Judgment :- 1. The sole accused in Special C.C.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tirunelveli, is the appellant. 2. The appellant/accused was charged for the commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (in short "PC Act"). The trial Court, vide judgment dated 28.02.2005, has found him guilty for the commission of the above said offences and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment each and the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The trial Court also granted set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused, aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, has filed this appeal. 3. The facts narrated in brief and necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows: 3.1. The appellant/accused was working as Supervisor in Tirunelveli Local Planning Authority, Tirunelveli, having its office at Puliangudi. The wife of P.W.2, namely, Selvi, is having 75 cents of lands in S.No.632/1-Part in Kulavanigarpuram village and she applied to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, with necessary records, seeking approval of the nine house sites developed in the said lands through Tirunelveli Local Planning Authority during the year 2000. 3.2. Originally, an Association raised an objection as to the approval of the house sites and in this regard, the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, had asked for certain clarifications during May 2001 through Tirunelveli Local Planning Authority and necessary clarifications were given to the Directorate through Tirunelveli Local Planning Authority. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, had accorded approval to the house sites developed by the wife of P.W.2, vide letter dated 13.11.2001 and directed the developer to pay a sum of Rs.900/- towards centage charges for rendering advice on lay out by the Director of Town and Country Planning and to obtain a National Small Savings bond for a sum of Rs.500/-, with a direction to send the documents evidencing the same. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.900/- was paid in the relevant account of State Bank of India, Palayamkottai Branch and a National Small Savings bond was also obtained from Maharajanagar Post Office, Tirunelveli, in the name of the wife of P.W.2, namely, Selvi and the documents evidencing the same, were also sent by means of a covering letter, dated 23.11.2001, addressed to the Director of Town and Country Planning and was handed over to the appellant/accused at the office of Tirunelveli Local Planning Authority for forwarding the same to the Director. When P.W.2, namely, Mathialagan, asked for the status/position, the appellant/accused asked him to come after two weeks and accordingly, he visited his office at about 11.00 hours on 12.12.2001 and at that time, the appellant/accused had told him that the papers are ready and to forward it to the Director, demanded a sum of Rs.500/- by way of illegal gratification/bribe and asked him to give the amount at his office at about 17.00 hours on that day. 3.3. P.W.2, though agreed before him, thought fit not to give the bribe and therefore, proceeded to the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli Detachment and lodged a complaint, marked as Ex.P.2, to P.W.13 - Inspector of Police, attached to the said wing. 3.4. P.W.13 - Trap Laying Officer, on the basis of the complaint, marked as Ex.P.2, registered a case in Cr.No.7 of 2001, under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, at about 14.30 hours on 13.12.2001 and made preparations for laying a trap and for that purpose, he requisitioned the services of P.W.3, namely, Sivaraj, working as Assistant Engineer, Highways Rural Roads Division, and Selvakumar (not examined), working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, to act as independent witnesses and they were also present before him. P.W.13 introduced P.W.2 to them and asked the independent witnesses to make enquiries as to whether the demand of illegal gratification on the part of the accused is true and whether the contents of the complaint art true and when they asked P.W.2, he admitted the contents of Ex.P.2, as true. 3.5. P.W.13 introduced P.W.2 to them and asked the independent witnesses to make enquiries as to whether the demand of illegal gratification on the part of the accused is true and whether the contents of the complaint art true and when they asked P.W.2, he admitted the contents of Ex.P.2, as true. 3.5. P.W.13 asked him as to whether he has brought a sum of Rs.500/- to be paid as bribe to the accused and accordingly, P.W.2 produced five, hundred rupees notes and they were also counted by one of the witnesses, namely, Selvakumar and the numbers of the currency notes were also noted. P.W.13 asked the Head Constable, namely, Mohammed Salisa (not examined) to bring water in a glass tumbler and put Sodium Carbonate and prepared a solution and P.W.13 asked Selvakumar to dip his fingers in both the hands and there was no change or reaction. Thereafter, P.W.13 applied Phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and requested Selvakumar to handle it and thereafter, asked him to dip his fingers in his right hand in the solution and he has done so and immediately, the solution turned pink in colour. 