JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants viz., G.Venkatachalapathy (Crl.A.No.389 of 2014) and S.Saravanan (Crl.A.No.392 of 2014), these appeals are preferred challenging the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry passed in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 2010, dated 16.07.2014. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to these appeals are as follows: One Palani, S/o Veerapathiran, who is the defacto complainant in this case, is the resident of Ariyur Village, Puducherry. He lodged a complaint at Villianur Police Station on 21.06.2010 stating that his wife Tamilselvi and his younger son Diwakar are missing from the Home. The Villianur Police Station took up the investigation and traced Tamilselvi and Diwakar, who were abducted by one Murugan of Tandavamurthikuppam. When Palani went to Villianur Police Station knowing about this fact on 04.07.2010, he was asked to come again on 13.07.2010. The first and second accused, who are the Sub Inspectors attached to Villianur Police Station along with Palani (PW-2) went to T.R.Pattinam near Karaikal to rescue Tamilselvi and Diwakar from Murugan on 14.07.2010 and they were brought back to Villianur. When Tamilselvi and Diwakar were produced before the Magistrate on 15.07.2010, the Court directed Tamilselvi to be under the custody of her parents. 3. It is the case of the defacto complainant (Palani) that, while his wife Tamilselvi left Villianur Police Station along with her parents on 15.07.2010, she informed Palani that the first accused is having her thali chain and told PW-2(Palani) to get it back from him. Therefore, on 16.07.2010, Palani(PW-2) went to Villianur Police Station to get back his wife's chain. Venkatachalapathy (A1) told Palani(PW-2) to come on the next day i.e. on 17.07.2010. When he met A1(Venkatachalapathy) on 17.07.2010, he demanded Rs.10,000/- as reward for rescuing his wife and children and to return the thali chain, which was taken from his wife Tamilselvi. Palani(PW-2) who was not inclined to give bribe, lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai on 19.07.2010 alleging that Venkatachalapathy (A1) demanding Rs.10,000/- as reward for rescuing his wife and to return the thali chain. The said complaint Ex.P6 was taken up for investigation and First Information Report (Ex.P25) was recorded under RC MA1 2010 A 0029. 4. The said complaint Ex.P6 was taken up for investigation and First Information Report (Ex.P25) was recorded under RC MA1 2010 A 0029. 4. Since the complaint made out prima facie case of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, investigation was commenced by K.Raja, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai. Entrustment Mahazar (Ex.P7) was prepared for phenolphthalein test demonstration in the presence of the witnesses and the defacto complainant and the entrustment of bribe money of Rs.10,000/- smeared with phenolphthalein to Palani @ Vaithiyanathan with specific instruction to him that he should give the money, if it is demanded by Venkatachalapathy (A1). After preparation of the entrustment mahazar (Ex.P7), the defacto complainant along with the trap team and decoy witnesses reached the trap's spot (i.e.) Villianur Police Station, Puducherry at about 17.00 hours on 19.07.2010. 5. The defacto complainant Palani (PW-2) and the decoy witness G.Nedumaran, Manager of Indian Overseas Bank (PW-3) went to Villianur Police Station. Venkatachalapathy (A1) was in his seat. When Palani asked for return of his wife thali chain and told that he has brought Rs.10,000/- as demanded, A1(Venkatachalapathy) extended his right hand and received the tainted bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from Palani. After counting the same, he put the money in his right side pant pocket. A1(Venkatachalapathy) told Palani(PW-2) to wait for 15 minutes in the corridor to collect thali chain. PW-2 (Palani) and PW-3 (G.Nedumaran) came out from the police station and gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap team. 6. The trap laying officer, K.Raja (PW-6) along with his team members went inside the police station. A1 (Venkatachalapathy) was identified by PW-2 (Palani) and PW-3 (G.Nedumaran) as the person who demanded and accepted the tainted currency. After disclosing their identity, PW-6(K.Raja) asked the accused Venkatachalapathy (A1), whether he has demanded and accepted any bribe as reward from Palani (PW-2). A1 (Venkatachalapathy) admitted the acceptance of Rs.10,000/- from Palani (PW-2). Thereafter, the hands of Venkatachalapathy (A1) was subjected to phenolphthalein test by dipping his right hand in colourless sodium carbonate solution. On dipping his right hand in the said colourless solution, the solution turned in to pink. When the left hand finger were dipped in the colourless sodium carbonate solution, it turned into light pink. Samples were collected separately and sealed and thereafter, trap laying officer asked the accused(A1) to hand over the tainted money. 7. On dipping his right hand in the said colourless solution, the solution turned in to pink. When the left hand finger were dipped in the colourless sodium carbonate solution, it turned into light pink. Samples were collected separately and sealed and thereafter, trap laying officer asked the accused(A1) to hand over the tainted money. 