Judgment : Per S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The petitioner is the sole accused in Special C.C. No. 1 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal. By judgment dated 29.12.2006, the learned Judge convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and imposed a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: During the year 1993, the appellant was the Assistant Engineer at the Municipal Office, Karaikal. On 5.11.1993, it is alleged that the appellant received a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from P.W.1, Arumugham, for having rendered service in connection with the construction of drainage at north and south of Tirunallar, Karaikal, by the father of said Arumugam and also for doing further contract work as official act in the exercise of official functions. 3. P.W.1 claimed that he was looking after the work of his father. His father had taken tender to execute construction work for the municipality at the cost of Rs. 1,70,000/-P.W.1 has also received Rs. 1,70,000/- by way of cheque from the P.A.O. On that day, the appellant met P.W.1 and demanded Rs. 3,500/- as a bribe for the completion of the above work. He further claimed that the appellant threatened him that if he did not give the bribe money, he will not be given any construction work in future. It is further alleged that on subsequent occasions also, the appellant made similar demands. Therefore, on 5.11.1993, P.W.1 preferred a complaint under Exhibit P-1, which was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Unit, Pondicherry. Based on the same, P.W.14 registered a case in crime No. 8 of 1993 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Then, he got two officials, viz., P.Ws.2 and 3, drawn from two other departments to be official witnesses for the trap to be laid. In the presence of witnesses, P.W.14 made arrangements explaining the phenolphthalein test. Mahazar was prepared for that and phenolphthalein powder, the sodium carbonate solution, etc. to be used for the trap were all preserved. Then, P.W.1 was asked to hand over Rs. In the presence of witnesses, P.W.14 made arrangements explaining the phenolphthalein test. Mahazar was prepared for that and phenolphthalein powder, the sodium carbonate solution, etc. to be used for the trap were all preserved. Then, P.W.1 was asked to hand over Rs. 3,500/-, on which phenolphthalein powder was smeered by a head constable and P.W.6 was directed to prepare the sodium carbonate solution. Thereafter, the currency notes were handed over to P.W.1 after preparing necessary mahazar and noting down the numbers of the currency notes also. Then, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were taken by P.W.14 to the office of the appellant. Since they were informed that the appellant had already gone to his house,. from there, they proceeded to the house of the appellant. At the spot, P.W.14 gave further instructions to P.Ws.1 to 3 as to how to give signal, etc., after the appellant had received the bribe amount from P.W.1. From a place nearer to the main road, P.Ws.2 and 3 were waiting along with P.W.14 in the car. P.W.1 alone went to the house of the appellant. After a few minutes, P.W.1 returned and made a signal thereby indicating that the appellant had received the bribe amount of Rs. 3,500/- from P.W.1. Immediately, P.W.14 took P.Ws.2 and 3 to the house of the appellant. When he enquired, the appellant told that he never received any amount from P.W.1. He further said that his son told him that P.W.1 came near his house, threw a cover through the open window and ran away. He further explained that the said cover was taken by his son and kept above the T.V. rack. Then, P.W.14 wanted the appellant to take the cover and hand over the same to the police. Accordingly, the cover was taken by the appellant and handed over to the police. When it was opened, it contained the very same currency notes, which were earlier entrusted to P.W.1. Thereafter, phenolphthalein test was conducted for the fingers of the appellant, which proved positive. The sodium carbonate solution prepared, into which the fingers of the appellant were dipped, was also preserved. 4. Then, P.W.14 made arrangements for house search of the appellant. The details of the house search need not be elaborated in this judgment, as nothing incriminating was recovered. Then, he arrested the appellant and along with him, returned to the police station. The sodium carbonate solution prepared, into which the fingers of the appellant were dipped, was also preserved. 4. Then, P.W.14 made arrangements for house search of the appellant. The details of the house search need not be elaborated in this judgment, as nothing incriminating was recovered. Then, he arrested the appellant and along with him, returned to the police station. Thereafter, he proceeded with the investigation, examined the witnesses at the office of the municipality to speak about, the contract work and finally laid charge sheet against the appellant. 5. Based on the said materials, the trial Court framed a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act alone. It could be noticed that no charge under Section 13 (2) of the Act was framed at all. The appellant denied the said charge. Therefore, he was put on trial. 6. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined. P.W.1 has spoken to about the entire occurrence including his contention that he gave bribe money to the appellant. