Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in Special Case No. 3 of 1996 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Nagercoil. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 201 r/w 511 of the Indian penal Code. The trial Court, by judgment dated 10.03.2003, convicted him under all the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 201 r/w 511 of IPC. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) PW 2 is a resident of Poovankodu Vadakkalnadu Village. According to him, he was working in a rubber estate. On 29.05.1995 at about 6.30 a.m. when he was in his house, two police constables by name Kumaresan (PW 4) and one Sasitharan came to his house and informed him that he was asked to come to the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station at Thackalay in connection with a petition enquiry. They further told that the Sub Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, had directed them to inform the same to him. Accordingly, PW 2 went to the said Police Station, on the same day, at 08.00 a.m. and met the accused, who is the then Sub Inspector of Police. The accused told him that there was a complaint against PW 2 alleging that he was involved in manufacturing of illicit liquor. PW 2 told him that he was only working in a rubber estate and he was not doing any such illegal activities. But, the accused told PW 2 that to accept his version and to close the complaint, PW 2 should pay a sum of Rs. PW 2 told him that he was only working in a rubber estate and he was not doing any such illegal activities. But, the accused told PW 2 that to accept his version and to close the complaint, PW 2 should pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification. PW 2 tried to persuade the accused as he was not doing any such illegal activities and therefore, he need not pay any amount to him, but the accused was not convinced. When he left the Police Station, the accused told him that he should come with Rs. 2,000/- and to pay the same at Taj Home Hotel, Thackalay, on the next day, by about 12.00 noon, where he would stay. (b) After returning home, PW 2 felt that he need not pay bribe. Therefore, on 30.05.1995 at about 9.00 a.m., he went to the respondent Police Station. One Anthony Gnanasekar - PW 8 was the then Inspector of Police attached to the Police Station. PW 2 made a oral complaint about the illegal demand made by the accused. That was reduced into writing by PW 8. Ex. P2 is the said complaint. Then, PW 8 wanted him to remain in the Police Station for some time. (c) PW 8 took up the case for investigation. He informed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to send a witness for the purpose of trap and another person from the Animal Husbandry Department. By about 10.50 a.m. One Paramasivan (since died) came from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Office and one John Samuvel (PW 3) came from Animal Husbandry Department. PW 8 explained to them about the proposed trap and the phenolphthalein test, and he also conducted a demonstration of the same. Then, PW 8 received Rs. 2,000/-, i.e., four currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination from PW 2. One Police Constable - Mariadass was asked to smear Phenolphthalein powder on the said currency notes. The currency notes were, thereafter, returned to PW 2 with instructions. A mahazar was prepared for the above. (d) Then, PW 8 took PW 2, PW 3 and Mr. Paramasivan to Taj Hotel. PW 8 instructed PW 2 to make a signal, in the event the accused received the money. At about 11.50 a.m., they reached the Taj Hotel. PW 2 and Paramasivan were asked to go to the hotel. A mahazar was prepared for the above. (d) Then, PW 8 took PW 2, PW 3 and Mr. Paramasivan to Taj Hotel. PW 8 instructed PW 2 to make a signal, in the event the accused received the money. At about 11.50 a.m., they reached the Taj Hotel. PW 2 and Paramasivan were asked to go to the hotel. They went to the hotel and they found that the accused was not there and therefore, they returned. Then, all of them returned to the respondent Police Station. While they were in the respondent Police Station, PW 2 contacted the accused over phone and the accused in turn told him to come at 8.00 p.m. to the Police Station. This was informed to PW 8. (e) Thereafter, at 7.30 p.m. PW 2, PW 3, Mr. Paramasivan and PW 8 and other Police personnel had gone to the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station. PW 2 and Paramasivan alone were asked to go into the Police Station. Accordingly, PW 2 and Paramasivan went into the Police Station, but the accused was not present in the Police Station. The other inmates of the Police Station told them that the accused had gone out for prohibition raid and he would return soon. Therefore, they were waiting. Within a short while, the accused returned to the Police Station. As soon as returning, the accused asked PW 2 whether he had come with money?. PW 1 handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused with a request to close the complaint against him. The accused received the said currency notes in his right hand and put it in his right side pant pocket. He assured PW 2 that the petition would be closed. Then, PW 2, along with Paramasivan, came out of the Police Station