3.6. P.W.13 explained the importance of the said process and asked Selvakumar to take the Phenolphthalein powder coated currency notes from the table and put it on the left side shirt pocket of P.W.2 and accordingly, he has done so. P.W.13 asked the P.W.2 to take P.W.3 - another independent witness, namely, Sivaraj and go to the office of the accused and met him and when he made a demand, asked P.W.2 to hand over the currency notes and after coming out of the office of the accused, asked him to give a pre-arranged signal by putting his left hand on his head and also instructed P.W.3 to watch the happenings when P.W.2 hands over the money to the appellant/accused. The above things that had happened in the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli, were reduced into writing, marked as Ex.P.3. 3.7. In terms of the directions given by P.W.13, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.13 and other independent witness, namely, Selvakumar and police party, proceeded to the office of the accused and reached the spot and in the evening hours on 13.12.2001, P.W.2 and P.W.3 entered into the office of the appellant/A.2 and met him at about 04.45 p.m. 3.8. 3.7. In terms of the directions given by P.W.13, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.13 and other independent witness, namely, Selvakumar and police party, proceeded to the office of the accused and reached the spot and in the evening hours on 13.12.2001, P.W.2 and P.W.3 entered into the office of the appellant/A.2 and met him at about 04.45 p.m. 3.8. The police party headed by P.W.13 and other witnesses are waiting outside. P.W.2 met the appellant/accused and he told him that the papers are ready to despatch to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai and asked him as to whether he brought the money of Rs.500/- as asked by him. P.W.2 answered in affirmative and took the money from this shirt pocket and handed it over to the appellant/accused and he received it through his right hand and thereafter, put it in his left hand. The appellant/accused asked about P.W.3, who had accompanied him and P.W.2 told him that he is one of the intended purchasers of the plots to be developed by him and then, the appellant/accused asked him to move out with a promise that the papers will be forwarded to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai. P.W.2 came down from the office of the appellant/accused and gave the pre-arranged signal and immediately, at about 04.50 pm., the police party rushed to the office of the appellant/accused along with the witnesses. 3.9. P.W.2 identified the appellant/accused and told P.W.13 that he has handed over the money to him and thereafter, went outside. P.W.13 introduced himself, the police party and the witnesses to the appellant/accused, who immediately became restless and panic and at that time, other officials were also present. 3.10. P.W.13 took a clean glass tumbler and put water into it and asked the Special Sub-Inspector of Police to prepare the Sodium Carbonate solution and it was prepared and P.W.13 asked the appellant/accused to dip his right hand into the solution and it turned pink/positive and the contents of the glass tumbler was put to in a glass bottle and it was sealed and a label was put and on the label, it was written as "A - right hand". 3.11. 3.11. P.W.13 asked the appellant/accused to dip his left hand fingers into the solution and it also turned pink/positive and it was poured into a glass bottle and it was sealed and a label was put and on the label, it was written as "B - left hand". 3.12. P.W.13 asked the appellant/accused as to the amount received from P.W.2 and initially, he denied the receipt of the same and since P.W.13 was persistent, the appellant/accused admitted that he had received a sum of Rs.500/- from P.W.2 and took P.W.13 and others to the south-west corner of his office, wherein a Technical Drawing table was placed and took the money beneath a brown sheet and handed over the same to one of the independent witnesses, namely, Selvakumar (not examined) and he compared the numbers found in the currency notes with the mahazar, marked as Ex.P.3, prepared in the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli and he said that it tallied with the said mahazar. 3.13. P.W.13 asked about the files relating to the wife of P.W.2 and the appellant/accused told hat he is only dealing with that file and would further state that the covering letter dated 04.12.2001 has already been prepared for the purpose of sending it to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai and it is ready to be despatched on that day itself. P.W.13 seized the said letter, receipt evidencing the deposit of Rs.900/-, National Small Savings Certificate to the value of Rs.500/- and also seized the files and also prepared a mahazar, signed by the appellant/accused, Selvakumar (not examined), Sivaraj (P.W.3) - independent witness and it was also counter- signed by P.W.13. The mahazar prepared in that regard was marked as Ex.P.7. The records seized from the appellant/accused, were marked as Ex.P.10. 