2. (11) P.W.8 has also supported the version of the prosecution. He says that at about 4.00 p.m, P.W.2 and both the accused were coming together to the verandah and Prabhu was sent out of the police station. It is his evidence that the first accused brought the vehicle to the police station which was parked in the same place till 08.10.1999, when the Vigilance Officials seized it. (12) ANOTHER Sub Inspector of Police P.W.9 also states about the registration of the case against P.W.2 and bringing the motorcycle into the police station by the first accused. It is his evidence that the first accused brought the vehicle to the police station which was parked in the same place till 08.10.1999, when the Vigilance Officials seized it. (12) ANOTHER Sub Inspector of Police P.W.9 also states about the registration of the case against P.W.2 and bringing the motorcycle into the police station by the first accused. He has produced Ex.P17 to Ex.P33 which are all the records maintained in the police station, among which, Ex.P25 assumes importance in which as per P.W.9, on 06.10.1999 and 07.10.1999 the first accused was deputed for anti-sabotage duty. Hence, it is shown that only for the said dates the first accused was on anti-sabotage check duty. P.W.10 Grade-I Police constable in the Kanyakumari police station says that on the date of occurrence P.W.2 came to the police station and he wanted to meet the first accused, that he informed him and afterwards the first accused along with second accused met P.W.2. After sometime, the second accused was speaking to P.W.2 in the front verandah of women police station, at that time, P.W.3 was also present, that They went inside the police station and then P.W.2 and P.W.3 came out and that at 3.35 p.m., the vigilance officers came inside and nowhere the accused from his evidence it is established that P.W.2 met both the accused and afterwards P.W.2 and P.W.3 met both the accused and after sometime both the witnesses met second accused in the front verandah of women police station. He corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.11 was Writer in Kanyakumari police station, he says that while P.W.9 Sub Inspector of Police asked him, he told that the first accused directed P.W.2 to keep his motorcycle inside the police station. P.W.12 is Inspector of Police was also deputed for anti-sabotage check duty along with the first accused. He says that on 05.10.1999, he attended the said duty. He produced Ex.P34, which is the note prepared by him. He does not say that on 08.10.1999 also, the first accused was in the said duty. P.W.13 was Grade-I, Police Constable in Kanyakumari Police station. He would say that on 04.10.1999, the motorcycle was in the police station and the first accused entrusted the P.W.13 to take the P.W.2 to the Court. It is his evidence that on 04.10.1999 itself the motorcycle was in the police station. P.W.13 was Grade-I, Police Constable in Kanyakumari Police station. He would say that on 04.10.1999, the motorcycle was in the police station and the first accused entrusted the P.W.13 to take the P.W.2 to the Court. It is his evidence that on 04.10.1999 itself the motorcycle was in the police station. P.W.14 gave another shirt to the second accused after he removed his shirt for phenolphthalein test. He had seen the motorcycle parked in the police station even on 04.10.1999. P.W.15 was Sub- Inspector of Police in Kanyakumari police station at the time of occurrence. He says that on 06.10.1999, the first accused was deputed for anti-sabotage duty. (13) THE above said oral accounts came from the police personnel on duty in Kanyakumari police station at the relevant period would reveal that on 04.10.1999 itself the motorcycle driven by P.W.2 was brought to the police station and was parked There till 08.10.1999. There is nothing to smell a rat in the evidence. They would clearly indicate that the first accused brought the motorcycle along with P.W.2 to the police station on 04.10.1999. Hence, his representations before the Court that from 05.10.1999 to 07.10.1999 he was entirely on the anti-sabotage duty and he does not know about the parking of motorcycle earlier than 08.10.1999 and that P.W.2 only brought the motorcycle into the police station are not true. There might have been ill-will on the part of P.W.2 against the first accused, but overwhelming evidence do not show that only due to the hostility, P.W.2 lodged complaint against him. THE procedure for the preparation of sample in the phenolphthalein test have been duly explained. They were despatched to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory. Their analysis and report have also been established in this case. (14) IN view of the above said discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the charges framed against the accused by the trial Court have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly. There is no need to set aside the conviction recorded by the trial Court. However, in my opinion, the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court is on the higher side. The point is answered accordingly. There is no need to set aside the conviction recorded by the trial Court. However, in my opinion, the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court is on the higher side. Considering the facts and attending circumstances such as the length of proceedings, imposing of one year rigorous imprisonment upon each of the accused will be appropriate in the interest of justice, for every count under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All the sentences shall run concurrently. There is no modification as to the quantum of fine as fixed and imposed by the trial Court. (15) IN the result, both the appeals are dismissed. However, the period of sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment imposed on each of the accused by the trial Court is modified to one year each for every count for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentences shall run concurrently. The period of incarceration already undergone by them shall be set off. There is no modification as regards the quantum of fine fixed and imposed by the trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to issue warrant to commit both the accused to prison to suffer the remaining portion of sentence.