JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant Dr. T.R. Mothilal, Assistant Health Officer in Zone-III, Corporation of Chennai, Pulianthope, Chennai-12 and K. Bojarajan, Sanitary Inspector in Division 38 of Corporation of Chennai are the appellants herein. Both of them were held guilty for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.3,000/- from one Prasanth Singh for issuance of Trade License to him, thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in C.C.No.26/2011 (Old C.C.No.6 of 2009) sentenced them to undergo one year RI and fined Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months SI for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and to undergo 2 years RI and fined Rs.1,000/-each for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, Crl.A.No.72 of 2017 is preferred by the first accused Dr. T.R. Mothilal and Crl.A.No.64 of 2017 is filed by the second accused K. Bojarajan. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follow:- Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3] obtained licence for running Trade of Storing chemicals in the name of 'Om Ganesh' and let out the same for rent during the year 2004. Since the tenant vacated the premises, Mr. G. Prasath Singh approached Dr. T.R. Mothilal, Assistant Health Officer Zone-III, Pulianthope, Corporation of Chennai on 31.01.2005 for changing the name of the trade for the convenience of the new tenant. Dr. T.R. Mothilal told PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] to give application and also demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as gratification for issuing a licence in the new trade. On 01.02.2005 Mr. G. Pratap Singh [PW-3] met Dr. T.R. Mothilal at his office and handed over his application Ex.P-3 for trade licence. As instructed by Dr. T.R. Mothilal, he gave the application to one Mr. P. Purushothaman [PW-6] and got the acknowledgement. Thereafter, he met Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] on three occasions and requested him to issue the licence but he did not issue it. On 08.02.2005 when Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3] met Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] and requested for issuance of trade licence, Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] again demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe. Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3] expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and requested Dr. On 08.02.2005 when Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3] met Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] and requested for issuance of trade licence, Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] again demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe. Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3] expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and requested Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] to reduce the amount for which, Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] asked Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3] to bring Rs.3,000/- as advance and pay the balance amount at the time of receiving licence. Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3] was not interested in giving bribe for getting trade licence, hence, he gave a complaint Ex.P-4 to the Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai reporting the alleged demand of bribe by Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A1]. On receipt of the complaint, a case has been registered under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1]. 3. Mr. Velan Subramani [PW-13] has registered First Information Report Ex-P14 on 14.02.2005 at 11.00 hrs and had commenced investigation. In the presence of witnesses Mr. V. Saravanan [PW-4] and Mr. B. Raman (not examined), 30 hundred rupees notes were smeared with phenolphthalien and pre-trap proceedings was demonstrated before them. The same was reduced into writing by way of entrustment Mahazar Ex.P-6. Thereafter, the defacto complainant, Shadow witness and the Trap team went to the Corporation Office Zone III at Pulianthope by 13.15 hours. PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] and PW-4 [Mr. V. Saravanan], went inside the Corporation Office and came out immediately and reported to Mr. Velan Subramani [PW-13] the Trap Laying Officer that Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A1] told that, presently he is in a meeting, so he will come to Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3]'s house on the next day at 9.00 hours and receive the money. He also instructed Mr. Gopalakrishanan [PW-7] to remind him about this. Therefore, the attempt made by the trap team could not get fructified on that day. Hence, with instruction to the witnesses to report before the Vigilance Office on 15.02.2005 at 8.00 a.m. the day event was completed with reducing the same into writing as mahazar Ex.P-7. 4. On the next day i.e. 15.02.2005, Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] along with Mr. Gopalakrishnan [PW-7] came to the house of Mr. Prasath Singh [PW-3] at about 7:15 hours. Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] went inside the house and inspected the house. When Dr. 4. On the next day i.e. 15.02.2005, Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] along with Mr. Gopalakrishnan [PW-7] came to the house of Mr. Prasath Singh [PW-3] at about 7:15 hours. Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] went inside the house and inspected the house. When Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/-, Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3] told Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] that pooja is going on in his house therefore, he will give the money later. At the same time, K. Bojarajan [A-2], who came in a two wheeler, enqired the Driver Mr. Dhamodharan [PW-9] why he is waiting there?. When Mr. Dhamodharan informed that Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] has gone inside the house of PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh], A-2 [K. Bojarajan] went inside the house and joined A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal]. Till the arrival of trap team, PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] was not inclined to give the bribe money, hence had invented an excuse. So, Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] left the spot instructing K. Bojarajan [A-2] to collect the bribe from [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] PW-3. Thereafter, PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] told