3.14. P.W.13 effected the arrest of the appellant/accused and also searched his house in the presence of the witnesses and the inventory was also taken and it was also marked as Ex.P.8 and subsequently, he was sent for judicial custody. 3.15. P.W.13 handed over the investigation to P.W.14 – Deputy Superintendent of Police, who continued with the investigation and examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements and also looked into the records connected with the case. On 18.12.2001, P.W.14, after obtaining necessary permission, sent the bottles containing the solutions for chemical analysis. 3.15. P.W.13 handed over the investigation to P.W.14 – Deputy Superintendent of Police, who continued with the investigation and examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements and also looked into the records connected with the case. On 18.12.2001, P.W.14, after obtaining necessary permission, sent the bottles containing the solutions for chemical analysis. On 26.12.2001, P.W.14 examined P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 and recorded their statements and on 10.01.2001, he examined P.W.4 and on 17.01.2001, examined P.W.5 and on 18.01.2001, examined P.W.10 and on 21.01.2001, examined P.W.9 and recorded their statements and on 16.01.2001, P.W.14 examined the appellant/accused and recorded his statement and on 25.01.2001, examined P.W.13 - Trap Laying Officer and recorded his statement. 3.16. The Forensic Lab gave a report and it was marked as Ex.P.14. After completion of the investigation, forwarded the final report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on 31.01.2002 and on 27.07.2003, he examined P.W.11 - Scientific Assistant and recorded his statement and thereafter, forwarded the papers for sanction to P.W.1 and got his sanction under Ex.P.1 and also recorded his statement. 3.17. On 03.08.2001, P.W.14 examined P.W.12 and also seized some records from the Tirunelveli Local Planning Authority, marked as Ex.P.15, P.19 to P.22 and also seized the office order relating to work allocation, marked as Ex.P.23. 3.18. P.W.14 also collected the Government Orders regarding the centage, marked as Exs.P.24 and P.25 respectively and after completion of the investigation, filed the final report on 04.08.2001, before the trial Court charging the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act. It is noticed that the trial Court while recording the evidence of P.W.14, has wrongly stated that some of the witnesses were examined during January 2001 and it should have been typed/recorded as "January 2002" instead of January 2001. 3.19. The Special Court for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tirunelveli, after taking the final report/charge sheet on file in Special C.C.No.3 of 2003, issued summons to the appellant/accused and on his appearance, furnished him the copies of documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, framed the charges under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and questioned him and the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. 3.20. 3.20. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, has examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.25 and also M.O.1 to M.O.3. 3.21. The accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false. 3.22. The appellant/accused also filed his written statement, stating that on 13.12.2001, in the evening hours, P.W.2 took his hand and asked him to have a coffee and he declined the same and was continuing with his job and sometime thereafter, P.W.13 came and asked him to get the money which was lying on the corner of the verandah and he took the money in his both hands and handed over the same and thereafter only, Phenolphthalein test was conducted. The appellant/accused would further contend that he did not demand and accept any money from P.W.2 and P.W.2 asked him to destroy the letter of objection given by the President of Central Government Co-operative Housing Society and it was refused by him and enraged by the same, has lodged a false complaint. 3.23. The appellant/accused did not let in any oral evidence and marked Ex.D.1 - earlier sanction order dated 16.09.2002. 3.24. The trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above and hence, this Criminal Appeal. 4. Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, made the following submissions: 4.1. The testimonies of P.W.2 - defacto complainant and P.W.3 - independent/shadow witness, did not corroborate with each other on material particulars and since the testimony of P.W.2 is an interested witness, great care and caution ought to have been exercised by the trial Court while appreciating his evidence, but, it failed to do so. 4.2. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand said to have been made by the appellant/accused on 12.12.2001 for the reason that according to him, after meeting the appellant/accused, he also met P.W.6 and asked certain clarifications and admittedly, P.W.6 was on leave on 12.12.2001 and she joined duty on 13.12.2001 and the said fact has been spoken to by him and also by P.W.7. 4.3. 