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the witnesses who accompanied P.W.1 till the house of the appellant and they also spoken to about the recovery of the currency notes from the house of the appellant. P.W.4 and 5 have been examined to speak about the house search conducted by P.W.14. P.W.6 is a police constable, who assisted P.W.14. P.W.7 is an official working in the municipality, who has spoken to about the tender. P.W.8 is yet another officer in the same municipality, who has also spoken to about the same fact. P.W.9 is yet another civil contractor, who is known to P.W.1 and he has spoken to about the fact that he heard from P.W.1 that the appellant demanded bribe. P.W.10 is an analyst, who has examined the sodium carbonate solution to give opinion that the solution contained phenolphthalein powder. He has also certified that the cover which contained the currency notes also was smeared with phenolphthalein powder. P.W.11 was the one who further investigated the case, after the trap was completed by P.W.14. After P.W.11, P.W.12 took up investigation and he obtained sanction from P.W.13, who is the appointing authority of the appellant. P.W.14 was the last officer, who investigated the case and laid the charge sheet. P.W.11 was the one who further investigated the case, after the trap was completed by P.W.14. After P.W.11, P.W.12 took up investigation and he obtained sanction from P.W.13, who is the appointing authority of the appellant. P.W.14 was the last officer, who investigated the case and laid the charge sheet. On the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 documents were exhibited and 9 material objects were marked. 7. When the incriminating materials were put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same. His explanation was that P.W.1, without his knowledge, came near his house, threw the cover containing the currency notes into the house through the window. His son noticed the same, took it without knowing the contents of the same and kept it above the T.V. rack. When his son told him about the same, he went in search of P.W.1. Immediately thereafter, the officials came and enquired him about that, for which he explained also. He has denied the allegation that he demanded illegal gratification from P.W.1. It is his case that the currency notes were not received by him from P.W.1. In order to substantiate his defence, he has examined two witnesses, viz., D.Ws.1 and 2. D.W.1 has spoken to about the fact that on earlier occasion, there was a wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and the appellant. D.W.2 is the son of the appellant, who has spoken to about throwing of money in the cover through the window into the house. At this juncture, it should also be mentioned that it is the consistent case of the appellant that there was no love-lost between him and P.W.1 and as a matter of fact, there was a wordy quarrel between them on previous occasion. It is because of the said misunderstanding, to take revenge on the appellant, P.W.1 had given a false complaint and thereafter, he had thrown the cover containing money into his house. The above defence version was not acceptable by the trial Court and the trial Court found the accused guilty. 8. Mr. Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would take me through the evidenced of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6 and14 to substantiate his contention that the money was not at all received by the appellant. I heard the learned Government advocate (Pondicherry) on the above contention. 9. 8. Mr. Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would take me through the evidenced of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6 and14 to substantiate his contention that the money was not at all received by the appellant. I heard the learned Government advocate (Pondicherry) on the above contention. 9. I have carefully considered the evidences of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6 and 14. As a matter of fact, the evidence of P.W.6, head constable, would go to show that he accompanied P.W.14 after getting signal from P.W.1. After they entered the house, P.W.14 enquired the appellant about the receipt of money and the appellant denied the said allegation. The appellant also told the Inspector that a cover was thrown –by P.W.1 through the open window into his house without his knowledge. P.W.6 has further admitted that the appellant further told the inspector that his son took the cover and kept it above the T.V. rack. Similar evidence has been spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 also even in chief examination. In the cross-examination also, the above fact has been assertively stated by all these three witnesses. These witnesses have not been treated as hostile. Apart from that, immediately thereafter, the appellant demanded P.W.14 to conduct phenolphthalein test for the fingers of his son, D.W.2. P.W.14 refused to do so. This is available in the evidence of P.W.2 and it probabilises the defence of the appellant. This would go to show that the defence of the appellant is not an after-thought taken in consultation with any legal brain. Further, P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 would say that they themselves noticed the cover containing the currency notes on the T.V. rack. P.W.6 would further add that the Inspector wanted the appellant to take the cover, handle it and then, to give it to him. According to P.W.6, the appellant did it. It is in this way, the