JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred seeking to set aside the judgment dated 10.06.2003 passed in C.C. No.7 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as under: 2.1 The appellant was working as Enforcement Officer in the Sub Regional Provident Fund Commissionerate at Madurai from 01.12.1999 to 06.10.2001 and he demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe from Madhavan (P.W.2), the de facto complainant. On the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the C.B.I. registered a case in Cr. No. RC MA1/2001/A/0042 on 06.10.2001 against the appellant and entrapped and arrested him on the same day while he was receiving the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from Madhavan (P.W.2). 2.2 After completing the investigation, the C.B.I. filed a final report in C.C. No.7 of 2002 before the Principal Special Court for C.B.I. Cases, Madurai, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity “the PC Act”). 2.3 On the appearance of the appellant, he was furnished with copies of the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act were framed against him and he pleaded 'not guilty'. 2.4 To establish the case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and marked 37 exhibits, besides 5 material objects. When the appellant was questioned about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. 2.5 After considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel on either side, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 10.06.2003 in C.C. No.7 of 2002, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as follows: Provision of law Sentence Section 7 of the PC Act One year rigorous imprisonment + plus fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act One year rigorous imprisonment + plus fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment Both the aforesaid sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 2.6 Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court. 3. Heard Mr. AR. Jeya Rhuthran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Nagendran, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. 2.6 Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court. 3. Heard Mr. AR. Jeya Rhuthran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Nagendran, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. Madhavan (P.W.2), in his evidence before the Court, has stated that: he was working as Administrative Officer in Infonents Systems India Ltd. at Madurai, which is an I.T. Company; during March 2001, the strength of the employees of the said company rose to a certain level and hence, the company wanted to ascertain as to whether they should be registered with the Regional Provident Fund office and so, a letter dated 29.03.2001 (Ex.P.3) was sent to the Regional Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund, Madurai, seeking advice as to whether the company would be covered under the Employees' Provident Fund Act and if so, arrangements may be made to send the necessary forms for registration; no reply was received from the Commissionerate of Regional Provident Fund; hence, he collected relevant forms in person from the Commissionerate of the Regional Provident Fund on 23.05.2001; the application forms were filled along with enclosures (Ex.P.5) and the same were submitted to the Commissionerate of the Regional Provident Fund; since no response was forthcoming, a reminder letter dated 21.06.2001 (Ex.P.6) was sent to the Commissionerate of the Regional Provident Fund; in July 2001, two officers from the Commissionerate of Regional Provident Fund came and inspected their company, but, did not make any entry; during September 2001, he went to the Provident Fund office and met Sakthivel, Enforcement Officer of Provident Fund who told him that he would come to his office and guide him; accordingly, Sakthivel came to his office and wanted some more papers which were also furnished; Sakthivel asked him to come to his office for discussion; accordingly, he went to the Provident Fund office and met Sakthivel and the appellant who was also an Enforcement Officer; during the discussion, Sakthivel stated that the company would become eligible under the Provident Fund scheme right from February 2001 and in that case, the company would have to pay a sum of Rs.1.92 lakhs including penal amount and interest; when he (P.W.2) expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, Sakthivel told him that if a sum of Rs.30,000/- is paid as bribe, he would see to it that the liability was considerably reduced which matter was also seized of by the Assistant Commissioner; on 03.10.2001, Sakthivel and the appellant came to his office and discussed the matter; Sakthivel guided him to produce some documents and asked him to be ready on 05.10.2001 with Rs.30,000/-; in the meantime, he discussed this matter with his Managing Director who was not agreeable for paying bribe, but, instead, advised him to negotiate for Rs.10,000/- so that the Enforcement