4.3. P.W.6 was admittedly on leave on 12.12.2001 and therefore, the version of P.W.2 that initial demand was made by the appellant/accused on 12.12.2001 was neither substantiated nor probablised and the prosecution has not proved the demand of illegal gratification on the part of the appellant/accused on that day. 4.4. There is a material contradictions in respect of the topography of the office building and there is a contradiction between the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 as to where the alleged bribe was paid, whether n the office of the appellant/accused or in the verandah. 4.5. The presumption is also not attracted for the reason that admittedly, the money was not recovered from the person of the appellant and it was recovered beneath a brown sheet on the drawing table in the south-west corner of the building and according to P.W.13, the Trap Laying Officer, initial reaction on the part of the appellant that he did not receive the amount at all and only after the persistent questions and enquiry, he took the police party to the south-west corner and took the money concealed beneath a brown sheet on the drawing table and handed over the same and the appellant/accused, in his written statement filed under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., was definite and categorical that it was lying on the floor and P.W.13 asked him to take it and hand over the same and in that process, his both hands got coated with Phenolphthalein powder, which on subsequent test, proved positive. Thus, the appellant/accused has also given proper and tenable reasons and dislodged the presumption cast upon him. 4.6. P.W.3 - shadow witness, even as per his own version, did not see the actual recovery of the amount which is alleged to have been kept beneath a brown sheet on the drawing table and it was taken by another independent witness, namely, Selvakumar, who took it and alleged to have compared with Ex.P.3 - mahazar and told P.W.13 that the currency numbers tallied with the said mahazar and in the post-trap mahazar, marked as Ex.P.7, the details regarding the serial numbers found in the currency notes, have not been mentioned and thus, it would lead to the only inference that the money alleged to have been paid by P.W.2 to the appellant/accused by way of illegal gratification/acceptance on the part of the appellant/accused, has not been proved at all. 4.7. 4.7. The delay in despatching the letter to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, was attributable only to P.W.8, as he took nearly five days to type it and when P.W.2 alleged to have met the appellant/accused on 13.12.2001 and paid the illegal gratification, it was also ready for despatch and hence, there was no necessity on the part of the appellant/accused to demand and accept the illegal gratification. 4.8. As per the testimony of P.W.3, he would not have been present in the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on the date of trap and was party to Ex.P.3 - mahazar, as according to him, even prior to the registration of the F.I.R, he got the oral intimation to be present in the said office and therefore, his entire testimony is liable to be rejected. 4.9. The oral evidence of P.W.6 would disclose that she only dealt with the file and admittedly, she was on leave on 12.12.2001 and hence, there was no possibility on the part of P.W.2 to meet her and made enquiry regarding the approval of house plots developed by his wife. 5. In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that the demand on the part of the appellant on 12.12.2001, has not at all been proved and so also, the alleged acceptance on 13.12.2001 and the testimonies of the important witnesses, namely, P.W.2 and P.W.3, did not corroborate with each other and the testimonies of other witnesses, especially, P.W.6 and P.W.8 did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to probablise their case and hence, prays for interference. 6. Insofar as the grant of sanction is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has invited the attention of this Court to Ex.D.1 - earlier sanction order dated 16.09.2002, and would submit that in spite of the earlier sanction under Ex.D.1, why second sanction under Ex.P.1 was obtained and P.W.14 - Investigating Officer failed to come forward to with any explanation as to why two sanction orders were obtained. He would further submit that P.W.1 - the authority who granted sanction, did not apply his mind while according sanction and on that ground also, the entire proceedings are vitiated and hence, prays for interference. 7. He would further submit that P.W.1 - the authority who granted sanction, did not apply his mind while according sanction and on that ground also, the entire proceedings are vitiated and hence, prays for interference. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A.I.R 1954 S.C. 637. (ii) Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 725. (iii) Som Parkash v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 665. (iv) T.M.Shanmughavelu v. State reported in (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 481. (v) M.Subramani v. State [Crl.A.No.719 of 2005, decided on 16.03.2011). (vi) S.Vijayalakshmi v. State by Inspector of Police reported in (2014) 3 MLJ (Crl) 3. 