Judgment :- 1. The Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 29.03.2006, made in Spl. C.C.No.1 of 2002, on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, whereby the accused were convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced them to undergo each one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,500/- each in default in payment to undergo each four months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of P.C.Act and sentenced them to undergo each two years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,500/-each in default in payment to undergo each four months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and each accused shall run the sentence concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) P.W.2-Thangavel, who is the owner of the land, desired to execute a Settlement Deed in favour of his mother. So he prepared a Settlement deed and went to the Registrar Office, Mallasamudram on 05.02.1991. He paid the registration fee of Rs.45/-before A1, who was working as Sub-Registrar at Mallasamudram. After receipt of registration fee under Ex.P2, A1 Sub-Registrar registered the settlement deed under Ex.P17 and demanded Rs.50/- and A2, who was working as Office Assistant in the same office, also demanded Rs.10/-. Furthermore, A1 directed P.W.2 to hand over Rs.50/- on 7.2.1991, at 5.00 p.m. and get the original document. On 7.2.1991, at 5.30 p.m., P.W.2 gone to the Registrar Office, where A1 was not present and A2 alone was there. P.W.2 handed over Ex.P2-Receipt to A2, who asked him whether he is ready to pay the amount. Since P.W.2 stated that he did not bring the money, A2 asked P.W.2 to come on 11.2.1991, at 5.00 p.m. Since P.W.2 was not willing to pay the bribe on 11.02.1991, he gone to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Office, Salem, at 11 o' clock on the same day and met the Inspector of police, who was examined as P.W.24. (ii) P.W.24-Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Salem, recorded the statement of P.W.2 and registered the complaint under Ex.P3. The case has been registered in Crime No.2AC/91/Spl. under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and an F.I.R. was prepared under Ex.P50 and dispatched the same to the concerned Court. (ii) P.W.24-Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Salem, recorded the statement of P.W.2 and registered the complaint under Ex.P3. The case has been registered in Crime No.2AC/91/Spl. under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and an F.I.R. was prepared under Ex.P50 and dispatched the same to the concerned Court. Then he sent a communication to the Forest Ranger, Forest Department, Salem as well as Assistant Director in the office of Hand loom and Silk, requesting them to send an Assistant to act as a witness in the trap proceedings. On 11.02.1991, at 1.15 p.m., P.W.2 and witnesses P.W.4-Neelaswami and one Kumaravel were appeared before P.W.24 in the office of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Salem and P.W.4 & Kumaravel were introduced to P.W.2 by P.W.24 and intimated about the facts in respect of trap proceedings. Then, P.W.24 enquired P.W.2 in respect of the tainted currency notes and he handed over the same and P.W.24 prepared an entrustment mahazar Ex.P5. Then, P.W.24 demonstrated the phenolphthalein test in the presence of the independent witnesses P.W.4, the said Kumaravel and P.W.2, and the tainted notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and gave to P.W.2 and informed to him that the above amount should be given to the appellants/A1 and A2 on demand. P.W.2 was told that after giving the bribe amount to them on demand, he should give a signal. (iii) On 11.02.1991, at about 3.00 p.m., P.W.4, Kumaravel, P.W.2, along with P.W.24 were gone to the office of the appellants. At about 4.00 p.m., P.W.4 and P.W.2 were entered into the Registrar Office and met A1 and produced Ex.P2. A1 received Ex.P2 and questioned whether he brought the amount and he replied that he is having money with him. Then A1 directed P.W.2 to hand over the amount of Rs.50/- to A2 and directed A2 to obtain signature of P.W.2 in the receipt and hand over the document. A2 received the same and kept in the right side of his pant pocket and he also demanded Rs.10/-and received the same and kept in the same pocket. After obtaining signature from P.W.2 in the counter foil, he returned the settlement deed. Thereafter, A1 also made his sign in the counter foil. At about 4.45 p.m., P.W.2 came outside and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap team. After obtaining signature from P.W.2 in the counter foil, he returned the settlement deed. Thereafter, A1 also made his sign in the counter foil. At about 4.45 p.m., P.W.2 came outside and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap team. Immediately, P.W.24 along with P.W.4 entered into the office and introduced himself to A1 and A2 and conducted sodium carbonate test on the hands of the appellant/A2 and there was a colour change in the solutions. The above solutions were preserved in separate bottles and sealed. Then, P.W.24 enquired A2 about the bribe amount and recovered Rs.60/-, the tainted currency notes. Furthermore, A2 possessed Rs.100/- in his left side pant pocket. Thereafter, P.W.24 seized the Documents number Register Ex.P12, Visitors Register Ex.P11, Fees Register Ex.P6, Attendance Register Ex.P13 and made an endorsement. (iv) On 11.02.1991, at 6.45 p.m., P.W.24 arrested A1 and A2 and recorded their statements and recovered the amount from the accused not only connected with P.W.2 and also from others and prepared rough sketch Ex.P16. At about 7.45 p.m., P.W.24 recorded the statement of P.W.2 and also received the receipt for Registration Fee under the mahazar. After that, P.W.24 sent requisition Ex.P52 to concerned Magistrate for searching the house of the appellants/A1&A2 and he made a search in the house of A1 and A2 between 8.45 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. & 9.