Officers could be trapped; on 05.10.2001, he went to the camp office of the C.B.I. at the Railway Guest House, Madurai and lodged a complaint (Ex.P.8) around 11 a.m. and the same was received by Kathiresan, Deputy Superintendent of Police; Kathiresan, D.S.P. called two independent witnesses, viz., Viswanathan (P.W.3), an officer of Canara Bank and Varadarajan, (not examined), an officer of United India Insurance Company, to stand as independent witnesses; he gave Rs.10,000/- (Rs.500 x 20 notes) to Kathiresan, D.S.P., who demonstrated to him and the two witnesses, the Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate tests by smearing Phenolphthalein in their hands and making them dip their fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution; the entrustment mahazar (Ex.P.9) was prepared at the Railway Guest House, where, the C.B.I. officers were camping and they all left together around 2.20 p.m. and reached the office of Madhavan (P.W.2), since Sakthivel and the appellant had stated that they would come there; but, Sakthivel and the appellant did not come till 5.30 p.m. and around 5.45 p.m., Madhavan (P.W.2) received a phone call from Sakthivel informing him of his inability to come and that he would come the next day morning; Kathiresan, D.S.P., prepared proceedings in Ex.P.10 stating that the trap did not go through and it was decided that the trap team would come the next day, i.e., on 06.10.2001 and assemble at the office of Madhavan (P.W.2); the currency notes were kept in a safe in the office of Madhavan (P.W.2); on 06.10.2001, the trap team once again assembled in the morning and Viswanathan (P.W.3) was directed to be with Madhavan (P.W.2) and watch the proceedings; Madhavan (P.W.2) was asked to give a pre-arranged signal if the bribe money is accepted; around 9 a.m., Sakthivel and the appellant came to the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) and started discussing; Sakthivel asked him to give the thing which had to be given and if that is done, the code will be issued on Monday; then, Sakthivel asked for the money which Madhavan (P.W.2) picked out and placed on his table near Sakthivel; the appellant took the money and kept it in the right hip pocket of his pant; Madhavan (P.W.2) gave the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head; when Sakthivel and the appellant started to leave the office of Madhavan (P.W.2), the trap team entered into the office and proceeded further by making them dip their fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution, etc. and recovered the sum of Rs.10,000/- from the appellant. 5. Madhavan (P.W.2) has also deposed that the trap mahazar (Ex.P.12) was prepared under which the currency notes (M.O.1 series) and the pant worn by the appellant (M.O.5) were recovered; the police also recovered from the possession of Sakthivel, 151 sheets relating to the Provident Fund applications (Ex.P.34) and a bunch of papers (Ex.P.5) relating to the application forms submitted by Infonents Systems India Ltd.; and the Sodium Carbonate solution was kept in three bottles (M.Os. 2 to 4) and the said bottles were sealed. 6. At this juncture, it may be relevant to state a very important fact, viz., Sakthivel died on 08.01.2002 and the charge sheet was filed only against the appellant on 04.06.2002. 7. 2 to 4) and the said bottles were sealed. 6. At this juncture, it may be relevant to state a very important fact, viz., Sakthivel died on 08.01.2002 and the charge sheet was filed only against the appellant on 04.06.2002. 7. Viswanathan (P.W.3), in his evidence, before the Court has stated that: he was working as an Officer in Canara Bank, Madurai; his Assistant General Manager directed him to meet Kathiresan, D.S.P. at the Railway Guest House, Madurai; he went there on 05.10.2001 and he was introduced to one K.S.V.D. Srinivas, Inspector of Police, C.B.I., who, in turn, introduced him to Madhavan and Hari Om Prakash, Inspectors of C.B.I. and Varadarajan, an officer of an Insurance Company; the complaint (Ex.P.8) given by Madhavan (P.W.2) was shown; K.S.V.D.Srinivas, Inspector of Police, C.B.I., explained the procedure to be followed for laying a trap; Madhavan (P.W.2) gave Rs.10,000/- (Rs.500 x 20 notes) (M.O.1 series) in which Phenolphthalein was smeared and Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate tests were demonstrated; the entrustment mahazar (Ex.P.9) was prepared after which the trap team went to the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) and waited there till 5.45 p.m. for the Enforcement Officers from the Provident Fund office to come; but, they did not turn up and so, the trap team dispersed after recording the proceedings in Ex.P.10 and decided to assemble again on 06.10.2001; the entrustment mahazar (Ex.P.11) was prepared in the morning of 06.10.2001; he took position in the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) and watched the happenings; around 9.00 a.m., Sakthivel and the appellant came to the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) with