8. Per contra, Mr. P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent would submit that no doubt, there was a discrepancy in the testimony of P.W.2 as to the initial demand and it could be considered as a trivial mistake for the reason that the trap took place on 13.12.2001, whereas the witnesses have been examined only in the year 2003 and on account of lapse of time, some discrepancies are bound to happen and therefore, it cannot be put against the prosecution. 9. It is further submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent that even on 13.12.2001, the appellant/accused reiterated the demand and accepted a sum of Rs.500/- by way of illegal gratification and the said fact was spoken to by P.W.2/defacto complainant and P.W.3 - trap/shadow witness and P.W.13, with his police party, on giving the pre-arranged signal, immediately rushed to the office of the appellant/accused and conducted the Phenolphthalein test, which proved positive and thereafter only, the money was taken by him which was kept beneath a brown sheet on the drawing table and recovery was effected and therefore, the defence in that record projected by the appellant/accused is not at all sustainable. The currency notes recovered also would tally with Ex.P.3 - mahazar and though the serial numbers of the currency notes have not been mentioned in Ex.P.7, the fact remains that those currency notes were marked as M.O.1 - series and the scientific evidence through the testimony of P.W.11 coupled with Ex.P.14, had also proved the fact that the appellant/accused has accepted the illegal gratification. The files relating to the development of house plots by the wife of P.W.2, were also dealt with by the appellant/accused and the same is evident from those files, which were seized from his custody only. The sanctioning authority had duly applied his mind and though there are two sanction orders, marked as Exs.P.1 and D.1 respectively, the contents of the same would disclose that in both the orders, sanction to prosecute the appellant/accused under the provisions of the P.C. Act, was accorded. The reasons are also assigned as to why Ex.P.1 came into existence subsequent to Ex.D.1. 10. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent that the prosecution has probablised it's case beyond any pale of doubt and inference drawn from the probabilities would lead to the conclusion that the appellant/accused has demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.500/- from P.W.2 and the trial Court, on proper consideration of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly convicted and sentenced him adequately and prayed for the dismissal of this appeal. 11. This Court paid it's best attention to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and perused the oral and documentary evidence and the original records. 12. P.W.2, who, was the defacto complainant, in his chief examination, would state among other things that on 12.12.2001, he went and met the appellant/accused and he told him that he has prepared everything and demanded a sum of Rs.500/- by way of illegal gratification and on such payment, he will despatch the papers and asked him to bring a sum of Rs.500/- at about 05.00 p.m., on 12.12.2001. Since P.W.2 was not inclined to accept the said illegal demand, thought fit to lodge a complaint and accordingly, lodged a complaint to P.W.13 under Ex.P.2, on 13.12.2001, based on which, P.W.13 registered the F.I.R, marked as Ex.P.16 and proceeded with the investigation. 13. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 would depose that on 12.12.2001 at about 11.00 a.m., he went to the office of the appellant/accused and found that his petition was lying with him and after seeing him, he went and saw P.W.6 and on the next day, i.e. on 13.12.2001, he went to the office of the appellant/accused. 13. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 would depose that on 12.12.2001 at about 11.00 a.m., he went to the office of the appellant/accused and found that his petition was lying with him and after seeing him, he went and saw P.W.6 and on the next day, i.e. on 13.12.2001, he went to the office of the appellant/accused. He would further depose that on 12.12.2001, he did not meet the Member Secretary and was not aware that on that Member Secretary has put his signature. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, has also drawn the attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W.7, who was the Assistant in the Administrative Section of Tirunelveli Local Planning Authority, wherein he has deposed in the cross-examination that as per the Attendance Register, marked as Ex.P.11, P.W.6 was on Earned Leave between 10.12.2001 and 12.12.2001. 15. P.W.6, in the chief examination would depose that she attended duty on 13.12.2001 and on the morning hours, P.W.2 met her and enquired about the application regarding the development of house plots submitted by his wife and in the cross-examination, she would state that it was about 12.00 noon and she would further state that at 04.00 p.m., on 13.12.2001, once again, P.W.12 came and asked for the details and P.W.6 found that for processing fees, his wife has to remit a sum of Rs.100/- and in spite of two or three times, it was told to P.W.1, it was not done and therefore, on 13.12.2001, when P.W.2 met her, she did not state anything. It was further deposed by P.W.6 that a letter after getting the signature of P.W.5, has reached me at about 04.00 p.m., and thereafter, the appellant/accused came and asked her as to whether the letter has been despatched or not and she told him that since it was 03.30 p.m., the letter would be despatched tomorrow. She has also spoken about the fact that P.W.2 invited the appellant/accused to have a coffee, however, the appellant/accused told him that he is having the work. 16. No doubt, P.W.2, in the chief examination, has stated that after meeting the appellant/accused on 12.12.2001, he had also met P.W.6 on the same day, but, according to P.W.6 and P.W.7, she was on leave on that day and the said fact was also confirmed by P.W.7. 