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. respectively. But nothing has been seized. Then, P.W.24 taken them to his office at 10.45 p.m. and the accused were enlarged on bail. Then, P.W.10-Ashokan, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Office, Salem, took up the matter for further investigation. (v) On 11.02.1991, at 11.00 p.m., P.W.25 took up the matter as per the direction of his superior and examined the accused & other witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing the investigation, he obtained necessary sanction from P.W.1, Inspector General, Registration Department and filed a charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, against the appellants/accused. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after following the procedure, framed necessary charges. After completing the investigation, he obtained necessary sanction from P.W.1, Inspector General, Registration Department and filed a charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, against the appellants/accused. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after following the procedure, framed necessary charges. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.25 and marked the documents Exs.P1 to P52 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.10 and placed the incriminating evidence before the Accused and the accused denied the same and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and sentenced as stated above. 4. Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A1 submitted that A1/Thangavelu, who was working as sub-registrar in Mallasamudram, is an innocent and he did not receive any bribe and there was no evidence to show that he demanded bribe from P.W.2. It is further submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.2, the Settlement deed was registered on 05.02.1991 and the registration fee was paid as per Ex.P2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5.2.1991, A1 demanded Rs.50/-for returning the said document. But on 07.02.1991, as A1 went to attend a meeting, he was not present in the office. On 11.02.1991 also, he did not receive that amount. Since the registration process has already been done, there is no necessity for A1 to demand the money. It is further submitted that P.W.4-Neelaswami, who is the trap witness is not an independent witness and no document has been filed to show that P.W.4 was directed by his higher official to act as a trap witness. There was an enmity between A1 and P.W.10, who was working as Assistant in the Sub-Registrar Office. P.W.14, who came to obtain E.C., signed as witness in the said document and turned hostile. The learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 481 (T.M.Shanmughavelu and another) v. State rep. By Inspector of Police, V&AC, Coimbatore) and submitted that P.W.4 is forming part of the raiding party and he is not an independent witness. Hence, he prayed for allowing of this appeal and acquittal of appellant/A1. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) 2009 (3) MWN (crl.) 356 (State rep. By Inspector of Police, V&AC, Coimbatore) and submitted that P.W.4 is forming part of the raiding party and he is not an independent witness. Hence, he prayed for allowing of this appeal and acquittal of appellant/A1. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) 2009 (3) MWN (crl.) 356 (State rep. by Inspector of Police, V&AC, Tiruchirapallai) (ii) (1974) 3 SCC 595 (Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration) (iii) (2011) 3 MLJ (crl.) 481 (T.M.Shanmughavelu and another) v. State rep. By Inspector of Police, V&AC, Coimbatore) 5. Mr. N.Balasubramanian, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant/A2 submitted that sanction order itself is not in accordance with law and the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind, while according sanction. The learned counsel also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/A1 and he also relied upon the decision reported in 2010(3) MWN (cr.) 51 (Sankaralingam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (V&AC) Tirunelveli) and prayed for acquittal of A2. 