A-2 K. Bojarajan to come after some time to collect the bribe and went to the Vigilence Office and reported about the early arrival of A-1 [K. Bojarajan] and his instruction to A-2 [K. Bojarajan] to collect the bribe on his behalf. The trap team left the office at 8.00 a.m. and reached the house of the defacto complainant (PW-3) by 8.45 a.m. At about 9.05 a.m. the trap team got pre-arranged signal from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh]. They entered into his house and held K. Bojarajan [A-2] and conducted phenolphpthalien test on both the hands of K. Bojarajan [A-2], which proved positive. The tainted money produced by K. Bojarajan [A-2] was compared with the numbers recorded in the entrustment mahazar and found tallied. The recovery mahazaar [Ex.P-10] prepared on the spot was witnesses by Mr. V. Saravanan [PW-4] and D. Raman. The hand wash solution and left side shirt pocket wash were collected and sent for chemical analysis and found presence of phenolphathalien. The chemical analyst report Ex.P-13 is spoken by PW-12 [Mrs. Marie Selvi Rosaline], Scientific Assistant Grade-I. After getting the sanction to prosecute Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] and K. Bojarajan [A-2] from Mr. Niranjan Mardi [PW-1] and Mr. Rajesh Lakhoni [PW-2], the final report has been laid. The chemical analyst report Ex.P-13 is spoken by PW-12 [Mrs. Marie Selvi Rosaline], Scientific Assistant Grade-I. After getting the sanction to prosecute Dr. T.R. Mothilal [A-1] and K. Bojarajan [A-2] from Mr. Niranjan Mardi [PW-1] and Mr. Rajesh Lakhoni [PW-2], the final report has been laid. The sanction order are marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2. 5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has totally examined 15 witnesses, marked 18 exhibits and 5 material objects. On the side of the defence, one witness by name Mr. Vadivel was examined and one exhibit was marked. The trial Court, after considering the evidence let in by the prosecution and the defence, has held both the accused are guilty of offences. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the first accused/appellant in Crl.A.No.72 of 2017 contented that, the first accused had never demanded money from Mr. G. Prasath Singh [PW-3] either on 31.01.2005 or on any of the subsequent dates. The request to grant trade license from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] was received by the Zone III office on 01.02.2005. The next day the Assitant Health Officer A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] had endorsed not to renew the license and the same is found in Ex.P-3. While so, the allegation that PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] met him 3 times between 01.02.2005 and 08.02.2005 and on 08.02.2005 when PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] met A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal], he demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- is an imaginary allegation. The complaint Ex.P-4 is given on 14.02.2005 long after the alleged demand, belies the defacto case. Further, admittedly on 14.02.2005, the first accused did not demand or receive the money. While so, the interpolation in the mahazar Ex.P-7 that the first accused told the defacto complaint that “he will receive later” (xxx) exposes falsewhood of the prosecution. 7. On 15.02.2005, as usual A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] went rounds and visited the PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] house causally and left the spot by 07.15 hrs. He had no reason or occasion to demand bribe and instruct PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] to give the bribe amount to A-2 [K. Bojarajan], who was actually on leave. Once the trap laid on 14.02.2005 ended in failure, the trap team should have prepared fresh entrustment mahazar for the next day operation. He had no reason or occasion to demand bribe and instruct PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] to give the bribe amount to A-2 [K. Bojarajan], who was actually on leave. Once the trap laid on 14.02.2005 ended in failure, the trap team should have prepared fresh entrustment mahazar for the next day operation. Allowing the defacto complainant to handle the tainted currencies freely, till the next day without any fresh entrustment mahazaar itself is improper. The prosecution has failed to prove of bribe demanded by A1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] and admittedly, the first accused has not received money from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh]. So, the ingridents for Sections 7 or 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not made out. The trial Court has erred in holding the appellant guilty based on the evidence of the defacto complainant who has grudge over the appellant for rejected his application for grant of trade license. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the second accused/appellant in Crl.A.No.64 of 2017 would content that the name of the appellant does not find place in the complaint. A-2 K. Bojarajan never demanded any bribe from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh]. He never had knowledge of the alleged demand of bribe by A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal]. The tainted money was not accepted by him. In fact, on 15.02.2005, in view of his grand-daughter marriage he was on leave. Through DW-1 [Mr. Vadivel] and Ex.D-1, the said fact is established. He accidently came to the street in which PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] house located. On seeking the Jeep of the Assistant Medical Officer and the Driver, he enquired him why the vehicle is parked there?. Knowing from the Driver about the arrival of A1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal], he went to the house of the PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] and met A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal], who instructed him to collect the money from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] and come to the office. He never had knowledge that the money is illegal gratification. However, after entering the house of PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh], he sensed some trouble and attempted to leave the place, then, PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] called others and tried to plant the tainted money in his shirt pocket. G. Prasath Singh] and come to the office. He never had knowledge that the money is illegal