17. 16. No doubt, P.W.2, in the chief examination, has stated that after meeting the appellant/accused on 12.12.2001, he had also met P.W.6 on the same day, but, according to P.W.6 and P.W.7, she was on leave on that day and the said fact was also confirmed by P.W.7. 17. It is the vehement submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that in the light of the said material discrepancy, P.W.2 would not have met the appellant/accused on 12.12.2001, i.e., the initial date of illegal demand, as according to him, after meeting the appellant/accused, he has also met P.W.6 on the same day and admittedly, she was on leave on that day. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said submission lacks merit for the reason that the witnesses came to be examined nearly after three years from the date of trap and if this Court applies the principle of 'separating grain from chaff', then the fact established was that P.W.2 had met the appellant/accused on 12.12.2001, wherein initial demand was made. 19. The letter pertaining to the development of house plots belonging to the wife of P.W.2, was also ready and the said fact was also spoken to by P.W.6, who would further state that he asked her as to whether the letter has been made ready. 20. It is also strengthened by one more fact that the records relating to the said proceedings, were in the custody of the appellant/accused at the time of recovery of the tainted money from him on 13.12.2001. 21. The appellant was also on duty as per his diary marked as Ex.P.12 on 12.12.2001 and as per the work allotment order, marked as Ex.P.23, the appellant/accused was entrusted with the said responsibility. 22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said discrepancy in the testimony of P.W.2 pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, can be said to be minor or trivial in nature and has not affected the case of the prosecution. 23. P.W.2 met P.W.13 and lodged Ex.P.2 - complaint, based on which, the case was registered by him at about 15.00 hours on 13.12.2001 and thereafter, he summoned the services of the independent witnesses for the purpose of laying the trap. 24. 23. P.W.2 met P.W.13 and lodged Ex.P.2 - complaint, based on which, the case was registered by him at about 15.00 hours on 13.12.2001 and thereafter, he summoned the services of the independent witnesses for the purpose of laying the trap. 24. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that as per the testimony of P.W.3 - independent/shadow witness, in his chief examination, he has stated that his superior official asked him to go to the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, Tirunelveli, at about 03.30 p.m., and accordingly, he reached the office and thereafter, Selvakumar and another witness came and at that time, P.W.2 and P.W.13 - Trap Laying Officer were also present. 25. The chief examination of P.W.3 was on 09.02.2004 and he was cross- examined on 08.03.2004, one month thereafter and in the cross-examination, P.W.3 deposed that he reached his office at 10.00 a.m., on 13.12.2001 and at about 12.00 noon, he received the intimation that he shall be in the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli, at about 03.30 p.m., and it was not a written information and his superior official, namely, Dharmaraj asked him to do so and he was present in the said office between 03.30 p.m., and 04.30 p.m. 26. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused drawing the attention of this Court to the said portion of the said testimony of P.W.3 in the cross-examination, would submit that the F.I.R came to be registered at about 15.00 hours on 13.12.2001 and therefore, it would not have been possible for P.W.3 to receive the information at about 12.00 noon on 13.12.2001, to act as an independent/shadow witness and hence, his entire testimony with regard to the preparation of pre-trap mahazar, marked as Ex.P.3, as well as post-trap mahazar, marked as Ex.P.7, cannot be believed at all. 27. However, this Court is of the view that the said submission lacks merit for the reason that as pointed out earlier, the said witness was also examined nearly after three years and he was examined in chief on 09.02.2004 and on behalf of the appellant/accused, a petition was filed to defer the cross-examination and it was deferred and he was called on 08.03.2004 and cross-examined. 28. 