JUDGMENT : 1. On the complaint dated 26.10.1993, given by Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3], Gulothungapandian [PW-16], the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, registered a case in Crime No.3 of 1993, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [EX-P35], against the appellant herein and took up the case for investigation. 2. The complainant alleged that the appellant, who was working as Junior Engineer in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, has demanded a sum of Rs.700/- as bribe for giving service connection for his house. After the registration of the First Information Report, the Investigating Officer called two independent witnesses and apprised the complainant and the witnesses about the trap procedure and thereafter, on 27.10.1993, a trap was laid, in which the appellant was caught red handed for receiving a sum of Rs.700/- as bribe. After completing the investigation, a final report in Special Case in C.C.No.21 of 1995, was filed before the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and charges were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined, 36 exhibits and five material objects were marked. When the appellant was questioned about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. He gave an explanation about which we shall discuss later. The Trial Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, has convicted the appellant and sentenced him in Special Case in C.C.No.21 of 1995, dated 23.03.2006, as under:- Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court. 4. Heard Mr. Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. R.Venkateswarn, learned counsel on record for the appellant and Mr. C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court. 4. Heard Mr. Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. R.Venkateswarn, learned counsel on record for the appellant and Mr. C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. The case of the prosecution is as under:- Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3], a resident of Rajakkamankalam Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, in his evidence, before the Trial Court, has stated that his father, namely, Nagoorgani, is working in a hotel in Singapore, for the past 25 years; that he would come to his native village once in two or three years; that in the year 1983, he purchased three cents of land from Abdul Razzaq [PW-12]; that in the year 1987, he started the construction of a house; that the construction of the house was entrusted with one Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4]; that in the year 1991, Nagoorgani came to India and submitted an application for electricity connection [EX-P20]; that one Mohammed Ibunoo did the electrical work for the house; that he advised Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] to buy an electric metre so that the service connection can be obtained expeditiously; that on 26.08.1993, Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] and Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] went to Valinokkam Electricity Board Office and paid a sum of Rs.840/- vide [EX-P3] for obtaining service connection; 5.2. Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] has further stated that the appellant was working as Junior Engineer in the said office; that they met the appellant and told him that they have purchased a new Metre and requested him to give service connection; that the appellant told him that he will look into it; that one week later, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] met the appellant and requested him to effect service connection; that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe, for which Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] stated that he cannot pay such a huge amount and PW-3 agreed to give a sum of Rs.700/- as bribe; that on 20.09.1993, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] met the appellant in his office and requested him to give the test report form; that the appellant gave the test report form and marked the places, in which the father of PW-3 should sign, since service connection can be given only in the name of the owner of the house; that the test report form was marked as EX-P4; that PW-3 handed over the test report form [EX-P4] to Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] and asked him to send the same to Singapore to get the signature of his father; that Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] sent the same to Singapore; that on 07.10.1993, Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] received a handwritten covering letter in Tamil and the test report form [EX-P4] duly signed by Nagoorgani; that Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] handed over the test report form and the handwritten covering letter; that the letter sent by Nagoorgani was marked as EX-P5 and the envelope was marked EX-P6; that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] submitted the test report form [EX-P4] along with the signature of his father - Nagoorgani to the appellant and at that time also, the appellant demanded Rs.700/- as bribe for giving service connection; that on 26.10.1993, at about 08.45 AM, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and his friend - Sethuraj [PW-5] met the appellant at his office in Valinokkam and the appellant demanded the bribe of Rs.700/- for giving service connection; that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] did not want to give money and so, he went and lodged a complaint on 26.10.1993, [EX-P7], based on which the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption registered the First Information Report, as stated above. 5.3. 5.3. Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] has further spoken about the Investigating Officer calling upon two independent witnesses, namely, Mayakrishnan [PW-6], Agriculture Officer and Muthusamy, Revenue Inspector, [not examined]; that Gulothungapandian, [PW-16], the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, explained to them about the trap procedure and prepared the pre- trap procedure [EX-P8]; that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] handed over Rs.700/- [Rs.100 X 6 and Rs.50 X 2], [MO-4 series] to Gulothungapandian, [PW-16], on which phenolphthalein was smeared; that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] further deposed that on 27.10.1993, the trap party went to the office of the appellant at Valinokkam; that the Inspector of Police had directed Mayakrishnan [PW-6] to be with him and along with the other witness - Muthusamy should little away; that when they went to the office of the appellant, he was not there; that a person in the office told them that the appellant was in his house, just very near to his office; that they went to the house of the appellant and stood by the side of window and called him; that the appellant called both of them inside the house. 5.4. 5.4. Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] has further spoken that the appellant, at that time, was filling pickles in a bottle; that the appellant asked [PW-3] as to who is PW-6; that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] told him that he is his brother-in-law, for which the appellant asked the place as to from where he has come; Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] told that he is from Singapore, for which the appellant stated that he must have brought lot of things from Singapore; for which Mayakrishnan [PW-6] replied that the things that he brought had already been distributed; that while this conversation was going on, one person [later identified as Nandagopalan - PW-7] came to the house of the appellant and both of them went inside a room, adjoining the hall and discussed something, after which that person left; that thereafter, another person came to the house of the appellant [later, he was identified as Muniyasamy - PW-8]; that after the said person left, the appellant called them inside the adjoining room and demanded Rs.700/-; that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] handed over Rs.700/- [MO-4 series] to the appellant and the appellant counted the same and kept it in his shirt pocket and told Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] that he will get service connection soon and sent them away; that after coming out of the house, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] gave the pre-arranged signal; that the Investigating Officer along with the other witnesses and the other police officials came and after ascertaining that the amount has been received by the appellant, they asked Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] to go away. The chief-examination of Seeni Ibrahim [PW- 3] was conducted on 31.07.1996 and he was not cross-examined on that day. He was re-called on 02.12.1998 and was cross-examined. Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] was shown the signature of his father in the test report form [EX-P4] and the application given by his father [EX-P20] for service connection and was asked whether the signature therein differs, for which Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] stated that the signature does not differ. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the signature of the father of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] in the test report form [EX-P4] differed from the application submitted by his father [EX-P20] and therefore, the appellant questioned Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] about this. Since Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] was not able to give a satisfactory explanation, he picked up a quarrel and engineered the trap. Since Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] was not able to give a satisfactory explanation, he picked up a quarrel and engineered the trap. The appellant has stated so in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. 7. Per contra, Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that there are only slight differences in the signature and that the appellant cannot take undue advantage about this for the purpose of setting up a defence. 8. According to Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3], the test report form [EX-P4] was collected from the appellant and it was sent to Singapore by Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] and Nagoorgani signed it and sent it back to Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] with a handwritten covering letter in Tamil [EX-P5], dated 28.09.1993. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the the prosecution have not filed the letter, that is said to have been sent by Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] to Nagoorgani in Singapore. The learned Senior Counsel also doubted the very receipt of letter [EX-P5] by submitting that there is no postage stamp on the envelope [EX-P6]. 10. This Court perused EX-P6. Though there is no postage stamp affixed therein, the stamp of the franking machine of Singapore is available therein. The seal is a round seal and it clearly reads as "Singapore 28.SEP.9PM". The envelope bears the name of addressee as "B.SULTHAN ALAUDIN, 3/98, NORTH STREET, SIKKAL POST, 623 528, RAMNAD DIST, SOUTH INDIA". The envelope bears the address of the sender as "E.H.Nagoor gani, Block 18-H-10-170, Telok Blangah Gercent, S.pore 0409". The handwritten letter [EX-P5] is dated 28.09.1993 and it is addressed to B.Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4]. The letter is written in Tamil. In the letter, it is stated that the form with the signature is sent herewith, "give Rs.700/- as asked by them and get all the expenses from Seeni" [meaning - his son PW-3]. It is further written that "I came to know about the death of Mohammed Musthaba from Musthaba's son". There are some social matters in the letter, which may not be relevant. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant attacked the letter [EX-P5] by contending that it does not even contain the signature of Nagoorgani. This Court perused the letter dated 28.09.1993 written in half ruled sheet. On a perusal of the same, this Court does not find anything artificial in the said letter. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant attacked the letter [EX-P5] by contending that it does not even contain the signature of Nagoorgani. This Court perused the letter dated 28.09.1993 written in half ruled sheet. On a perusal of the same, this Court does not find anything artificial in the said letter. It is true that the signature is not there, but, that by itself cannot mean that Nagoor gani did not write the said letter. It must be borne in mind that Nagoor gani is an ordinary employee in a hotel at Singapore and with the money earned by him, he has purchased a plot and has constructed a small house by sending amounts to his son - Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3]. 12. It must be borne in mind that Nagoor gani is an ordinary employee in a hotel at Singapore and with the money earned by him, he has purchased a plot and has constructed a small house by sending amounts to his son - Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3]. 12. Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] has stated in his evidence that he was managing the construction of the house; that he had engaged Mohammed Ibunoo as Electrician for the house; that he had approached the Assistant Engineer, Muthukulathoor, for giving service connection to the house; that the Assistant Engineer told him that for effecting service connection, two poles have to be erected for drawing the lines; that unless the owner of the pathway hands over the same to the panchayat, the poles cannot be erected on private lands; that the panchayat should address a letter stating that the pathway should be handed over and thereafter, the service connection can be given; that he contacted Abdul Razzaq [PW-12], who was the original owner of the entire lay out and who had sold one plot to Nagoorgani; that Abdul Razzaq [PW-12] handed over the pathway to the panchayat and obtained a certificate [EX-P10] in this regard from the panchayat; that along with a copy of the said letter [EX-P10], Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] submitted the application [EX- P20] to the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for service connection; that he was informed by the Assistant Engineer that the application would be forwarded to the Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; that after the poles are erected, the electricity connection would be given; that he purchased an electric metre on 05.08.1993 on the advise of his Electrician - Mohammed Ibunoo, vide receipt [EX-P11]; that he along with Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] handed over the electric metre at the office of the appellant and paid Rs.840/-, for which the appellant gave EX-P3, receipt; that the appellant told them that the metre will have to be sent to the Office at Ramanathapuram along with test report form [EX-P4] duly signed by Nagoorgani and thereafter only, connection can be given; that one month later, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] handed over the test report form [EX-P4] for getting the signature of Nagoorgani at Singapore; that he wrote the letter to Nagoorgani and sent the test report form [EX-P4] to Singapore; that Nagoorgani signed the test report form [EX-P4] along with a covering letter [EX-P5] and an envelope [EX-P6]; that in the letter [EX-P5], Nagoorgani has stated that a sum of Rs.700/- can be given to the Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; that if any amount is paid, he could collect the same from his wife. 13. The chief-examination of Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] was conducted on 14.08.1996 and the cross-examination was done on 26.04.2001, nearly after lapse of four years. Much cross-examination was done in the absence of postage stamp on the envelope [EX-P6], ignoring the fact that the envelope bears the seal of the franking machine. Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] was cross- examined as to whether he had a passport and where all he had gone, for which he replied that if he sees the passport alone, he could speak as to where all he had gone. 14. In the opinion of this Court, it is not known as to how the passport of this witness is going to be relevant to decide the fact in issue or any other relevant fact. It was suggested to Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] that the letter [EX-P5] and envelope [EX-P6] were fabricated for the purpose of this case, at the instance of the Investigating Officer. As stated above, this Court perused the original letter [EX-P5] and the envelope [EX-P6] and this Court does not find any reason to conclude that the documents were fabricated for the purpose of this case, as alleged by the appellant. 15. Coming to the actual demand of bribe, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] has stated that the appellant had demanded Rs.1,000/- and thereafter, reduced it to Rs.700/-. This was informed by Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] to Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4]. That is why, in the letter [EX-P5], Nagoorgani refers to payment of Rs.700/- and states that the money can be paid. 16. Coming to the alleged differences in the signature of Nagoorgani, in the test report form [EX-P4] and the application for service connection [EX-P20], Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] has stated that according to him, there is no difference in the signature. This Court perused the signature in [EX-P4] and the signature in [EX-P20] and found that except the initial portion, there is no significant difference in the signatures. Assuming for a moment that the appellant was not inclined to accept the test report form [EX-P4], on account of difference in the signatures, his conduct would have been, either to return the test report form [EX-P4], without accepting it or inform the police. He did neither. Both the test report form [EX-P4] and the application letter [EX-P20] were recovered from the office of the appellant by the police, after search. 