appellant had occasion to handle the cover containing the notes. Then, it is in the evidence of P.W.6 that he smeared the phenolphthalein powder not only on the currency notes, but also on the cover. The chemical analyst, on examination, has also found that there were smears of phenolphthalein powder on the cover. ‘Therefore, it is quite natural for the fingers of the appellant getting strained with phenolphthalein powder when he handled the cover, as directed by P.W.14. The chemical analyst, on examination, has also found that there were smears of phenolphthalein powder on the cover. ‘Therefore, it is quite natural for the fingers of the appellant getting strained with phenolphthalein powder when he handled the cover, as directed by P.W.14. That is the reason why when his fingers were subjected to phenolphthalein test, they proved positive. Therefore, the explanation of the appellant has not only been probabilised, to some extent, the defence version has been established also. 10. Now, coming to the evidence of D.W.2, he has categorically stated that without the knowledge of his father, P.W.1 threw the cover containing the currency notes into the house through the window. He noticed it. Thereafter, without knowing the consequences, he took it and kept it on the T.V. rack. In order to establish this fact only the appellant wanted P.W.14 to conduct phenolphthalein test for the fingers of D.W.2. But, for the reasons best known, he has refused to do so. From out of this, certainly an adverse inference can be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the prosecution. Further, though D.W.2 had been subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, nothing was elicited to make his evidence incredible. It is settled law that the evidence of the defence witnesses should also have the same weightage just like that of the prosecution witnesses. There should not be any discrimination in the matter of appreciation. A close scrutiny of cross-examination of D.W.2 by the prosecution would show that there is not even any denial about the facts spoken to by him to the effect that the cover containing the money was thrown into the house by P.W.1. Thus, I do not find any reason to reject the evidence of D.W.2. D.W.2’s evidence clearly establishes the case of the defence, which stands corroborated by the other facts, which I have already narrated above. 11. Now, coming to the motive for P.W.1 to falsely implicate the appellant, we have got the evidence of D.W.1. D.W.1 has clearly stated about the wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and the appellant. This was sometime before this occurrence. Therefore, there is every justification to accept the defence theory that it was because of this motive, P.W.1 had gone to give a false complaint to the police. D.W.1 has clearly stated about the wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and the appellant. This was sometime before this occurrence. Therefore, there is every justification to accept the defence theory that it was because of this motive, P.W.1 had gone to give a false complaint to the police. Yet another aspect is that it is not as though the amount due to the father of P.W.1 was not sanctioned and paid by the municipality. Even, according to the evidence of P.W.1, the entire amount was paid by way of cheque. Had it been the intention of the appellant to demand some illegal gratification, certainly he could have done so without sanctioning the amount payable to the father of P.W.1. The very fact that without making any demand, he sanctioned the amount and gave the cheque to P.W.1 would go to show that subsequently also he would not have demanded any such amount from P.W.1. Because the father of P.W.1 is a contractor and because there are some transactions between the municipality and father of P.W.1, there was some wordy quarrel and because of that wordy quarrel, with a view to take revenge on the appellant only, P.W.1 had gone to the extent of giving a false complaint. This theory is quite probable and acceptable to this Court. 12. In a similar situation, the Honourable Supreme Court in Ganapathi Sanya Naik v. State of Karnataka (2007) 8 SCC 309 : (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 358, held as follows at P.360 of MLJ (Crl): “6…. It has been pointed out that the currency notes had not been touched by the appellant and the defence version that they have been surreptitiously put on the table while the appellant was otherwise engaged in some activity was a possibility on the evidence and could not be ruled out. 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 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. We are thus of the opinion that in an appeal against acquittal where the High Court’s interference is in a manner circumscribed, there was no justification in upsetting the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and order the appellant’s acquittal.” 13. Applying the principles enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above judgment, if the facts of the present case are analysed, I am sure that the initial burden of proving the fact that the appellant demanded illegal gratification so as to raise the presumption under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not arise. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has failed to appreciate these aspects in their proper perspectives. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant, bail bonds shall stand cancelled.