and made a signal. It was around 8.15 p.m. (f) On getting the said signal, PW 8, along with PW 3, rushed into the Police Station. PW 2 and Paramasivan also had come. They identified the accused. Then, PW 8 conducted Phenolphthalein test to his fingers and pant pocket, and all proved positive. Then, he arrested the accused. But, the currency notes, which were allegedly given to the accused, were not in his pant pocket. On the information furnished by the accused, PW 8 went outside the Police Station and found the currency notes strewn in corridor (Varanda). They were recovered. Then, he arrested the accused. But, the currency notes, which were allegedly given to the accused, were not in his pant pocket. On the information furnished by the accused, PW 8 went outside the Police Station and found the currency notes strewn in corridor (Varanda). They were recovered. The accused was asked to take them and hand it over to the Inspector. The phenolphthalein test also reacted positively. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and an observation mahazar was prepared and a rough sketch was also prepared. Thereafter, PW 8 handed over the investigation to PW 10. (g) PW 10 continued the investigation, examined the witnesses, got the chemical analysis report in respect of the Sodium Carbonate solution, collected records and finally, laid the charge sheet against the accused. 2. Based on the above materials, the trial Court has framed the charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 25 documents were exhibited. Of the said witnesses, PW 1 the then Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, has spoken about the sanction accorded by him under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for prosecuting the accused. PW 2 has spoken about the entire occurrence and the demand of illegal gratification allegedly made on 29.05.1995 and the acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused during the trap proceedings. PW 3 is an official witness, who has spoken about the part of the trap proceedings. It needless to mention that he did not accompany PW 2 in the Police Station, where PW 2 had allegedly given the tainted currency notes to the accused. PW 4 was the then Constable attached to the Police Station, where the accused was working. He has spoken about the fact that he informed PW 2 to come to the police station, as directed by the accused. He has also spoken to about the ride conducted by the accused on 29.05.1995. PW 5 was the then Inspector of Police attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station at Thackalay. He has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW 6 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in charge of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagercoil, during the relevant period. PW 5 was the then Inspector of Police attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station at Thackalay. He has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW 6 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in charge of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagercoil, during the relevant period. He has spoken to the fact that there is a complaint against PW 2 and that the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police for enquiry. PW 7 is a Proprietor of the Taj Home Hotel at Thackalay. He has stated that on 30.05.1995 between 11.00 and 11.30 a.m. the accused came to his hotel and had tea, and after paying the cost of the same, he left to the Police Station. PW 8 has spoken about the registration of the case and the trap conducted by him. PW 9 - Scientific Expert has spoken about the chemical examination conducted during the trap proceedings. PW 10 has spoken about the further investigation done by him and the charge sheet laid. 3. When the above incriminating evidences were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. According to the accused, PW 2 was a history sheeted rowdy and he had lot of cases to his credit, including the murder case, theft case, robbery case, etc. He has further stated that PW 2 was detained under the Goondas Act. It is also his case that he had grudge against the Police and that is the reason why, he has made the false complaint against him. He has further stated that during the trap, without his knowledge, PW 2 had inserted the currency notes into his pant pocket which was hanging there. On noticing the same, according to him, he took up and threw it away. On his side, he examined DW 1, who was the then Inspector of Police, attached to Thiruvattaru Police Station. He has deposed that PW 2 was the history sheeted rowdy from the year 1995 onwards, on the said Police Station. He has also spoken about the involvement of PW 2 in Crime No. 543 of 1994 on the file of the said Police Station. 4. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court found the accused guilty and accordingly punished him. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. He has also spoken about the involvement of PW 2 in Crime No. 543 of 1994 on the file of the said Police Station. 4. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court found the accused guilty and accordingly punished him. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Gopinath, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the records carefully. 