6. Resisting the same, Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) filed written arguments and submitted that sanction has been accorded by P.W.1, Inspector General in the Registration Department, who is a competent authority in his chief-examination itself, he stated that after perusing entire records, he had applied his mind and after fully satisfied himself, accorded sanction according to law. He further submitted that the demand made by the appellants has been proved by the oral evidence of P.W.2 and that has been corroborated by P.W.4, who was accompanying with trap party. It is further submitted that A2/Office Assistant had accepted the bribe amount and the same was recovered by P.W.24-Inspector of Police and the tainted currency note was recovered from the accused. Therefore, the prosecution proved that the accused received gratification from the complainant and in such circumstances, Court can draw legal presumption that the said gratification is illegal, but the appellants herein have not given any plausible explanation for the amount they possessed. The trial Court considered all the aspects in a proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by both A1 and A2. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 8. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by both A1 and A2. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 8. The first and foremost question has to be decided is that whether the sanction Ex.P1 is accorded by P.W.1 is valid under law? The competency of P.W.1 was not disputed. Now this Court has to decide whether P.W.1 has accorded sanction order, after applying his mind. It is appropriate to consider Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W.1. In page-8 of Ex.P1-sanction order, it was stated by P.W.1, after fully and carefully examining the materials, such as statements of witnesses and documents, placed before him, in regarding to the allegations and circumstances of the case, he satisfied that the said Thangavelu/A1 and Palaniswami/A2 should be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. In last paragraph, it was mentioned that he accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of P.C. Act. In his chief-examination, he specifically mentioned that he received a report from V & AC, Salem, along with F.I.R., Copy of Mahazar, statements of witnesses and after perusing the same and satisfied himself and then he accorded sanction. In his cross-examination, he stated that he received the materials by post and after according sanction, he returned only by post. He denied the suggestion, which was posed him that without applying his mind, he accorded sanction for prosecuting the appellants/accused 1 and 2. 9. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1-sanction order, P.W.1 is a competent person to accord sanction. Hence, the sanction order is a valid one. So the trial Court is correct in held that the sanction order is a valid under law. 10. Now this Court has to decide whether A1 is guilty of the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act? The learned counsel for appellant/A1 would submit that settlement deed has been executed by P.W.2 in favour of his mother on 05.02.1991 and it was registered on the same day after receipt of registration fee of Rs.45/-, which was evidenced by Ex.P2. It is further submitted that the registration process has already been completed and there is no necessity for A1-Sub-Registrar to demand bribe. Except, the ipse dixit of P.W.2, there is no evidence to show that A1 demanding bribe. It is further submitted that the registration process has already been completed and there is no necessity for A1-Sub-Registrar to demand bribe. Except, the ipse dixit of P.W.2, there is no evidence to show that A1 demanding bribe. There is no demand made by A1 on 7.2.1991 as per the evidence of P.W.2, as A1 was not present in the office. So the statement of P.W.2 that the appellant/A1 demanded Rs.50/- and received the same, cannot be true. 11. As per the evidence of P.W.2, in his chief-examination, he stated that A1 demanded bribe on 5.2.1991 and then, he directed P.W.2 to produce Ex.P2-receipt along with Rs.50/- on 7.2.1991 and get the original settlement deed on that day. Admittedly, on 7.2.1991, at 5.30 p.m., when P.W.2 gone to the Sub-registrar office, A1 was not present and A2 alone was there, who received Ex.P2 and demanded the money. Since P.W.2 stated that he is not having money, A2 asked him to come on 11.2.1991, at 5.00 p.m. On 07.2.1991, P.W.10-Assistant was an acting Sub-registrar and registered the document on that day. Since the appellant/A1 was not present in the office on 7.2.1991, he had not demanded bribe and never met P.W.2. 12. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decisions relied upon by Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing for appellant/A1. (i) (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 481 (T.M.Shanmughavelu and another) v. State rep. By Inspector of Police, V&AC, Coimbatore), in which, it reads as follows: "This Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the first and foremost ingredient of demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by A1 in order to attract the offences alleged against them." (ii) (1974) 3 SCC 595 (Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration) and submitted that P.W.4, who is an accompanying raiding party is not an independent witness. (iii) 2009 (3) MWN (crl.) 356 (State rep. by Inspector of Police, V&AC, Tiruchirapallai) and submitted that P.W.4-Neelaswamy, who was working as an Assistant in the Forest Department, being a Government