7. On the direction of PW-6(K.Raja) the trap laying officer, A1(Venkatachalapathy) took out bunch of currency from his right side pant pocket. The currency numbers found in the money recovered from A1(Venkatachalapathy) was compared with the currency numbers noted in the entrustment mahazar(Ex.P7) and both the numbers tallied and hence, the currencies (M.O.2 (series)) twenty numbers of five hundred rupees notes were seized. A1(Venkatachalapathy) was given a dothi and asked to hand over his pant. The pant pocket was also subjected to phenolphthalein test. Having found the presence of phenolphthalein, the pant and samples solution were collected. 8. A1(Venkatachalapathy) was enquired about the thalichain of Tamilselvi. A1(Venkatachalapathy) told that he has given the thali chain to Saravanan(A2), who was Sub Inspector of Police attached to the same police station. The trap laying officer directed A1(Venkatachalapathy) to call S.Saravanan(A2) overphone. When S.Saravanan(A2) came to the police station, A1(Venkatachalapathy) told A2(Saravanan) to give the thali chain of Tamilselvi. S.Saravanan (A2) took out a polythene cover containing the thali chain and handed over it to A1(Venkatachalapathy). That was seized by the trap laying officer. He found inside the polythene cover three pieces of gold chain without thali. Palani(PW-2) identified the chain pieces as the chain of his wife and thereafter, both G.Venktachalapathy (A1), Sub Inspector of Police(Grade-I) and S.Saravanan (A2), Sub inspector of Police (Grade II) of Villianur Police Station were arrested. The hand wash and pant wash solution were sent to chemical analysis through the Court. The requisition letter is marked as Ex.P23 and the report dated 06.08.2010 is marked as Ex.P19. 9. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and marked 26 exhibits along with 7 Material Objects. On the side of the defence, 4 witnesses were examined and 11 exhibits were marked. The requisition letter is marked as Ex.P23 and the report dated 06.08.2010 is marked as Ex.P19. 9. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and marked 26 exhibits along with 7 Material Objects. On the side of the defence, 4 witnesses were examined and 11 exhibits were marked. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence let in by both the parties has held the appellants guilty and that the appellants were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each under Section 120-B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months each. A1 and A2 were also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years each under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and further A1 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. The substantial sentence of imprisonment directed to run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone, if any, directed to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. M.O-1(series) and M.O-2 (series) are ordered to be returned to the defacto complainant Palani, after the appeal time was over. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Court below has erred in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 120-B IPC and under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without any material whatsoever. The discrepancies in the time of complaint as spoken by PW-2 and the registration of the case by the Superintendent of Police, the CBI indicates that even prior to formal registration of the complaint, the entire trap proceedings conducted and completed. 11. It appears that after completing the trap proceedings the prosecution obtained the complaint from PW-2 (Palani) and has created other documents to their convenience. The sanction to prosecute has been issued without perusal of documents and application of mind. There is no proof to show that all the relevant materials were sent to appropriate authority for granting sanction. 12. 11. It appears that after completing the trap proceedings the prosecution obtained the complaint from PW-2 (Palani) and has created other documents to their convenience. The sanction to prosecute has been issued without perusal of documents and application of mind. There is no proof to show that all the relevant materials were sent to appropriate authority for granting sanction. 12. The Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the woman missing complaint given by PW-2 (Palani) at Villianur Police Station was successfully investigated. Tamilselvi and her son Diwakar were traced and produced before the Magistrate. Tamilselvi, who was not interested in joining with her husband Palani, requested the Court that she wants to stay with her parents. Therefore, the Magistrate allowed her to go with her parents. Palani(PW-2) was aggrieved by the act of the accused for producing Tamilselvi before the Magistrate and allowing her to go with her parents. Aggrieved by the action taken by Venkatachalapathy(A1), who was the investigation officer of woman missing complaint given by Palani, a theory of illegal gratification has been invented by Palani and a false complaint has been lodged against the first accused Venkatachalapathy. The case of the prosecution falls to the ground by non-examination of Tamilselvi, who according to the prosecution, the owner of gold chain marked as M.O.1(series). 