JUDGMENT : 1. The accused in C.C.No.8 of 2008 renumbered as C.C.No.141 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, is the appellant herein. 2. The appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2006, one Mr.K.Murugan gave a complaint addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, alleging that he is residing at Door No.54/30 Karunanithi Street, Anna Nagar, Korukkupettai, Chennai-21, along with his family. In front of his house, he is having a small betel nut shop. Though there is a water service connection to his residence, for the past 6 years no water supply is provided by the Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai. Therefore, he made a request to Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai to provide water supply connected to the newly laid water supply pipe. When the defacto complainant[PW2] met the accused G.Subramanian, he advised him to clear all the water tax arrears and then to give application. Accordingly, on 19.06.2006, he paid water tax arrears and met G.Subramanian along with the application for water supply connection. The accused G.Subramanian demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Since the defacto complainant was in dire need of water supply, he borrowed money from the neighbours and paid Rs.2,000/- on 19.06.2006. On the next day i.e 20.06.2006, water connection was given to his house. 4. Thereafter, the accused G.Subramanian came to the complainant's house two or three times and started pestering him to give the balance bribe amount of Rs.1000/- and also threatened that if he does not give the balance bribe amount of Rs.1000/-, he will disconnect the water supply and converted the residential supply into commercial supply and increase the tax. 4. Thereafter, the accused G.Subramanian came to the complainant's house two or three times and started pestering him to give the balance bribe amount of Rs.1000/- and also threatened that if he does not give the balance bribe amount of Rs.1000/-, he will disconnect the water supply and converted the residential supply into commercial supply and increase the tax. He also informed him that he will come on 11.07.2006 at 7.00 p.m., to collect the bribe amount of Rs.1000/-. With this allegation, the defacto complainant Mr.K.Murugan met the Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. D.S.P. Thomas, who has received the complaint and forwarded it to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Mr.V. Sudhakar to register the case and investigate the same. Accordingly, Mr.V.Sudhakar, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption has received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.4/AC/2006/CCII under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at 14.30 hours and taken up for investigation. 5. The Inspector of Police[Mr.V.Sudhakar] has organised a trap with the assistance of two official witnesses. After observing the required formalities, he has prepared pre-trap mahazar recording the entrustment of Rs.1000/- smeared with phenolphthalein to the defacto complainant[PW2]. At about 20.00 hours, on 11.07.2006, while the trap team were discreetly survailing the petty shop of the defacto complainant, the accused came to his shop, reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.1000/- and obtained the same from the defacto complainant in the presence of official witness Mr.S.Muthukrishnan[PW-3]. Thereafter, the trap team had apprehended the accused G.Subramanian and his hand fingers were tested in the sodium carbonate solution, which on dipping turned into pink in colour. The tainted money of Rs.1000/- was recovered from the left side pant pocket of the accused G.Subramanian and the pant wash was also turned pink indicating the presence of phenolphthalein. After collecting the solution for chemical analysis, the prosecution has prepared recovery mahazar. After completion of investigation, the final report has been laid. Based on the final report, the trial Court has framed charges under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses, marked 17 exhibits and 5 material objects. On the side of the accused, 5 witnesses were examined and marked 20 exhibits to prove his innocence. 6. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses, marked 17 exhibits and 5 material objects. On the side of the accused, 5 witnesses were examined and marked 20 exhibits to prove his innocence. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence let in by the either side, had held the accused guilty and sentenced him to Imprisonment as mentioned above. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, this appeal is preferred on the ground that the trial Court failed to appreciate the defence witnesses and documents, which establish the preponderance that the tainted money recovered from the accused is not for any illegal gratification, but for payment of water tax. The sanction to prosecute the appellant bristles with infirmity and illegality and invalid due to non application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority [PW.1] and the unexplained delay in according sanction has caused prejudice to the accused. When PW.2[Mr.K.Murugan] admits, in his deposition that, he handed over the tainted money to the accused person in payment of water tax, there is no legs for the prosecution to stand. The evidences of PW.2 [Mr.K.Murugan] and PW.3 [Mr.S.Muthukrishnan], who are the interested witnesses, are not corroborated by the independent witness. The bladen violation of Vigilance Manual by not conducting the preliminary enquiry regarding veracity of the complaint and failure to record the statement of the accused persons immediately, after the trap vitiates the trial. 