Servant, has associated with the raiding party . The witness forming part of the raiding party found to be not independent witness. (iv) LearnedGovernment Advocate (crl. Side) relied upon the decision reported in 2008 Crl.L.J. 4306 (Raj Rajendra singh seth v. State of Jharkhand and another). The witness forming part of the raiding party found to be not independent witness. (iv) LearnedGovernment Advocate (crl. Side) relied upon the decision reported in 2008 Crl.L.J. 4306 (Raj Rajendra singh seth v. State of Jharkhand and another). But this citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Considering the above citations, I am of the view, P.W.4 is not an independent witness. So the evidence of P.W.4 cannot be treated as an independent witness as per the dictum laid down in 1992 Supp(1)SCC 428, (Som Prakash v. State of Punjab), the witness forming part of the raiding party found to be not independent witness. 13. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that P.W.4 deposed before the Court that A1 asked P.W.2 whether he brought the amount. But P.W.2 did not state that he demanded the money. So the prosecution has failed to prove the first and foremost ingredient of demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by A1 in order to attract the offences alleged against him. It is also pertinent to note that A1 did not receive the tainted amount and also it was not recovered from him. The case of the defence is that there is an enmity between A1 and P.W.10, P.W.10 instigated P.W.2 and gave a false complaint. Since A1 was not present in the office on 07.02.1991, there is no demand made by him on that day (i.e.) 7.2.1991. But while perusing the evidence of P.W.2, on 7.2.1991 itself, he decided not to give bribe. Immediately, he lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Salem, on 11.02.1991. So the basic fundamental ingredients of Section 7 of P.C. Act, the demand of illegal gratification is not proved by prosecution. Hence, the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out against appellant/A1. But the trial Court had not considered this aspect in a proper perspective. Since A1/Sub-registrar is not guilty of the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act, he did not abuse his position. So the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act is not made out. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against A1/appellant in Crl.A.No.340 of 2006 is liable to be set aside and hence, it is hereby set aside. 14. So the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act is not made out. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against A1/appellant in Crl.A.No.340 of 2006 is liable to be set aside and hence, it is hereby set aside. 14. In respect of A2/Office Assistant is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that on the date of registration of the Settlement Deed (i.e.) on 05.02.1991, A2 also demanded Rs.10/-. On 7.2.1991, P.W.2 again went to Sub-Registrar Office, to get the document. But A1 was not present and A2 alone was there. A2 received the receipt Ex.P2 and demanded Rs.10/- and asked him to come on 11.02.1991. It is pertinent to note, as already stated that P.W.4-Neelaswamy is a witness forming part of the raiding party. Hence, he is not an independent witness. Except the oral evidence of P.W.2, no other independent witness is available to prove that A2 demanded bribe. 15. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decisions relied upon by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reported in 2001 Crl.L.J. 515 (M.Narasinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh), in para-24, it reads as follows: "24.) .. ..The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the Court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like 'gratification or any valuable thing'. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the Court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like 'gratification or any valuable thing'. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for the official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it." (ii) AIR 2004 SC 2042 (State of Andhra Pradesh v. C.Uma Maheswara Rao and another) and submitted that the presumption as to acceptance of bribe by public servant as motive or reward for doing/not doing official act and the proof of acceptance or agreed to accept any gratification is condition precedent for drawing presumption under section 20 of Evidence Act. Admittedly, an Office Assistant is no way connected with the duty of registering documents. Here, Settlement deed was already registered. Document return is also not a duty of the Office Assistant. In such circumstances, the above citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case. (iii) 1998 Cri.L.J.863 (State of U.P. v. Zakaullah), in para-10, it reads as follows: "10.) The necessity for "independent witness" in cases involving police raid or police search is incorporated in the statute not for the purpose of helping the indicted person to bypass the evidence of those panch witnesses who have had some acquaintance with the police or officers conducting the search at some time or the other Acquaintance with the police by itself would not destroy a man's independent outlook. In