gratification. However, after entering the house of PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh], he sensed some trouble and attempted to leave the place, then, PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] called others and tried to plant the tainted money in his shirt pocket. The trial Court had failed to see that the demand or acceptance of bribe money is not attributed against him by the prosecution witnesses. At the most, they say A-2 K. Bojarajan received the money on behalf of A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal. In the absence of evidence that A-2 K. Bojarajan had knowledge about the demand of bribe and he received the money as bribe for A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal and in the absence of charge for abeting or aiding A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal to receive the bribe, the trial Court ought not to have held him guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent contented that, PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] had already obtained the trade license for storing chemicals on 23.02.2004 in the name of 'Om Ganesh'. Since his tenant vacanted on 01.09.2004, he sought for change of trade through his letter dated 31.01.2005 marked as Ex.P-3. The first accused/appellant in CrlA.No.2 of 2017, who was serving as Assitant Health Officer of Zone III received the letter from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] and marked the letter to Sanitary Inspector, SI-ward 38. During the relevant point of time, the second accused K. Bojarajan was Sanitary Inspector of ward 39 and also put in-charge of ward 38. After receiving the request, the first accused Dr. T.R. Mothilal did not process the request, despite the defacto complainant met A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal on three accassion. PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh], both in his complaint Ex.P-4 and in his occular evidence, has mentioned about this. Further, PW-6 [Mr. P. Purushothaman] has deposed that he saw PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] came to the office and met A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] on two or three times, after the application was rejected by A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] on 02.02.2005 with endorsement “Do not Renew License”. On 14.02.2005, he saw PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] came to the office and met A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal. G. Prasath Singh] came to the office and met A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] on two or three times, after the application was rejected by A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] on 02.02.2005 with endorsement “Do not Renew License”. On 14.02.2005, he saw PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] came to the office and met A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal. The testimony of Pws-6, 7 and 8 proves the prosecution case that on 15.02.2005, A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal visited PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] house and demanded money. When PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] said some pooja is going on in his house and requested to wait, A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] left the place instructing A-2 [K. Bojarajan] to collect the money and come. It is not correct to say, A-2 K. Bojarajan had no knowledge about the nature of money he received from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh]. 10. The absence of A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal], while the trap team came and recovered the tainted money from A-2 [K. Bojarajan], will not exhonerate the accused. The accused had left the place instructing A-2 [K. Bojarajan] to collect the bribe and come. A-2 [K. Bojarajan] having fully understood the assignment of A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal], received the bribe money from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh]. The demand and receipt need not be by the same person. One person may demand and other person may obtain it. The law requires whether such demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is for commission or omission of his lawful duty in discharge of his official position. 11. In this case to grant trade license, the demand has been made by A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal. After inspection, he has instructed PW-3 [Mr. G. Praath Singh] to give the bribe money to A-2. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance. The recovery of tainted money from A-2 [K. Bojarajan] and his explanation for visiting PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] house and receiving the money itself sufficient to hold the accused are guilty. In the absence of acceptable explanation for receiving the money from A-2 [K. Bojarajan], the trial Court judgement cannot be faulted. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the materials available on record. 13. The point for consideration is, whether A-1 [Dr. In the absence of acceptable explanation for receiving the money from A-2 [K. Bojarajan], the trial Court judgement cannot be faulted. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the materials available on record. 13. The point for consideration is, whether A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] demanded bribe from the defacto complainant[PW-3] and told him to give it to A-2 [K. Bojarajan]. Whether A-2 [K. Bojarajan] demanded and received the tainted money from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] knowing that it was bribe for A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal]? 14. The key document in this case is Ex.P-3 the requistion letter of PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] for grant of trade license. The scrutiny of this document indicates that PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] has obtained license to store and sell agricultural chemicals in the name of 'OM GANESH'. The license annexed to Ex.P-3 is dated 23.02.2004. It is mentioned in EX.P-3 that the tenant has vacated the premises on 01.09.2004. Hence, the trade license is to be changed, according to the requirement of the new tenant. In this request, PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] has not mentioned for which trade he requires the license to be changed. He has annexed TO-LET advertisement of his premises along with Ex.P-3. So, it is clear that without mentioning any particular trade, the defacto complainant has sought for change of trade license. The first accused Dr. T.R. Mothilal has received it and marked it as “SI-38” means Sanitary Inspector Ward-38, but later, it is scored off. Down below that A-1 has written “not to renew the license” and signed with date 02.02.2005 and designation. On the left side top of Ex.P-3 initials are seen indicating the application is forwarded to RO-I and received by that Section. 