Judgment :- 1. The Appellant herein is the Accused in Spl.C.C. No.7 of 2002, on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and he stands convicted for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he is sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the Appellant had preferred this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Accused was working as Sub-Inspector of Survey (South), Town Survey Section, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore. P.W.2, Sasikumar who was running an electrical shop in Coimbatore and his paternal uncle by name Basha alias Loganathan who had a site in Survey No.417/2A at Anuparpalayam Village died intestate in the year 1997. A town survey sketch of the said site was required by the legal heirs in order to sell the property. P.W.2 submitted an Application in the South Regional office on 17.09.2001 and as he did not receive any reply against the office, the Section Clerk directed him to meet the Accused whose office was situate in the Corporation Office at Town Hall, Coimbatore. P.W.2 met the Accused on 12.10.2002 at 4.00 p.m. The Accused demanded Rs.500/- Again he met him on 17.10.2001 and the Accused again demanded the money. Again on 29.10.2001, P.W.2 met the Accused at about 4.00 p.m and the Accused also demanded money. Then P.W.2 went to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption office. He gave Complaint Ex.P.2 on 30.10.2001. P.W.9, Inspector of Police received the Complaint from him and registered the case in Crime no. 4/2001/AC/CB under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prepared the First Information Report-ExP.14. P.W.9 arranged two independent witnesses, P.W.3-Kanagarathnam and one Sampath Kumar. P.W.9 explained to the Accused and the mahazar witnesses about the Phenolphthalein Test. The Accused produced five currency notes of Rs.100/- denominations. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and the Accused was instructed to give the amount to the Accused only on demand. P.W.3 also was instructed to accompany P.W.2. An endorsement Mahazar-Ex.P.3 was prepared. Thereafter, P.W.2 went along with P.W.3 to the office of the Accused. P.W.9 along with his party followed them. P.Ws.2 and 3 entered into the office of the Accused. P.W.3 also was instructed to accompany P.W.2. An endorsement Mahazar-Ex.P.3 was prepared. Thereafter, P.W.2 went along with P.W.3 to the office of the Accused. P.W.9 along with his party followed them. P.Ws.2 and 3 entered into the office of the Accused. The Accused was taking to some other persons. Both P.Ws.2 and 3 were sitting on the bench. After sometime, P.W.2 went near the Accused. The Accused demanded the bribe amount. P.W.2 produced the currency notes, but the Accused did not receive in his hands and he directed P.W.2 to put the currency in the left, side drawer of his table and opened the drawer. P.W.2 dropped the currency notes in the drawer. He came out of the office and gave the pre-arranged signal by removing his spectacles and cleaning it. P.W.9, Inspector of Police immediately rushed into the office along with his party, P.W.2 also informed P.W.9 that he dropped the cash in the table drawer. P.W.9 also enquired P.W.3. P.W.9 introduced himself to the Accused. Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared in two glass tumblers. The Accused was directed to dip his right hand fingers and the left hand fingers in another glass tumblers. The colour of the solution did not change. P.W.9 arrested the Accused and enquired him about, the currency notes. The Accused took out the currency notes from the left side drawer of the table and produced. P.W.9 seized the currency notes-M.O.3 series. P.W.9 seized other relevant records and prepared the recovery mahazar-Ex. P.7. 3. P.W.10-Inspector of Police took up further investigation in this matter and recorded the statements of witnesses and seized the relevant documents and after completing the investigation and obtaining sanction order Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, he laid the final report against the Accused. 4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10, marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 and produced material objects M.Os.1 to 5. When the Accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances available against him, he denied his complicity. The Accused also filed a Written Statement, stating that the earlier Application filed by P.W.2 was rejected for the reason that the Legal Heir Certificate was not given and as P.W.2 insisted for Legal Heir Certificate, the Accused was aggrieved and on 30.10.2001, when P.W.2 approached him, he moved from his place in order to bring the Application and to reject it. He searched the Application of the Accused in the almirah, but it was not available and he came back to the seat. In the mean time, P.W.2 and other persons who accompanied were not available. Only after the arrival of the Police, when the drawer was opened he saw the money that was recovered from the table. He stated that he had no knowledge about the money being kept in the drawer. 5. The Trial Court after analysing the evidence convicted and sentenced the Accused as already stated above. 6. Mr. S. Shunmughavelayutham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Accused did not make any demand of bribe and there is no corroboration for the demand said to have, been made by the Accused on 12.10.2001, 17.10.2001 and 2/3.10.2001 and further in Ex.P.2 Complaint given by P.W.2, it is not stated that P.W.2 met the Accused and Accused demanded the bribe amount on 17.10.2001. 7. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Accused also has not accepted any bribe amount and even according to the prosecution case, the Accused had not received the bribe amount in his hand and the Phenolphthalein Test was negative and admittedly the money was recovered only from the table which had been kept by P.W.2 without the knowledge of the Accused. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that. P.W.2 was motivated to give false Complaint, since the earlier Application made by him for the sketch was dismissed and when P.W.2 met the Accused on 29.10.2001, the Accused insisted for the Legal Heir Certificate. 8. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Ganapathy Sanya Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2007 (8) SCC 309 . 