8. Further, even before the conclusion of the trap proceedings, the First Information Report registered against the accused person for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, reveals pre-determination and pre-concluded attitude of the trap laying officer. The analysis report indicating presence of phenolphthalein in the hand wash of the appellant cannot be taken against the accused, in view of the fact that the trap laying officer had asked the accused to handle the tainted money and thereafter, conducted the phenolphthalein test asking the accused to dip his hands in the sodium carbonate solution. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe. Whereas the appellant has established the fact that the money was received by the accused towards water tax for which the circular of the Metro Water dated 06.03.2006 is marked as Ex.D9, which instructs the Higher Officials of the Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai, to carry out joint efforts for collection of arrears range-wise. Hence, the trial Court ought not to have held the accused guilty. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the complaint Ex.P2 discloses the fact that the defacto complainant had already paid Rs.2,000/- as bribe for water service connection and obtained the same on 20.06.2006. Thereafter, for balance of Rs.1000/-, the accused G.Subramanian, Assistant Engineer of Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai, had been pestering the defacto complainant and also threatening that he will disconnect the water supply or convert the tax from domestic consumption to commercial consumption, which has prompted the defacto complainant to lodge the complaint. After receipt of the complaint, the First Information Report had been registered to ascertain the antecedents of the accused person. Though it is not explicitly recorded about preliminary enquiry any lapse or omission to follow the guidelines under the Vigilance Manual, it will not vitiate the trial. It is only directory in nature not mandatory in nature. The appellant admits that he collected Rs.1000/- towards water tax from the defacto complainant[PW2]. When the water connection itself was given only 20 days back, after collecting the arrears, there is no necessity to collect the tax without demand notice. 10. It is an admitted fact that the defacto complainant[PW2] had cleared all the arrears before seeking new service connection and only after clearing entire arrears, the application was received from the defacto complainant on 19.06.2006 and service connection was given on 20.06.2006. In such circumstances, there is no necessity or compulsion or authority for the accused to collect Rs.1000/- on 11.07.2006. In the absence of any demand raised for tax and in the absence of any evidence to show that the defacto complainant is liable to pay tax of Rs.1000/- as on 11.07.2006, it is not believable that Rs.1000/- received by the accused from the defacto complainant is towards water supply tax. In the absence of any demand raised for tax and in the absence of any evidence to show that the defacto complainant is liable to pay tax of Rs.1000/- as on 11.07.2006, it is not believable that Rs.1000/- received by the accused from the defacto complainant is towards water supply tax. The trial Court has rightly concluded that the tainted money received by the accused person is only towards illegal gratification and the explanation given by the accused person through defence witnesses and exhibits does not probablise the defence theory. 11. Point for consideration: Whether the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof on demand and acceptance of Rs.1000/- by the accused/appellant as pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position? 12. The case of the prosecution as elucidated through the defacto complainant [PW2] is that, the water supply for residence of the defacto complainant[PW2] was dis-connected, while the Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai, replaced water supply line. So, when the defacto complainant K.Murugan met the accused G.Subramanian working as Assistant Engineer of Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai, during the month of February 2006, he was asked to pay the arrears. The defence document Ex.D1 is the receipts paid by K.Murugan on behalf of his father N.Kallappan towards the water consumption charges. This exhibit indicates that on 23.02.2006 from the second half of 2002-2003 to the second half of 2004-2005, the defacto complainant has paid Rs.1597/- towards water and sewerage tax and Rs.1,931/- towards water charges. For the first and second half of 2005-2006, he has paid Rs.515/- towards water and sewerage tax and Rs.623/- towards water charges on 30.03.2006. Even after the payment of arrears, water supply was not given to the defacto complainant's house. Ex.P7 the complaint slip indicates that on 19.06.2006, his complaint for non supply of water has been recorded. 