13. The learned counsel appearing for the first accused would submit that the very institution of the complaint, the sanction order, recovery of tainted money from A1(Venkatachalapathy) and the recovery of three pieces of chains, without thali marked as M.O.1(series), without even examining Tamilselvi to identify the same, renders the prosecution case highly doubtful. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that while the defacto complainant (PW-2) had deposed that he met PW-6 and gave the complaint Ex.P6, in total contradiction to PW-2 version, PW-6 has deposed that he received a phone call from the Superintendent of Police, ACB, CBI, Chennai. Based on the phone call, he registered the complaint. The manner in which the complaint was received and registered as First Information Report is therefore doubtful. Further, the entire trap including arrest and seizure was completed by 06.45 p.m., on 19.07.2010. However, the fax copy of the First Information Report carries the time as 07.00 p.m., though it appears that it was registered at 12.45 hours in Chennai. 15. The manner in which the complaint was received and registered as First Information Report is therefore doubtful. Further, the entire trap including arrest and seizure was completed by 06.45 p.m., on 19.07.2010. However, the fax copy of the First Information Report carries the time as 07.00 p.m., though it appears that it was registered at 12.45 hours in Chennai. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that the defence exhibits clearly indicate that Ex.P1 sanction to prosecute was issued without application of mind and the office of Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry has received the file on 09.11.2010. He has returned the file on the very next day on 10.11.2010 without any endorsement. The sanction to prosecute signed by the Joint Secretary to Government (Home), Chief Secretariat, Puducherry though indicates that the sanction order has issued by order in the name of Lieutenant Governor , there is no indication in the file sent to Lieutenant Governor that the Lieutenant Governor had applied his mind and approved for issuing sanction to prosecute. Ex.P1, which is the CBI report along with the evidence of oral, documentary and material objects, is not the entire file pertaining to the case forwarded to Lieutenant Governor for his subjective satisfaction. 16. The attendance register and the communication of Indian Overseas Bank, Central Assistant Public Information Officer, Puducherry which is marked as Ex.D2 series goes to show that no official from his bank was sent for other duties during the month of July 2010. The attendance register maintained by Indian overseas Bank, Regional Office, Puducherry which is marked as Ex.D2 series shows that Nedumaran(PW-3) has attended the office and he was not deputed to be witness for CBI trap proceedings. For the above said reasons, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would seek that the order of the trial Court is perverse and baseless. 17. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for (CBI Cases) appearing for the respondent would submit that the lapse of prosecution will not render the judgment of the trial Court improper or perverse. PW-2 (Palani) has given the complaint(Ex.P6) against the first accused (Venkatachalapathy) for demanding Rs.10,000/- as reward to return the thali chain of his wife and for rescuing his wife and son from the abductor Murugan. PW-2 (Palani) has given the complaint(Ex.P6) against the first accused (Venkatachalapathy) for demanding Rs.10,000/- as reward to return the thali chain of his wife and for rescuing his wife and son from the abductor Murugan. The complaint of Palani regarding missing of his wife Tamilselvi and his son Diwakar is proved through Ex.P5 complaint dated 22.06.2010 and the consequential registration of First Information Report dated 29.06.2010 (Ex.P14). The demand of illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- is spoken by PW-2 (Palani), which is in consonance with the written complaint. On the date of receipt of bribe money by A1 (Venkatachalapathy), the transaction has been witnessed by PW-3 Nedumaran, who has corroborated the evidence of PW-2 (Palani) regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by A1 on 19.07.2010. The recovery of tainted money from A1(Venkatachalapathy) is established through the fact of phenolphthalein test conducted in the hands of the accused A1 (Venkatachalapathy) and his pant pocket proved to be positive. M.O.2 series (currency notes) and M.O.3 pant recovered from A1(Venkatachalapathy) is reflected in the seizure mahazar prepared contemporaneously and marked as Ex.P8. Similarly, PW-3(Nedumaran) has deposed that A2(Saravanan) came to the police station, after A1(Venkatachalapathy) called him over phone and handed over the 3 pieces of chain kept in the polythene cover. The chain belongs to the wife of PW-2 (Palani) and he has identified the chain. 18. Under these circumstances, the conspiracy between A1 and A2 to retain the thali chain of Tamilselvi expecting reward for favour done to PW-2 (Palani) is very much proved through the circumstantial evidence. Neither A1(Venkatachalapathy) nor A2(Saravanan) had come out with any plausible explanation how and why they were in possession of chain which belongs to Tamilselvi. The evidence let in by the defence and the documents relied on by them does not disprove the prosecution case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by A1(Venkatachalapathy) and A2(Saravanan). To extract illegal gratification, both the accused have retained the gold chain of Tamilselvi. Non examination of Tamilselvi is immaterial in this nature of case, since her husband PW-2(Palani) has identified the gold chain. On a cumulative assessment of the evidence, there is no lacuna in the prosecution case in establishing the guilt of the appellants. Hence, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 19. Point for consideration: Whether the evidence placed before the trial Court were properly appreciated by the Court below? 