17. He did neither. Both the test report form [EX-P4] and the application letter [EX-P20] were recovered from the office of the appellant by the police, after search. 17. The next line of defence taken by the appellant is that the pathway to the house of Nagoorgani belonged to a private person and that private person had not handed over the pathway to the panchayat. Therefore, only on account of that, the Electricity Board was not able to give service connection to the house of Nagoorgani. 18. Abdul Razzaq [PW-12], in his evidence, has stated that 13 years back, he made a housing lay out of his patta lands in Vallakulam Village, Kadaladi Taluk and at the request of Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4], the agent of Nagoorgani, he agreed to hand over the pathway to the panahcyat and accordingly, he handed over the pathway. In his cross-examination, he was asked as to whether he had handed over the pathway to the panchayat by a registered deed, for which he stated that he did not execute any registered deed. Therefore, it was suggested to him that he had not handed over the pathway to the panchayat at all, which suggestion, he denied. 19. G.Partharasathy, [PW-13], the retired Commissioner of Panchayat Union, was examined to prove that Abdul Razzaq [PW-12] handed over the pathway to the panchayat union. In his evidence, Partharasathy, [PW-13], has stated that he had issued [EX-P10], dated 19.03.1993, certifying that the pathway has been handed over to the panchayat union; that he had issued [EX- P10], based on the records available at the office of the panchayat. Similar suggestions were put by the defence to him that in the absence of a registered sale deed from Abdul Razzaq [PW-12], the pathway could not have been handed over to the panchayat and therefore, EX-P10 is a fabricated document. 20. To recapitulate, it is the case of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] that after the house was constructed, they wanted service connection; that when the Assistant Engineer was contacted, he told them that the pathway to the house should be handed over to the panchayat for the purpose of erecting poles through which electric lines can be drawn for giving service connection. Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4], in his evidence, has stated that he contacted Abdul Razzaq [PW-12], the owner of the lay out and requested him to hand over the pathway to the panchayat union and accordingly, he handed over the pathway to the panchayat union, pursuant to which the Commissioner [PW-13] had issued certificate, [EX-P10] to the effect that the pathway is maintained by the panchayat union. EX-P10 is dated 19.03.1993 and it was handed over to the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Muthukulathur, along with a requisition letter [EX-P9] as early as 20.03.1993, as could be seen from the date seal of the office of the Assistant Engineer. The demand of bribe of Rs.700/- by the appellant was not made in March 1993 and it was made only during August 1993, when Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] met the appellant and handed over the metre, that they had purchased. To say that EX-P10 was fabricated in March 1993 itself sounds improbable. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW-13, the retired Commissioner of Panchayat, who had issued EX- P10, dated 19.03.1993. Both EX-P9 and EX-P10 were seized from the office of the appellant. Therefore, the contention that in the absence of a registered sale deed, Abdul Razzaq [PW-12] could not have handed over the pathway to the panchayat union and thus, EX-P10 is a fabricated document appears to be farfetched, because, here the fact in issue is not the transfer of the pathway to the panchayat union, but, the fact in issue is whether the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe. 21. That apart, on a reading of EX-P10, it is stated that the pathway has been handed over to the panchayat union for maintenance purpose and that the panchayat union has got no objection for erecting the poles therein. The certificate [EX-P10] does not say that the panchayat union is the owner of the pathway in question. The certificate merely states that the pathway has been handed over to the panchayat union for the purpose of maintenance, for which there is no necessity for a registered document. Hence, this Court rejects the theory projected by the defence that there was a dispute with regard to the pathway and hence, there was delay in giving service connection to the house of Nagoorgani. 22. Hence, this Court rejects the theory projected by the defence that there was a dispute with regard to the pathway and hence, there was delay in giving service connection to the house of Nagoorgani. 22. Coming to the demand made by the appellant, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] has stated that on 26.10.1993, at about 08.30 a.m he along with Sethuraj [PW- 5] went to the office of the appellant and he handed over the test report form [EX-P4] to the appellant. At that time, the appellant demanded Rs.700/- as bribe and asked whether he brought it. He further told him that he will give service connection only thereafter. Sethuraj [PW-5] has stated that on 26.10.1993, he went along with Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] to the office of the appellant with some forms and handed over the same to the appellant and at that time, the appellant demanded Rs.700/- and stated that only if he brings money on the next day, service connection can be given. PW-5 was examined in chief on 14.08.1996 and was cross-examined on 25.11.1999. He was asked about the number of doors and the direction, in which the office of the appellant is situate. Except this, the defence was not able to make any dent in the evidence of PW-5. PW-5 has replied that the entrance was facing north, but has stated that he does not know as to how many doors are there. He has also stated that he does not know as to how many rooms are there in the office of the appellant. Ultimately, it was suggested to him that he had not accompanied Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] at all on 26.10.1993, which suggestion he has denied. On the whole, this Court is satisfied with the evidence of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Sethuraj [PW-5] and this Court has no hesitation in holding that the demand of Rs.700/- made by the appellant on 26.10.1993, stands established. 