a bunch of papers and discussed with Madhavan (P.W.2) as to how the forms should be filled and what are all the columns to be signed; Sakthivel told Madhavan (P.W.2) that if he gives whatever he is to give, then, the code would be given on Monday; Madhavan (P.W.2) took out the currency notes from his pocket and placed them on the table; the appellant immediately took the currency notes and kept the same in the right hip pocket of his pant; Madhavan (P.W.2) gave the necessary signal, pursuant to which, the trap team headed by Kathiresan, D.S.P. and other police officials, along with Varadarajan, came into the office of Madhavan (P.W.2); the appellant was directed to dip his fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution and when he dipped his fingers as directed, the said solution turned pink; the sum of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the appellant and the numbers tallied with the numbers in the entrustment mahazar (Ex.P.11); and the pant (M.O.5) worn by the appellant was seized and recovery mahazar (Ex.P.12) was prepared in which he has signed along with others. 8. K.S.V.D. Srinivas, Inspector of Police, C.B.I. (P.W.6), in his evidence before the Court, has stated that: on 05.10.2001, while the C.B.I. officials under Kathiresan, DSP, were camping in the Railway Guest House at Madurai, Madhavan (P.W.2) came and lodged a complaint; the complaint was verified by Kathiresan, DSP and since he was convinced that the same was genuine, he spoke to the Superintendent of Police in Chennai, who directed them to receive the complaint and proceed further; Kathiresan, DSP, told him that the Superintendent of Police had directed that the trap laying officer should be himself (K.S.V.D. Srinivas, P.W.6); the complaint was despatched to the office of the Superintendent of Police in Chennai through a special messenger along with a covering letter (Ex.P.33) for the purpose of registration of F.I.R.; he being the trap laying officer, along with Kathiresan, DSP and others, demonstrated the procedure of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate tests; two independent witnesses, viz., Viswanathan (P.W.3) and Varadarajan (not examined) were called and they were introduced to Madhavan (P.W.2); the police team explained to them the trap methodology and also the Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate tests; they prepared the entrustment mahazar (Ex.P.9); the trap team left for the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) and waited there till 5.45 p.m.; Madhavan (P.W.2) told them that Sakthivel informed him that he was busy and that he would come the next day; the trap team decided to assemble again on 06.10.2001 at the office of P.W.2 (Madhavan); the Entrustment Mahazar (Ex.P.11) was prepared on 06.10.2011; Viswanathan (P.W.3) was directed to watch the proceedings; around 9.00 a.m., two persons came to the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) in a two wheeler and they went inside and had discussions with Madhavan (P.W.2); when Madhavan (P.W.2) gave the pre-arranged signal, the police party along with Varadarajan, went inside the office of Madhavan (P.W.2); the appellant was directed to dip his fingers in Sodium Carbonate solution; money was recovered from the appellant and his pant (M.O.5) was also seized; during the seizure proceedings, the documents relating to Provident Fund applications of the company were recovered and a detailed Recovery Mahazar (Ex.P.12) was prepared, after which, he arrested both Sakthivel and the appellant and their houses were searched; but, nothing incriminating was recovered from their residence vide seizure mahazars (Exs.P.25 and 26) relating to Sakthivel and the appellant respectively. 9. 9. Ponnalagan, (P.W.7) Inspector of Police, C.B.I., has stated in his evidence that on 06.10.2001, the Superintendent of Police handed over a complaint with an endorsement for registering a case and accordingly, he registered an FIR in RC MA1/2001/A/0042 on 06.10.2001 and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.35) for offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 of the PC Act against Sakthivel and Santhanakrishnan (appellant); on 08.10.2001, he obtained copies of documents concerned in this case from K.S.V.D. Srinivas (P.W.6), Inspector of Police, C.B.I. and proceeded further with the investigation by examining certain witnesses and obtaining the sanction to prosecute the accused and filed the final report on 04.06.2002 against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is an infirmity in the first charge inasmuch as the date in the first charge has been given as 19.08.2001, whereas, in the complaint (Ex.P.8), there is no reference to the said date. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that according to the de facto complainant, the demand was made on 03.10.2001 by Sakthivel and the appellant, but, there is no reference to the said date in the charge sheet. Thus, the main bone of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the charges were not framed properly and on that score, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 11. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for C.B.I. submitted that the date 19.08.2001 is a typographical error for 19.07.2001, since, it is in the evidence of Madhavan (P.W.2) that Sakthivel and the appellant came to their office and they have made an entry in the Visitors' Register (Ex.P.7). 12. On a perusal of the Visitors' Register (Ex.P.7), it is seen that on 19.07.2001, there is an entry showing that the appellant had come to the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) at 3.20 p.m. and had left at 4.00 p.m. after discussing with Natarajan, Administrative Officer, regarding Provident Fund matter. It is true that the date 03.10.2001 is not there in the charge. In this backdrop, now, it has to be seen as to whether the absence of the date 03.10.2001 in the charge had resulted in serious prejudice to the appellant. It is true that the date 03.10.2001 is not there in the charge. In this backdrop, now, it has to be seen as to whether the absence of the date 03.10.2001 in the charge had resulted in serious prejudice to the appellant. In other words, this Court has to see whether the appellant was at loss in defending himself properly in the absence of the date 03.10.2001 in the charge. The appellant has been furnished with the complaint (Ex.P.8) and the printed FIR (Ex.P.35) as part of Section 207 Cr.P.C. compliance. Therefore, the appellant cannot be heard to say that prior to the commencement of the trial, he was in a state of oblivion as to the allegation that he and Sakthivel had gone to the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) on 03.10.2001 and had demanded Rs.30,000/- as bribe and that Madhavan (P.W.2) had told them that he would keep the application and cash of Rs.10,000/- towards initial payment ready and that he would pay the balance in a day or two. In the chief- examination of Madhavan (P.W.2), he has clearly stated that on 03.10.2001, Sakthivel and the appellant came to his office and demanded bribe amount. Madhavan (P.W.2) has been cross-examined by the appellant on this aspect. The appellant has also been questioned about this under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In fact, to a specific question posed under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the events which transpired on 03.10.2001, the appellant had admitted that he visited the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) on 03.10.2001. From this, it cannot be stated that the appellant was at loss to defend his case. Under Section 464 Cr.P.C., an error in the charge will not be a ground for setting aside the sentence, unless it is shown that a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby. In this case, there are absolutely no materials to show that the appellant was unaware of the allegation of the prosecution about the events on 03.10.2001. Hence, this Court is of the view that no failure of justice has occasioned due to the absence of reference to the date 03.10.2001 in the first charge. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there is no reference in the complaint (Ex.P.8) or in the charge that the accused had agreed to accept Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there is no reference in the complaint (Ex.P.8) or in the charge that the accused had agreed to accept Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-. This Court is unable to agree with this submission, because, in the complaint (Ex.P.8), the de facto complainant has clearly stated as follows: “They asked me to prepare the applications in the above lines and keep it ready on 05.10.2001 evening along with the cash of Rs.30,000.00. I told that I would keep ready the application and cash of Rs.10,000.00 as initial payment and the balance would be paid in a day or two.” 14. In the first charge, it is clearly stated that the accused demanded Rs.30,000/- to help the company to escape the Provident Fund coverage and that on 06.10.2001, they accepted Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the charge on this aspect. That apart, the appellant was well aware that the prosecution case was that he and Sakthivel demanded Rs.30,000/- and he was caught for having received Rs.10,000/- on 06.10.2001. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant made his further submission that the F.I.R. in this case itself was registered only on 06.10.2001, whereas, the investigation had begun on 05.10.2001 itself and therefore, the entire investigation stands vitiated and consequently, the trial and conviction have to be quashed. 