20. On a cumulative assessment of the evidence, there is no lacuna in the prosecution case in establishing the guilt of the appellants. Hence, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 19. Point for consideration: Whether the evidence placed before the trial Court were properly appreciated by the Court below? 20. Registration of the complaint: The appellants attack the very genuineness of the complaint received in the name of Palani on 19.07.2010, which is marked as Ex.D6. On perusal of the complaint, this Court finds this complaint is addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai-6. PW-2 (Palani), the author of the complaint would say in his chief examination that on 17.07.2010 when he asked A1 (Venkatachalapathy) to return his wife's chain, A1 (Venkatachalapathy) demanded Rs.10,000/- as reward for rescuing his wife and son. Therefore, on 19.07.2010, he went to CBI office and met the Superintendent of Police and reported about the illegal demand made by A1. The Superintendent of Police at CBI office directed him to meet the Inspector K.Raja. When he contacted Sub Inspector K.Raja overphone, he told him to prepare the written complaint and hand over it to him at Railway Station. So, at about 11.00 a.m., he went to Railway Station with the written complaint and gave it to Sub-Inspector K.Raja. By 1.00 '0' clock Ellappan from the Insurance Company and Nedumaran from Indian Overseas Bank came to the Railway station and joined them. Thereafter, the trap proceedings were initiated by preparing entrustment mahazar which was over by 02.30 p.m., and thereafter, the defacto complainant along with the accompanying witness Nedumaran had gone to Villianur Police Station. From Ex.P8 recovery mahazar, it could be seen that the trap team reached the trap's spot i.e., Villianur Police Station, Puducherry at about 17.00 hours on 19.07.2010. 21. PW-8(Jayaseelan) had deposed that while he was serving as Sub Inspector of Police attached to CBI/ACB/Chennai, Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB registered the case MA1 of 2011 A 0029 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 Venkatachalapathy. He nominated Subramanian Inspector of Police as Investigating Officer and K.Raja as trap Laying officer. PW-7 (Subramanian) the investigating officer would state in his cross examination that on 20.07.2010 at about 05.00 p.m., he received the case file from the trap laying officer K.Raja. He nominated Subramanian Inspector of Police as Investigating Officer and K.Raja as trap Laying officer. PW-7 (Subramanian) the investigating officer would state in his cross examination that on 20.07.2010 at about 05.00 p.m., he received the case file from the trap laying officer K.Raja. He admits that in the First Information Report at page No.4 column meant for Recording Officer nobody has signed and there is no indication that the copy of First Information Report was given to the defacto complainant. 22. PW-6 (K.Raja), who has received the complaint as per PW-2(Palani), deposed that while he was in Puducherry for official duty on 19.07.2010 at about 09.30 a.m., the Superintendent of Police from Chennai called him over phone and informed that one Palani will contact him regarding a complaint of demand of illegal gratification. Accordingly, PW-2 Palani contacted him overphone. PW-6 told Palani to meet him at Railway Station near ATM at about 11.00 am. Palani met him and introduced himself. Thereafter, he perused the complaint against Venkatachalapathy(A1) and being satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint Ex.P6, he informed about the content of the complaint to the Superintendent of Police at Chennai. As per the instruction of the Superintendent of Police, he verified the authenticity of the complaint and thereafter, informing about the authenticity of complaint to the Superintendent of Police by fax. He proceeded with the trap. 23. DW-2 Eswaramurthy, who was Superintendent of Police at that point of time had deposed that while he was in duty on 19.07.2010 at Chennai, Palani @ Vaithiyanathan called him over phone and reported about the illegal demand of gratification of Rs.10,000/- by Venkatachalapathy (A1) Sub Inspector of Police, Villianur Police Station for returning the gold chain of his wife. D.W.2 directed Palani to contact Raja and to explain about the complaint. He also contacted Raja and informed about the complaint received from Palani and instructed Raja to contact Palani and enquire about his complaint. DW-2 had further deposed that at around 11.30 p.m., Raja contacted him over phone that he received a complaint of Palani. After verifying the credences of the complaint, Raja has forwarded verification report through fax. After ascertaining the complaint regarding bribe of demand is genuine, he directed Raja to proceed with the trap process. DW-2 had further deposed that at around 11.30 p.m., Raja contacted him over phone that he received a complaint of Palani. After verifying the credences of the complaint, Raja has forwarded verification report through fax. After ascertaining the complaint regarding bribe of demand is genuine, he directed Raja to proceed with the trap process. The complaint of Palani(PW-2) and the verification report of Raja were received through fax at Chennai office and thereafter, First Information Report was registered and forwarded to the Court. 