13. According to the defacto complainant[PW2], he met the accused/appellant on 19.06.2006 and told him, despite clearing the arrears, the water supply has not been restored for which the accused has demanded Rs.3,000/- and only if he gives bribe of Rs.3,000/-, he will give water connection. Therefore, the defacto complainant [PW2] had borrowed Rs.2,000/- from his friends and had given to the accused/appellant. Only after paying the money, the next day i.e., on 20.06.2006, he was given water connection. Therefore, the defacto complainant [PW2] had borrowed Rs.2,000/- from his friends and had given to the accused/appellant. Only after paying the money, the next day i.e., on 20.06.2006, he was given water connection. Water connection given to PW-2's house is reflected in the last column of the complaint slip marked as Ex.P7. In such circumstances, on 11.07.2006, the accused has come to PW2's house to collect the balance bribe amount of Rs.1000/- as spoken by the defacto complainant [PW2] and as found in the complaint Ex.P2, since the defacto complainant [PW2] was pestered by the accused several times prior to that date and he was threatened by the accused that he will disconnect the water supply, he has given the complaint. Based on his complaint, the prosecution has laid a trap by entrusting one five hundred rupee one and five numbers of hundred rupee notes smeared with phenolphthalein and one Muthukrishnan has to be a witness for the transaction. Unknowing that the trap laid for him, the accused on 11.07.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., had come to PW2's betel-nut shop in his two wheeler. 14. After demanding, whether the money is ready, PW-2 has tendered the tainted currency and the accused has obtained the money and kept it in his shirt pocket. When the accused, after collecting the tainted money and to about leave the place in his two wheeler, the trap laying officer has intercepted him and recovered the tainted money, which is marked as M.O.1. The sequence of events during the trap is cogently spoken by the defacto complainant [PW2], PW3[Mr.S.Muthukrishnan] and the trap laying officer[PW8]. The recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused/appellant is spoken by PW3[Mr.S.Muthukrishnan] and the trap laying officer, Mr.V.Sudhakar [PW8]. The chemical analysis report is spoken by PW5 [Tmt.Visalakshi] and her report Ex.P9 reveals the presence of phenolphthalein in the hand wash and pant wash of the accused person. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the acceptance of Rs.1000 by the accused/appellant. The evidence of the defacto complainant Mr.K.Murugan [PW2] and PW3[Mr.S.Muthukrishnan] goes to show that the money was received by the accused/appellant only as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration. 15. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the acceptance of Rs.1000 by the accused/appellant. The evidence of the defacto complainant Mr.K.Murugan [PW2] and PW3[Mr.S.Muthukrishnan] goes to show that the money was received by the accused/appellant only as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration. 15. The contention of the accused person is that there had been instruction from the Higher Officials that water tax arrears have to be collected on war footing, since the analysis indicates that more than Rs.50 lakhs tax due stands uncollected. For the said purpose, the circular was issued by the Department concerned on 06.03.2006 and the same is marked as Ex.D9. So, in the light of this document, it has to be verified whether really there was any water tax arrears payable by the defacto complainant the date on which the appellant received the money from the defacto complainant. Ex.P1-bill issued by the Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai, in the name of the defacto complainant's father Kallappan, shows that for the second half of the account year 2005-2006 i.e till March 2006, the defacto complainant has paid both water and sewerage tax as well as water tax as and surcharge for the entire accounting year 2005-2006, the first and second half, the total amount paid by him is Rs.1,138/- (Rs.515/- + Rs.623/-). On the date i.e. 11.07.2006 when the appellant received Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant, the appellant at the most was liable to pay only for the current first half of the accounting year 2006-2007, which will come around Rs.248/- +Rs.300/- +surcharge. Therefore, it does not come no way near the amount of Rs.1000/- which the appellant had received from the defacto complainant. Hence, the explanation given by the accused for receiving of Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant does not match with the Ex.D1. 16. There is no error in registering the First Information Report for both the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, since the complaint discloses receipt of bribe money of Rs.2000/- and further demand of Rs.1000/-. Likewise, the challenge to the sanction order does not require any consideration, in view of Section 19(3)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, this Court holds that the finding of the trial Court is legal and factually correct, which does not require any interference. 17. Likewise, the challenge to the sanction order does not require any consideration, in view of Section 19(3)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, this Court holds that the finding of the trial Court is legal and factually correct, which does not require any interference. 17. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases at Chennai in C.C.No.141 of 2011, dated 31.03.2015 is confirmed and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.