9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that though the Accused did not touch the currency notes, the currency notes were put in the table drawer by P.W.2 as instructed by the Accused. P.W.3 an independent witness who accompanied P.W.2 also stated that the Accused demanded bribe amount, and as instructed by him, P.W.2 put the cash in the table drawer. 10. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that the version of the Accused that while he went in search of the Application in the almirah without his knowledge, P.W.2 had planted the currency notes in the table drawer is not supported by any evidence. 10. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that the version of the Accused that while he went in search of the Application in the almirah without his knowledge, P.W.2 had planted the currency notes in the table drawer is not supported by any evidence. 11. This Court considered the submissions and perused the records. 12. According to P.W.2, he gave an Application in the Coimbatore Corporation office on 17.09.2001 for getting a sketch for the site in Survey No.417/2A. Regarding the said Application, he met the Accused on 12.10.2001 and on that day, the Accused demanded Rs.500/-. Again he met the Accused on 17.10.2001 and also on 29.10.2001 and the Accused demanded bribe amount. On the next day, he had given Complaint, i.e., on 13.10.2001. In the Complaint Ex.P.2, he had not stated that he met the Accused on 17.10.2001and the Accused demanded the bribe amount on that day. Even prior to 17.09.2001, an Application was made on 16.04.2001 and it was rejected on 20.06.2001. Ex.D1 is the Application made by P.W.2 and it was rejected and the rejection order by the Accused is Ex.D.3. In Ex.D.3, the Accused had rejected the Application for the reason that ownership document was not enclosed. Though P.W.2 had denied his knowledge about the rejection of his earlier application, he had admitted in the cross-examination that he made the second Application on 17.09.2001, as he was asked to filed a fresh Application by the Accused. In the chief-examination, P.W.2 says that he met the Accused only on 12.10.2001, the day on which the demand was made. It appears that P.W.2 had some grudge against the Accused since his Application was rejected by the Accused. The evidence of P.W.2 regarding the demand of bribe by the Accused also remains uncorroborated. 13. On the day of trap, i.e., 13.10.2001 according to P.Ws.2 and 3 when they met the Accused, the Accused demand the bribe amount, but he did not receive the bribe amount in his hand and he had asked P.W.2 to put the amount in the drawer. The Accused had denied this fact. Admittedly, the Accused had not received the bribe amount in his hand the Phenolphthalein test was also negative. The Accused had denied this fact. Admittedly, the Accused had not received the bribe amount in his hand the Phenolphthalein test was also negative. The Accused had given an explanation stating that when P.W.2 approached him, the Accused informed him that it was not possible to give the sketch unless the Legal Heir Certificates were produced so as to show that the applicants have share in the property. Thereafter, he went in search of the Application given P.W.2. In the mean time, M.O.1. currencies were planted in his table drawer. Though P.W.3 the mahazar witness who had accompanied P.W.2 supports the evidence of P.W.2 in his evidence, he has not mentioned that after the Phenolphthalein Test, was conducted and after the Accused was arrested, how the currency notes were recovered by the police, Though P.W.9 Inspector of police had stated that the Accused who had opened the drawer and produced the currency, P.W.3 had not given any such evidence. Further, P.W.3 had stated that when the Accused was questioned by the Investigating Officer, the accused had denied about the receipt of the currency. It is the evidence of P.W.9 also, on receiving the pre-arranged signal from P.W.2 and after entering into the office, he had enquired P.Ws.2 and 3 and he had come to know that the currency was kept in the drawer. Therefore, it was possible for P.W.9 to recover the currency from the table drawer. If the fact, that it was only the Accused who took out the currency from the table drawer and produced it to the Police is established, then it is possible to infer that the Accused had knowledge about the presence of the currency notes in the drawer. In the absence of any such evidence from P.W.3, independent Mahazar witness, it is not possible to accept the evidence of P.W.9 that the currency notes were produced by the Accused. 14. It is observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ganapahty Sanya Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2007 (8) SCC 309 , as follows: “9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We find that the view taken by the Trial Court was clearly possible on the evidence in the case. 14. It is observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ganapahty Sanya Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2007 (8) SCC 309 , as follows: “9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We find that the view taken by the Trial Court was clearly possible on the evidence in the case. The Court had observed that, the plea of the defence at the very initial stage was that P.W.6 had serious animosity towards the Appellant and that, the currency notes had been put on the table by the former was a plausible explanation. It is in the evidence that the currency notes had not been touched by the Appellant or recovered from his person. It is also the prosecution case that the relevant documents had been handed over to Nagaraja immediately after the money had been put on the table. The argument, therefore that there was no occasion to make a demand for any bribe is also plausible.” 15. This Court is of the considered view that the above principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court can be applied to the facts of the present case. The evidence regarding the demand of bribe amount being uncorroborated and the evidence regarding acceptance of the bribe also being doubtful, this Court feels that it is very unsafe to convict the Accused/Appellant, even though the evidence of P.W.3, independent witness is available in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused are set aside. The fine amount, if any, paid by the Appellant shall be refunded to him.