23. On the whole, this Court is satisfied with the evidence of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Sethuraj [PW-5] and this Court has no hesitation in holding that the demand of Rs.700/- made by the appellant on 26.10.1993, stands established. 23. Coming to the actual trap, this Court has already discussed the evidence of PW-3 and it may be necessary to discuss the evidence of the trap witness - Mayakrishnan [PW-6], who has stated that he was working as Agriculture Officer; that on the instructions of his Superintending Engineer, he went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department on 26.10.1993 in the evening and met Gulothungapandian [PW-16], that he was introduced to Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and another person; that he was shown the complaint and the First Information Report and after reading the same, he asked Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] about the contents, for which Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] stated that the contents are true; that the Inspector of Police explained the trap procedure in detail. 24. He further deposed that the entrustment mahazer [EX-P8] was prepared; that on 27.10.1993, they all went to the office of the appellant; that the Inspector of Police asked Mayakrishnan [PW-6] to accompany Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and watch the proceedings; that they instructed Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] to give the bribe money to the appellant, only if he demands; that he along with Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] went to the sub-division, which is the office of the appellant; that a old man in the office stated that the appellant is in his residence, which is nearby; that they went to his residence, which is nearby; that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] called out through the window and on seeing him, the appellant opened the door and asked them to come inside the house; that after they entered into the house, the appellant made them sit in the hall and he was filling pickles in a bottle; that he asked Seeni Ibrahim [PW- 3] as to who Mayakrishnan [PW-6] is; Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] stated that he is his brother-in-law; that the appellant asked him as to from where he has come, for which Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] replied that Mayakrishnan [PW-6] is from Singapore; that the appellant further asked that what all he has brought from Singapore, for which Mayakrishnan [PW-6] replied that all the things he had brought have been sold out. 25. 25. While so, a person came to the house of the appellant and met him and left; that another person came and met the appellant and at that time, the appellant handed over cooked fish in a vessel to that person, who took it and went away; that the appellant called Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] to an adjoining room; that both of them went to the adjoining room, where the appellant demanded Rs.700/- and Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] handed over the money to the appellant, which he had kept in his shirt pocket and told Seeni Ibrahim [PW- 3] that he would give the service connection shortly; that he and Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] came out of the house and gave the pre-arranged signal; that the police party came to the place and it was around 09.00 a.m.; that when the police party proceeded towards the house of the appellant, he was found locking the house and coming out; that he and Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] identified the appellant; that the police party introduced themselves to the appellant in the presence of independent witnesses; that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] was asked to go home; that the appellant was asked to open the house and accordingly, he opened the house; that the police party along with two witnesses entered into the house and sat in the hall; that sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the appellant was asked to dip his fingers; that when the appellant dipped his fingers, it turned light red; that the sodium carbonate solution was packed and sealed; that he affixed his signature therein; that when the appellant was asked about the money, he took the same out of his shirt pocket and handed over the same to the police party; that the number on the notes tallied with the number in the entrustment mahazer; [the notes were marked as MO-4 series]; that, apart from Rs.700/-, the appellant was having Rs.39.25 separately; that on the request of the police, the appellant removed the shirt and the shirt was also subjected to sodium carbonate test and the shirt was marked as MO-5. Thereafter, when the appellant was questioned about the application and the records, he stated that he has kept the same in his office and took the police to his office, which was 200 metres away from his house and from where, he handed over the documents, namely, application form of Nagoorgani, [EX-P20] and the test report form [EX-P4] and thereafter, the police party prepared the trap mahazer, dated 27.10.1993, [EX-P12] in which Mayakrishnan [PW-6] and Muthusamy signed; that the appellant was arrested by the police and thereafter, Mayakrishnan [PW-6] was asked to go away; that the proceedings concluded around 02.30 to 03.30 PM, on 27.10.1993. Mayakrishnan [PW-6] was examined in chief on 09.07.1997 and he was cross-examined on 08.08.1997. 26. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there are series of discrepancies in the evidence of Mayakrishnan [PW- 6] and the evidence of Muniyasamy [PW-8]. It may be necessary to recapitulate here the evidence of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3]. Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Mayakrishnan [PW-6] have stated that while they were in the house of the appellant, two persons came and met him and left the place. The investigation conducted by the police revealed that the above two persons were Nandagopalan [PW-7] and Muniyasamy [PW-8] and both of them were working under the appellant at the relevant point of time. Nandagopalan [PW-7], in his evidence, has stated that around 08.45 a.m., on 27.10.1993, he came to the house of the appellant and at that time, he found two persons in his house and at that time, the appellant was filling pickles in a bottle. He told the appellant that he wanted to go to the union office and the appellant permitted him. 27. Muniyasamy [PW-8], in his evidence, has stated that on 27.10.1993, around 08.30 AM, he came to the house of the appellant and told that the person, who should take charge from him, has not reported for duty. He told the appellant that he wanted to go to the union office and the appellant permitted him. 27. Muniyasamy [PW-8], in his evidence, has stated that on 27.10.1993, around 08.30 AM, he came to the house of the appellant and told that the person, who should take charge from him, has not reported for duty. that he was on duty from 12.00 midnight till 08.00 AM on 27.10.1993; that he waited for him till 08.30 AM; since he did not come, he went to the house of the appellant and handed over the charge; that at that time, he found two persons in the house of the appellant; that he handed over the charge to the appellant and came out of the house; that, at that time, the appellant also came out of the house and locked the door; that the vigilance police came to the house of the appellant at that time. He was examined in chief on 19.01.1998 and was cross-examined on 25.11.1999. 28. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Muniyasamy [PW-8] has stated that he found two persons in the house of the appellant and after he handed over the charge to the appellant, he came out of the house and along with him, the appellant also came out of the house and locked the same and therefore, there would not have been any possibility for Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Mayakrishnan [PW-6] to have handed over the bribe amount to the appellant. However, it is in the evidence of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Mayakrishnan [PW-6]; that immediately after the second person left, [Muniyasamy - PW-8], the appellant called them to the adjoining room and asked for the bribe amount and after the bribe amount was given, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Mayakrishnan [PW-6] came out of the house and they were followed by the appellant, who was found locking the door of his house, when the police party came. Therefore, the evidence of Muniyasamy [PW-8], which was recorded on 19.01.1998, in respect of the incident, that is said to have taken place on 27.10.1993, cannot be appreciated in the manner as projected by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. Coming and going of Nandagopalan [PW-7] and Muniyasamy [PW-8] and the handing over of the bribe amount had taken place between 08.45 AM and 09.00 AM. Coming and going of Nandagopalan [PW-7] and Muniyasamy [PW-8] and the handing over of the bribe amount had taken place between 08.45 AM and 09.00 AM. The evidences given by the witnesses have to be appreciated from a broad perspective. Both Nandagopalan [PW-7] and Muniyasamy [PW-8] have stated that two persons were there in the house of the appellant at that time. Just because Muniyasamy [PW-8] has stated that after he left the house, soon he was followed by the appellant, it cannot lead to an inference that the appellant had not demanded and accepted the bribe amount from Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] in the presence of Mayakrishnan [PW-6], in that short interregnum. 29. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3], in his cross-examination, has stated that the person from whom he got the receipt for Rs.840/- [EX-P3] was the person who demanded the bribe. He expanded this argument by submitting that the receipt for Rs.840/- [EX-P3] was not given by the appellant, but, was given by Boopathy (PW-10) and therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case has collapsed. At the first blush, this argument indeed sounded appealing. However, it is seen that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] was examined-in-chief on 31.07.1996 in respect of an incident, that is said to have taken place on 26.08.1993 and he was cross-examined on 02.12.1998, in which, he has stated that the person to whom he had given Rs.840/- was the person who demanded the bribe. This Court deprecates the practice that is actively prevalent in the Trial Courts, whereby, the witnesses are not cross-examined on the same day or a few days after their examination-in-chief, but, are called for cross- examination years later. This pernicious practice has been put to an end, thanks to the judgment in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab [ (2015) 3 SCC 220 ], wherein, the Supreme Court has dealt with the issue with an iron hand. It is also not known as to whether Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] was permitted to read his examination-in-chief, when he was summoned for cross-examination on 02.12.1998. This Court is of the view that when a witness is recalled for the purpose of cross-examination, he must be first permitted to refresh his memory by reading the examination-in-chief before he is subjected to cross- examination. This Court is of the view that when a witness is recalled for the purpose of cross-examination, he must be first permitted to refresh his memory by reading the examination-in-chief before he is subjected to cross- examination. It should be borne in mind that a person, who comes as a witness to the Court, is discharging a public duty and he is not expected to undergo memory test at the hands of the cross-examining counsel. 