6. To begin with, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the character of PW 2 play a vital role in the case. He has taken me through the admission made by PW 2 during his cross examination, wherein he has stated that he was involved in a number of criminal cases. He has further admitted that he was detained twice under the Goondas Act. His involvement was also seen in murder and robbery cases. DW 1 has deposed that PW 2 was the history sheeted rowdy on the file of Thiruvattaru Police Station. In one of the criminal cases, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. He has also stated that it was nothing for him to go to the Police Station and to the prison. The learned senior counsel would submit that the man, who has such a background cannot be believed, as he has got grudge against the entire police force, more particularly the appellant/accused. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the conduct of PW 2 cannot be the ground simply to reject the entire case of the prosecution. He would submit that the evidence of PW 2 would inspire the confidence of the Court and therefore, this Court should act upon the said evidence. 8. Regarding this first and foremost contention, I should say that though bad character of the accused is irrelevant in a criminal trial, the character of the witness is very much relevant. One of the ways to impeach the credit of a witness is to establish his bad antecedents and bad character as provided in Sections 146 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act. One of the ways to impeach the credit of a witness is to establish his bad antecedents and bad character as provided in Sections 146 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that the words of a man, who has got bad character, can also be believed and it cannot be out rightly rejected on that ground. If we put it in nutshell, it is a rule of caution that the evidence of a witness, who has got bad antecedents and bad character, needs to be scrutinized very carefully and the same should be approached cautiously. For any reason, if the evidence of such a witness inspires the confidence of the Court fully, then there would not be any impediment for the Court to act upon on the said evidence. 9. When we approach the evidence of PW 2 with the above caution, it needs to be seen that there are lot of inherent probabilities in his evidence. First of all, so far as the occurrence on 29.05.1995 is concerned, according to PW 2, on information from PW 4, he reached the Police Station on 08.00 a.m. and at that time it is alleged that the accused demanded Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification. This part of the evidence of PW 2 does not draw corroboration from any other source. Regarding the occurrence on 29.05.1995, the prosecution relies only on the oral evidence of PW 2. Now the question is whether the evidence of PW 2, which remains uncorroborated, can be the sole foundation to prove the alleged demand made on 29.05.1995. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would point out that PW 4, who had gone to the house of PW 2 and informed that he should come to the Police station, has stated that after giving intimation to PW 2, soon he returned to the Police Station and he was in the police station all along. He would further state that after some time, the accused went out with other Police officials for Police raid. He has also stated that during that interregnum period, PW 2 did not come to the Police at all. This witness has not been treated as hostile. He would further state that after some time, the accused went out with other Police officials for Police raid. He has also stated that during that interregnum period, PW 2 did not come to the Police at all. This witness has not been treated as hostile. This un-controverted evidence of PW 4 elicited in the cross examination would certainly go to demolish the evidence of PW 2, wherein he has stated that he came to the Police at 08.00 a.m. and at that time, the accused demanded Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification. Thus, the evidence of PW 2, in this aspect, not only does not draw any corroboration from any other source but also is contradicted by PW 4. Now, applying the test of cautious approach, which I have narrated above, based on the bad antecedents and bad character of PW 2, in the light of the contradictory evidence of PW 4, I am of the view that it is not safe to act upon the evidence of PW 2 to hold that on 29.05.1995, the accused demanded Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification. 11. Nextly, during the trap proceedings, PW 2 and Paramasivan were asked to go the hotel viz., Taj Home Hotel. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was then staying in that hotel and thereafter, he wanted PW 2 to come to the said hotel with money. PW 7 is the proprietor of the said hotel. He has not stated that the accused was staying in the said hotel. He has only stated that the accused came to the hotel and had tea at 11.30 a.m. on 30.05.1995. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused had asked PW 2 to come to the said hotel, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Nextly, according to the prosecution, PW 2 and Mr. Paramasivan were asked to go to the hotel. They went to the hotel, but, according to PW 2, the accused was not available. Therefore, according to him he gave a phone call to the Police Station from a STD booth near the bus-stop. 12. Nextly, according to the prosecution, PW 2 and Mr. Paramasivan were asked to go to the hotel. They went to the hotel, but, according to PW 2, the accused was not available. Therefore, according to him he gave a phone call to the Police Station from a STD booth near the bus-stop. It is alleged that at that time, the accused picked up the phone and told PW 2 that he was waiting for him till 11.45 a.m. and directed him to come to the Police Station by about 8.00 p.m. But, no record from the Police Station has been produced to show that the accused was available in the Police Station at 11.50 a.m. on 30.05.1995. After the failure of their attempt at 11.50 a.m., it is the case of the prosecution that the trap party returned to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Police Station by around 01.00 p.m. and again, they went to the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station" at 7.30 p.m. During the interregnum period, it is not the case of the prosecution that the tainted money were returned to PW 8. The money was all along with PW 2 for about eight hours. In normal course, on returning to the Police Station, the tainted currency notes should have been secured back by PW 8 under a mahazar and then, it should have been given to him under a different mahazar in the evening. 13. Again at 7.45 p.m. it is alleged that PW 2 entered into the Police Station of the accused, where he gave the tainted money to the accused. On this fact also, PW 2's evidence does not draw any corroboration. Mr. Paramasivan, who accompanied him at the time of trap into the Police Station, died during the trial and therefore, he could not be examined. Thus, the prosecution has been left only with the evidence of PW 2 to prove the alleged demand and receipt of the illegal gratification by the accused. The accused has got an explanation, who would say that the money was inserted by PW 2 into his pant pocket, while it was hanging and on seeing the same, he threw the money. Admittedly, the money was not recovered from the accused. It was recovered from the corridor (varanda) of the Police Station. Now, there are two versions one by PW 2 and other by the accused. Admittedly, the money was not recovered from the accused. It was recovered from the corridor (varanda) of the Police Station. Now, there are two versions one by PW 2 and other by the accused. PW 2's evidence needs corroboration, because he is not a witness who could be fully believed on account of his bad character, bad antecedents and motives against the Police. 14. Regarding the Phenolphthalein test, it is the case of the accused that he took the money and threw it away and therefore, the positive result of the phenolphthalein test on the accused has got no significance. On this aspect also, the evidence of PW 2 becomes doubtful. 15. Above all, it is not as though the accused was the only person in the Police Station, at the time of the alleged trap. It is stated that there were other Police Constables in the Police Station. But, no witness from the Police Station has been examined to prove the fact that PW 2 came and gave the alleged tainted money to the accused. This is yet another infirmity in the case of the prosecution. 16. Now, turning to the registration of the case, the alleged demand was made by the accused on 29.05.1995 around 08.00 a.m. in the morning. PW 2 has admitted that he has number of cases to his credit and he knows about the registration of criminal cases. He was the accused in a murder case, where it was alleged that he killed a lorry owner by throwing bomb on him. Such a man had not gone to the Police Station with a complaint about the alleged illegal demand made by the accused immediately. But, it is stated that he went to the Vigilance Police Station only on 30.05.1995 at 9.00 a.m. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay also. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. 17. From the above discussion, it emerges that PW 2 is not a man, who could be fully believed. Going by the bad antecedents, bad character, the nature of the cases he was involved and all the other circumstances, would go to show that in the absence of any corroboration at-least on general particulars, if not on material particulars from the other sources, it is highly unsafe to sustain the conviction solely on the basis of his evidence. 18. Going by the bad antecedents, bad character, the nature of the cases he was involved and all the other circumstances, would go to show that in the absence of any corroboration at-least on general particulars, if not on material particulars from the other sources, it is highly unsafe to sustain the conviction solely on the basis of his evidence. 18. In such view of the matter, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is liable to be set aside. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted from the charges. The bail bond, if any, shall stand terminated. The fine amount paid, if any, is ordered to be returned to the appellant.