16. On a reading of the evidence of K.S.V.D. Srinivas (P.W.6), Inspector of Police, C.B.I., it is clear that the members of the C.B.I. team were camping in the Railway Guest House at Madurai when Madhavan (P.W.2) came and gave the complaint (Ex.P.8). K.S.V.D.Srinivas (P.W.6) has clearly stated that the complaint was given to Kathiresan, D.S.P. and that the latter spoke to the Superintendent of Police in Chennai. He has further stated that on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, investigation began, however, the F.I.R. had to be sent through a special messenger from Madurai to Chennai for registration of a regular FIR, where, the office of the C.B.I. is headquartered. Thus, it can safely be held that the prosecution have given sufficient explanation as to the circumstances under which the investigation began on 05.10.2001 itself, whereas, the F.I.R. was registered only on 06.10.2001 in Chennai, where, concededly, the headquarters of the C.B.I. is located and further, there is no office for the C.B.I. in Madurai. Chennai is about 460 kms. Thus, it can safely be held that the prosecution have given sufficient explanation as to the circumstances under which the investigation began on 05.10.2001 itself, whereas, the F.I.R. was registered only on 06.10.2001 in Chennai, where, concededly, the headquarters of the C.B.I. is located and further, there is no office for the C.B.I. in Madurai. Chennai is about 460 kms. away from Madurai. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant further read the following portion from the cross-examination of Madhavan (P.W.2) to say that the appellant had not made any demand: “At no point of time, accused Santhanakrishnan made any demand for bribe to me. It is true even on 06.10.2001, it was only Mr.Sakthivelu who demanded the bribe amount.” 18. It is true that the appellant did not open his mouth in chorus along with Sakthivel to demand bribe. However, the evidence of Madhavan (P.W.2) clearly shows that on 03.10.2001, Sakthivel and the appellant came to the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) to have discussion and there, Sakthivel demanded bribe. Just because the appellant was silent when Sakthivel was demanding bribe, it cannot be said that the appellant did not have complicity in the demand. The evidence of Suthanthiraraman (P.W.4), Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, is to the effect that the file relating to Infonents Systems India Ltd. was allotted to Santhanakrishnan (appellant) and Sakthivel, Enforcement Officers, for necessary action, on 17.09.2001. Though the order of Suthanthiraraman (P.W.4) is reflected in Ex.P.28, it has not been controverted by the appellant. In other words, the appellant was assigned the task to deal with the coverage proposal of Infonents Systems India Ltd. on 17.09.2001 and thereafter, the duo went about hunting for bribe by suggesting that Madhavan (P.W.2) should have to pay a huge sum of Rs.1.92 lakhs as arrears and that the amount can be reduced if a sum of Rs.30,000/- is given as bribe. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on the very recent judgment in Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab [ (2017) 8 SCC 136 ], wherein, the Supreme Court has held that mere proof of acceptance of bribe is not sufficient without unimpeachable evidence to prove the demand. This Court can have no quarrel with the above proposition of law. This Court can have no quarrel with the above proposition of law. However, in the case at hand, the prosecution have produced unimpeachable evidence to show that there had been demand from Sakthivel and the appellant since the time the file concerned was allotted to them from 17.09.2001 onwards. As a matter of fact, on 03.10.2001, they had come to the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) and had demanded bribe. To reiterate, even in the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had accepted that he went to the office of Madhavan (P.W.2) along with Sakthivel on 03.10.2001. The complaint (Ex.P.8) given by Madhavan (P.W.2) sufficiently corroborates his oral testimony. The appellant has not suggested any motive to Madhavan (P.W.2) for foisting a case against him. Hence, the judgment in Mukhtiar Singh (supra) is hardly of any avail to the appellant. 20. As regards the acceptance of bribe, the evidence of Madhavan (P.W.2) is sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of Viswanathan (P.W.3), the shadow witness, that the sum of Rs.10,000/- was placed on the table and it was the appellant who took up that sum and had kept it in the right hip pocket of his pant. The appellant has not come up with any plausible explanation as to why he accepted Rs.10,000/- from Madhavan (P.W.2) on 06.10.2001. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond and the sureties executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the appellant and send him to prison to suffer the remaining period of sentence imposed on him. The Trial Court is directed to prepare a panchanama in duplicate of the trap amount of Rs.10,000/- (20 notes x Rs.500 - M.O.1 series) and hand over the same, along with a copy of panchanama to Madhavan (P.W.2), so that Madhavan (P.W.2) can have the money exchanged in the Reserve Bank of India under the Specified Bank Notes (Deposit of Confiscated Notes) Rules, 2017.