28. The evidence in the cross-examination of P.W.3 to the effect that he received the intimation/information at about 12.00 noon on 13.12.2001 to be present in the office of the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli, at about 03.30 p.m., was an unbelievable one and it has been taken out of the context to drive home the point that the presence of P.W.3 at the time of preparation of pre-trap mahazar, marked as Ex.P.3, would not have been possible and his testimony is tainted. 29. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that P.W.3 at the relevant point of time was an Assistant Engineer in the services of Highways Rural Roads Division, Highways Department and he has no axe to grind against the appellant/accused and the said portion of testimony in his cross-examination is merely an omission and it has not weaken the core of the case of the prosecution. 30. On 13.12.2001, in the evening hours, P.W.2 and P.W.3, as per the advice of P.W.13 - Trap Laying Officer, met the appellant/accused, who once again made a demand as to whether P.W.2 has brought a sum of Rs.500/- and it was answered in affirmative and thereafter, the money was paid and accepted by him and he also promised that the said letter will be despatched without any loss of time and it was also witnessed by P.W.3 - trap/shadow witness. Both P.W.2 and P.W.3 came out and P.W.2 gave the pre-arranged signal and on seeing it, the police party headed by P.W.13, rushed inside the office of the appellant/accused and immediately, the Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and the appellant/accused was asked to dip his fingers in both the hands and it turned positive and thereafter, the appellant/accused was asked as to whether he received the bribe amount and initially, he denied it and subsequently, on persistent questions, he accepted it and took P.W.13 and Selvakumar, another independent witness, to the south-west corner of the room and informed him that he concealed the said amount beneath the brown sheet on the drawing table and he took it and handed over the same. The explanation offered by the appellant/accused in his written statement was that P.W.2 in the evening hours on 13.12.2001, met him and held his hand and asked him to come to have a coffee and it was declined by him as he was busy with his work and sometime thereafter, the trap party headed by P.W.13 came inside the office of the appellant/accused and conducted the Phenolphthalein test and since on account of the handling of the money by P.W.2, the Phenolphthalein would have passed on to his hands and consequently, when the test was done, it turned positive. 31. The appellant/accused also offered further explanation that P.W.2 asked him to destroy the letter given by the President of Central Government Co-operative Housing Society objecting to the lay-out and since it was refused by him, a false complaint was lodged. 32. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that on 13.12.2001, all formalities with regard to the grant of approval of house plots developed by the wife of P.W.2, were over and the letter along with the centage charges and the National Small Savings bond, have to be sent and according to P.W.2, on receipt of the bribe amount, the appellant/accused promised to dispatch the letter without any loss of time. Therefore, the defence projected by the appellant/accused that since he has not acceded to the demand made by P.W.2 to destroy the letter of objection, the false complaint came to be lodged by P.W.2, in the considered opinion of this Court, is baseless and untenable. 33. As per the testimonies of P.W.3 and P.W.13 - Trap Laying Officer, the first Phenolphthalein test was done on the hands of the appellant/accused, which turned positive and thereafter only, the bribe amount was taken which was concealed beneath the brown sheet on the drawing table. Therefore, the defence version in that regard, is not probablised. 34. As regards non-mentioning of the numbers of the currency notes in the post-trap mahazar, marked as Ex.P.7 and non-examination of the independent witness, namely, Selvakumar, who took the money and compared with Ex.P.3 - mahazar, this Court is of the view that the same would not in any way mitigate the offence committed by the appellant/accused. 35. In Ex.P.7 - post-trap mahazar, the serial numbers of the currency notes were not mentioned and the witness who handled the money has not been examined. 35. In Ex.P.7 - post-trap mahazar, the serial numbers of the currency notes were not mentioned and the witness who handled the money has not been examined. Further, after handling the currency notes, the appellant/accused was subjected to Phenolphthalein test, which proved positive and the solutions were also subjected to chemical analysis and a positive report in the form of Ex.P.14, has come and it was also spoken to by P.W.11 - Scientific Assistant of Forensic Lab. The currency notes were also marked as M.O.1 and therefore, it cannot be said that the currency notes of which serial numbers were found mentioned in Ex.P.3 - pre-trap mahazar, have not been recovered after the trap and the submission made in that regard, is liable to be rejected. 36. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused also harped on the point that there is a discrepancy with regard to the actual place of payment of bribe amount, whether it was inside the office of the appellant/accused or in the verandah, but the fact remains that the prosecution has amply proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount/illegal gratification by the appellant/accused through the positive evidence and as pointed out through the testimony of P.W.3, even on 13.12.2001, the appellant/accused reiterated the demand and accepted the bribe of Rs.500/-. 