30. Be that as it may, now, let us analyse the evidence of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3], Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] and Boopathy [PW-10]. 31. It is the specific case of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] that on 26.08.1993, both of them went to the office of the appellant for paying Rs.840/-. In the chief-examination of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3], he has stated that he went along with Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] to the Electricity Board office at Vaalinokkam and remitted Rs.840/-, for which, he was given a receipt and that the said receipt is EX-P3. He has not stated that he remitted the sum of Rs.840/- to Boopathy [PW-10] or to the appellant. He has stated generally that he went along with Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] and they remitted Rs.840/- and obtained receipt. 32. Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4], in his examination-in-chief, has stated that one day, he went along with Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] to the Electricity Board Office at Vaalinokkam and Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] gave the B.R. Deposit of Rs.840/- to the appellant, for which, the appellant gave a receipt [EX-P3]. 33. Boopathy, [PW-10], in his evidence, has stated that he was working as Cashier between 15.06.1990 and 15.11.1994 in the Electricity Board Office at Vaalinokkam, where, the appellant was a Junior Engineer; that for electricity connection to the house of one Nagoorgani, a sum of Rs.840/- as deposit was received and receipt issued vide counterfoil [EX-P29]; that he handed over the amount so received, along with other amounts received, to the appellant; and that the appellant made necessary entries in the demand register [EX-P22]. He has also stated the procedure for receipt of deposit amounts from the consumers, according to which, the consumers should first approach the Junior Engineer, who will make the necessary entry in the demand register [EX-P22] and after initialing the same, the demand register will be sent to the Cashier; that the cashier will receive the amount and issue receipt to the consumers and that the demand register will once again go to the Junior Engineer, who would countersign the receipt column of the demand register [EX-P22]. Boopathy [PW-10] has not stated in his evidence that on 26.08.1993, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] came and personally paid Rs.840/- towards deposit and obtained receipt from him. That is why, Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] has stated in his evidence as “We gave Rs.840/- towards B.R. Deposit to the appellant, for which, the appellant gave receipt (EX-P3].” Just because the receipt [EX-P3] has been prepared and signed by the Cashier, Boopathy [PW- 10], it will not lead to the inference that Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Sulthan Alaudin [PW-4] had remitted the cash directly to Boopathy [PW-10] and had obtained receipt [EX-P3] from him. The office procedure explained by Boopathy [PW-10] shows that the demand register [EX-P22] has to first go to the Junior Engineer after necessary entries are made therein. Hence, this Court is not able to agree with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that it was Boopathy [PW-10], who had demanded bribe and not the appellant. In fact, no suggestion has been put to Boopathy [PW-10] that it was he, who had demanded bribe on 26.08.1993. 34. Though the demand of bribe has started from 26.08.1993, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.1993, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Sethuraj [PW- 5] went to the office of the appellant after completing the paper works and submitted the test report form [EX-P4] to the appellant and at that time also, the appellant demanded Rs.700/-. The case against the appellant is that demand was made on 26.10.1993 and the earlier demands of Rs.1,000/-, which was reduced to Rs.700/- and reiterated on 26.08.1993, are only relevant facts under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and not are the facts in issue. Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows:- "8. The case against the appellant is that demand was made on 26.10.1993 and the earlier demands of Rs.1,000/-, which was reduced to Rs.700/- and reiterated on 26.08.1993, are only relevant facts under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and not are the facts in issue. Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows:- "8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.- Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto". 35. The conduct of the accused repeatedly asking Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] for bribe would squarely fall under the second limb of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, namely, "the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding is relevant, if such conduct influences any fact in issue". The conduct of the accused in pestering PW-3 for bribe indubitably influenced the facts-in-issue, namely, the demand on 26.10.1993 and the acceptance on 27.10.1993. The fact in issue is whether on 26.10.1993, the appellant demanded Rs.700/- as bribe from Seeni Ibrahim [PW- 3] for giving electricity connection. This fact in issue has been satisfactorily established via the evidence of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Sethuraj [PW-5] and materially corroborated by the complaint [EX-P7] that was given by Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] to the police, which formed the basis for registration of the First Information Report. 