15. PW-6 [Mr. P. Purushothaman], in his deposition, has stated that, on 01.02.2005, PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] came to the office and gave the application Ex.P-3 to A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal, who inturn gave it to him and instructed to issue acknowledgement for the receipt of the letter. As per his instruction, he received Ex.P-3 and gave acknowledged for receipt of it in the copy which is marked as Ex.P-12. After registering it, in the tapal register, he entered SI-38 and placed the paper before A-1. T.R. Mothilal, who inturn gave it to him and instructed to issue acknowledgement for the receipt of the letter. As per his instruction, he received Ex.P-3 and gave acknowledged for receipt of it in the copy which is marked as Ex.P-12. After registering it, in the tapal register, he entered SI-38 and placed the paper before A-1. A-1 struck the note SI-38 and recorded “not to renew the license” and returned back. It also deposed by PW-6 [Mr. P. Purushothaman] that he saw the defacto complainant came to the office and met A-1 Dr. T.R. Mothilal, two or three occasions. 16. So, from the evidence of PW-6 [Mr. P. Purushothaman] and in the light of the notings found in Ex.P-3, it is clear that though A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] has decided not to renew the license on 02.02.2005, after two or three visit of PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh], A-1 has decided to review his decision, if he gets bribe. Whereas PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] realising he will not get his change of trade license, without paying bribe, had gone to the respondent police and lodged the complaint on 14.02.2005. On that day, though pre-trap proceedings was conducted and entrustment mahazaar was prepared and PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] met A-1, A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] did not demand money but, postpone his visit to the next day. In the entrustment mahazaar Ex.P-7 the interpolation of the words “he will receive later” (xxx) creates doubt, whether A-1 uttered those words or not. However, the fact remains, as spoken by PW-7 [Mr. Gopalakrishnan] and PW-9 [Mr. Dhamodharan] A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] went to the house of the defacto complainant on 15.02.2005 at about 7.15 hours. A-2 [K. Bojarajan] came there and as per the instruction of A-1, stayed there to collect money from PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh]. 17. If A-1 has decided not to renew the license to PW-3, the necessity to visit his house does not arise. He need not even causally visit PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] house. Further, if he had really decided not to renew the license, immediately after making the endorsement on 02.02.2005, the same should have been informed and returned to the defacto complainant. There is no necessity or explanation to hold back the application for nearly 12 days, after rejecting it and no valid reason to visit PW-3 house on 15.02.2005. Further, PW-10[Mr. Further, if he had really decided not to renew the license, immediately after making the endorsement on 02.02.2005, the same should have been informed and returned to the defacto complainant. There is no necessity or explanation to hold back the application for nearly 12 days, after rejecting it and no valid reason to visit PW-3 house on 15.02.2005. Further, PW-10[Mr. Muniraj] Assistant Revenue Inspector of Chennai Corporation in his evidence has stated that in case of change of trade license, AHO has to forward the same to the Head Office and he shall not pass any order on it. Therefore, the alleged endorsement 'not to renew license' on the application to change the trade license neither fit the contest nor the power of the accused as AHO. 18. A-2 [K. Bojarajan] admits his presence at the scene of occurance and the money transaction between him and PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh]. Though he pleads that he came to the said spot accidentally and when PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] tried to plant the money, he got alert and prevented, the evidence of PW-7 [Mr. Gopalakrishnan] proves otherwise. In the cross examination, PW-7[Mr. Gopalakrishnan] has stated that A-1 called A-2 over phone and asked him to come to the spot on 15.02.2005. Both PW-7 [Mr. Gopalakrishnan] and PW-9 [Mr. Dhamodharan] have deposed that before leaving the spot, A-1 told A-2 to receive what PW-3 [Mr. G. Prasath Singh] gives and come. This piece of occular evidence carry more weightage in evidence, since it has come out from the staff of the accused department and they have no axe to grid against A-1 or A-2. 19. Thus, the evidence of PW-3-defacto complainant is substantially corroborated by the evidence of PW-4, PW-7 and PW-9 in respect of acceptance of bribe money by A-2 on behalf of A-1. The lack of knowledge pleaded by A-2 does not carry any merit, since the reason for receiving money from PW-3 following the inspection of his house, does not mean it for any other purpose other than illegal gratification. A person, who was on leave, go to the place of inspection, wait for party concern to give money and receive it. How can it be believed as innocent and accidental event, when overwhelming evidence indicates that he received the money with knowledge and at the instance of A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] 20. A person, who was on leave, go to the place of inspection, wait for party concern to give money and receive it. How can it be believed as innocent and accidental event, when overwhelming evidence indicates that he received the money with knowledge and at the instance of A-1 [Dr. T.R. Mothilal] 20. For the above said reasons, this Court finds no merit in the appeals. Hence, these Criminal Appeals are liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed. The judgment of Conviction passed by the learned Special Judge for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in C.C.No.26 of 2011 dated 23.01.2017 is hereby confirmed.