37. P.W.1 - sanctioning authority, has also given a cogent evidence and it would disclose that he fully applied his mind to the entire materials placed before him before according sanction under Ex.P.1 - sanction order. No doubt, there was an earlier sanction order, marked as Ex.D.1 and why at a later point of time, Ex.P.1 came to be issued, has also been spoken to by P.W.1 as well as by P.W.14. 38. A perusal of Exs.D.1 and P.1 would also disclose that in both exhibits/documents, sanction to prosecute the appellant/accused has been accorded. 39. The decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, laid down the following propositions: (a) The burden of proving that the requisite sanction has been obtained rests on the prosecution and such burden includes proof that the Sanctioning authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based. (b) Mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. (c) Evidence regarding handing over money to accused cannot be believed when the witnesses forming part of raiding party are not independent witnesses. (d) Witnesses who formed part of the raiding party, cannot be termed as independent witnesses. (e) Where the appellant/accused offered plausible and acceptable explanation and discharged the burden, there is rebuttal of presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. 40. There cannot be any difficulty in accepting the above said propositions and this Court has to see, in the light of the facts and circumstances of case as narrated above, whether the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, would have application. 41. This Court in the earlier paragraphs pointed out, thus: (i) The sanctioning authority has fully applied it's mind to the materials and rightly accorded the sanction. (ii) Through the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3, has proved the demand and acceptance. (iii) P.W.3, at the relevant point of time, was the Assistant Engineer in the services of the Highways Rural Roads Division, Highways Department and he has no axe to grind against the appellant/accused and admittedly, he was not known to P.W.2, prior to the trap. (iv) The appellant/accused, apart from making initial demand on 12.12.2001, once again, reiterated the demand on 13.12.2001 and it was also spoken to by P.W.2 and corroborated by P.W.3 and accepted the illegal gratification and the Phenolphthalein test which was done immediately, has also turned positive and thereafter only, the money was recovered. (v) The discrepancies pointed out in the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3, are said to be trivial, considering the fact of lapse of time between the trap and the date on which, they gave evidence, coupled with the fact that after the deferment of the cross-examination on the application filed by the appellant/accused, P.W.3 was examined. The grant of longer adjournment by the trial Courts, was also condemned by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 1 MLJ (Crl) 288 (SC). (vi) No doubt, P.W.6 would also state that P.W.2 has invited the appellant/accused to have a coffee. The grant of longer adjournment by the trial Courts, was also condemned by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 1 MLJ (Crl) 288 (SC). (vi) No doubt, P.W.6 would also state that P.W.2 has invited the appellant/accused to have a coffee. Though it is contended that at that time, P.W.2 took his hands and invited him, but the said fact has not been spoken to by P.W.6 and therefore, it cannot be considered or termed as plausible/tenable explanation on the part of the appellant/accused. (vii) P.W.2 and P.W.3 stood the rigour of cross-examination and fully supported the case of the prosecution. The appellant/accused has failed to rebut the presumption and the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the prosecution, has led to the only inference that the appellant/accused has demanded and accepted the illegal gratification and the prosecution has probablised it's case beyond any pale of doubt. 42. The trial Court has carefully scrutinised the entire materials placed before it and rightly arrived at a conclusion to convict and sentence the appellant/accused and this Court, on an independent appraisement of the oral and documentary evidence, is of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 43. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused, vide judgment dated 28.02.2005, in Special C.C.No.3 of 2003, by the learned Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tirunelveli. The bail bonds executed by the appellant/accused shall stand terminated. The respondent is directed to take immediate and expeditious steps to secure the custody of the appellant/accused to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The sentences of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court shall run concurrently and the appellant/accused is also entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.