a society where police involvement is a regular phenomenon many people would get acquainted with the police. But as long as they are not dependent on the police for their living or liberty or for any other matter, it cannot be said that those are not independent persons. If the police in order to carry out official duties, have sought the help of any other person he would not forfeit his independent character by giving help to police action. The requirement to have independent witness to corroborate the evidence of the police is to be viewed from a realistic angle. If the police in order to carry out official duties, have sought the help of any other person he would not forfeit his independent character by giving help to police action. The requirement to have independent witness to corroborate the evidence of the police is to be viewed from a realistic angle. Every citizen of India must be presumed to be an independent person until it is proved that he was a dependent of the police or other officials for any purpose whatsoever." He submitted that the accompanying raiding party would not by itself discredit evidence of said independent witness. But the above citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case. (iv) (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 346 (Shankerbhai Laljibhai Rot v. State of Gujarat) and submitted that minor variance as regards the mode of demand was of no consequence to corrode the credible and cogent evidence of prosecution witnesses. But the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here, as already discussed above, the evidence of P.W.4 is not an independent witness in respect of demand, except ipse dixit of P.W.2, no other corroborating evidence was available. 16. The case of the prosecution is that the settlement deed was registered on 5.2.1991 and after completion of registration process, A1 demanded Rs.50/- and A2 demanded Rs.10/- and A1 directed P.W.2 to bring Rs.50/-on 7.2.1991 and collect the original deed after paying Rs.50/-. As per the evidence of P.W.2, he again went to Sub-registrar office on 7.2.1991. Since A1 was not there, he produced receipt Ex.P2 before A2 and A2 returned back the same and demanded money. Then only, P.W.2 gone to Vigilance and Anti-corruption Office, Salem and gave the complaint on 11.02.1991. But as already stated that there is no demanded made by A1. Even though P.W.2's evidence was corroborated by P.W.4-Neelaswamy, as per the dictum of the Apex Court 1992 Supp(1) SCC 428 (cited supra), the witness forming part of the raiding party found to be not independent witness and his evidence has not been corroborated by any other witnesses. But as already stated that there is no demanded made by A1. Even though P.W.2's evidence was corroborated by P.W.4-Neelaswamy, as per the dictum of the Apex Court 1992 Supp(1) SCC 428 (cited supra), the witness forming part of the raiding party found to be not independent witness and his evidence has not been corroborated by any other witnesses. Even though recovery has been made from appellant/A2, as per the decision reported in (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 430 (Ramakrishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, D & VAC, Chennai), 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. 17. As per the decision relied upon by the Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant/A2 reported in 2010(3) MWN (cr.) 51 (Sankaralingam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (V&AC) Tirunelveli), the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and only one circumstance not enough to fix the guilt of the accused. Hence the conviction is liable to be set aside. In para-22, it is held as follows: "22.) .. .. As stated earlier the only circumstances against the appellant is that the left hand of the Appellant was positive for the test and he produced the cover. The mere production of the tainted money and positive result of the phenolphthalein test is not enough to establish the guilty of the Appellant. It is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constitution of the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and only one circumstance is not enough to fix the guilt of the accused. .. .." Therefore, the trial Court is incorrect in holding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I am of the view, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant/A2 for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act beyond reasonable doubt. Since Section 7 of P.C. Act has not been proved, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act has not been made out. Therefore, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and hence, it is hereby set aside. 18. In fine, The Criminal Appeals are allowed. Since Section 7 of P.C. Act has not been proved, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act has not been made out. Therefore, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and hence, it is hereby set aside. 18. In fine, The Criminal Appeals are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 29.03.2006 made in Spl. C.C.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, is hereby set aside. The fine amount paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them.