36. Now, it may be necessary to advert to the following tertiary arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. 37. 36. Now, it may be necessary to advert to the following tertiary arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. 37. The first argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is that, when the appellant was filling pickles in a bottle, he must have been wearing banian, whereas, it has not been shown as to when he wore shirt; the evidence of Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and decoy witness - Mayakrishnan [PW-6] is to the effect that when the bribe amount was given in the room adjoining the hall, the appellant kept it in the shirt pocket; that immediately thereafter, Seeni Ibrahim [PW-3] and Mayakrishnan [PW-6] came out of the house and the appellant also followed them; that the appellant locked the house and walked a little away, presumably to his office, at which time, the police intercepted him. In the opinion of this Court, to say that the appellant must have been wearing banian and going out of his house looks highly improbable. 38. The second argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that the seizure should not have been done inside the house, rather, should have been done outside the house at the place where the police party intercepted the appellant. The appellant was intercepted a few feet away from his house. The argument that on the main road itself, the police should have sat and conducted the Sodium Carbonate test, etc., does not appeal to this Court. The police party did the right thing by asking the appellant to open his house and sat in the hall of the house and proceeded with the Sodium Carbonate test, etc. Had the police party done it on the road, it would have brought shame to the appellant, because, all his neighbours would have come to know of the incident and that would have undoubtedly prejudiced his honour then and there. 39. The third argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that the police should have recovered the mat and the lock of the house, etc. It is true that the police sat on the mat in the hall of the house and conducted Sodium Carbonate test, etc. But, this argument does not cut much ice with this Court. 39. The third argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that the police should have recovered the mat and the lock of the house, etc. It is true that the police sat on the mat in the hall of the house and conducted Sodium Carbonate test, etc. But, this argument does not cut much ice with this Court. Had the police sat on the sofa set in the hall of the house and conducted the Sodium Carbonate test, etc., would it have been necessary to seize the sofa set? The answer to this question would only be an emphatic “No”. Therefore, the failure of the police to seize the mat and the lock cannot, in any way, vitiate the prosecution case. 40. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that an application was made by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 20.02.2014 seeking information as to who is the appointing authority for Class III Officer, i.e., Junior Engineer, for which, a reply dated 01.04.2014 has been received, in which, it is stated that the appointing authority is the Chief Engineer. Based on this, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the sanction to prosecute [EX-P1], that was granted by K.K.Ramalingam, Superintending Engineer, [PW-1], under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stands vitiated. Refuting the said contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations and submitted that the Superintending Engineer is the appropriate authority to grant sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 41. From the records, it is seen that K.K.Ramalingam, the Superintending Engineer, was examined as [PW-1] and he has stated that he went through the entire files submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department and after being satisfied that there are materials to prosecute the appellant, he issued the sanction order, which was marked as EX-P1. This witness has not been cross-examined at all by the defence. It is pertinent to point out that for the first time, this plea is being raised based on the information obtained in the year 2014, under the Right to Information Act, 2004. This witness has not been cross-examined at all by the defence. It is pertinent to point out that for the first time, this plea is being raised based on the information obtained in the year 2014, under the Right to Information Act, 2004. It may also be relevant to state here that the sanction order was given on 29.09.1994 and ten years later and after the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was renamed as “TANGEDCO”, the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has been submitted and an answer obtained. Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, clearly states that no sentence shall be reversed or altered in appeal on the ground of the absence of or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction, unless a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned. Thus, even if there had been no sanction, yet, the finding cannot be reversed, unless it is shown that failure of justice had occasioned. In this case, no such situation obtains. 42. Resultantly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits. The bail bond and the sureties executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the accused/appellant and send him to prison to suffer the remaining sentence imposed on him.