24. On considering these facts, this Court finds no falsity or error in the case of the prosecution regarding registration of the complaint. It is seen from the evidence that PW-2 (Palani) has contacted CBI office at Chennai over phone on 19.07.2010 about 10.15 a.m. He had handed over written the complaint to Raja at Puducherry at 11.00 a.m. The complaint and the verification report were sent to Chennai office through fax and thereafter, First Information Report has been registered at about 12.45 hours and the same has been faxed to Raja. 25. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the fax of the First Information Report has reached Puducherry only at 07.00 p.m., on 19.07.2010. Therefore, the belated registration of the First Information Report will nullify the entire trap proceedings, since the trap spot, place of receiving the complaint and the registration of the First Information Report were different. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants tried to project as if First Information Report was registered after completion of the trap proceedings, which is not factually correct and the evidence discussed above clearly shows that the trap was laid only after receipt of the complaint and registration of the First Information Report, which was done on 09.07.2010 at 12.45 hours. Whereas, the trap has commenced only at 17.00 hours and completed by 18.40 hours. 26. Sanction for prosecution: PW-1 (L.Kumar) who is the Joint Secretary in the Home Department of Puducherry Government has spoken about the sanction order marked as Ex.P1. According to him, after perusing the documents forwarded by CBI, they found that prima facie case is made out for prosecuting the appellants and therefore, submitted the proposal to Lieutenant Governor for sanction of prosecution against the accused person, after satisfying himself. According to him, after perusing the documents forwarded by CBI, they found that prima facie case is made out for prosecuting the appellants and therefore, submitted the proposal to Lieutenant Governor for sanction of prosecution against the accused person, after satisfying himself. The Lieutenant Governor, who is the competent authority to dismiss the accused person, had delegated the power under authentication (orders and other Instrument Rules 1963-1964) to convey the order of his sanction to prosecute. Therefore, he has conveyed the sanction of Lieutenant Governor vide Ex.P1. The relevant Rules are marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the said sanction order does not indicate the application of mind and is not accorded in consonance with law, does not carry merit, in view of the evidence let in by PW-1 read with Exs.P1 and P3, merely because a model sanction order has been enclosed and marked as Ex.D4. The model sanction order does not mean that the Lieutenant-Governor has not applied his mind before according sanction and authorising PW-1 to issue the sanction order. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants does not warrants any favourable consideration. 27. Demand and Acceptance: The first demand of illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- as reward for returning the thali chain is spoken by PW-2(Palani). The second demand of illegal gratification and receipt of the same on 19.07.2010 is spoken by PW-2 (Palani) and PW-3(Nedumaran). Whether the accused really demanded any gratification on earlier occasion ie., on 17.06.2010 is uncertain. Except the uncorroborated version of PW-2(Palani) regarding the first demand on 17.06.2010, there is no other evidence. 28. As far as the 2nd demand dated 19.07.2010 and receipt of the tainted money, PW-2(Palani) as well as PW-3(Nedumaran) had deposed about it. However, in view of the attendance register of PW-3 marked as Ex.D-2, whether PW-3(Nedumaran) was present at Villianur Police Station on 19.07.2010 during the transfer of tainted money from PW-2(Palani) to the accused is doubtful, in view of the attendance register of PW-3(Nedumaran), which is marked as Ex.D2. When the records reveals that PW-3(Nedumaran) was present in his office and was not sent for any other duty, his evidence regarding witnessing the pre-trap proceedings as well as the trap proceedings has to be suspected. 29. The appellants are charged for conspiracy to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. When the records reveals that PW-3(Nedumaran) was present in his office and was not sent for any other duty, his evidence regarding witnessing the pre-trap proceedings as well as the trap proceedings has to be suspected. 29. The appellants are charged for conspiracy to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The reading of the deposition relied on by the prosecution, this Court could not see any evidence, which could indicate meeting of mind between A1 and A2 to commit illegal act or legal by illegal means. None of the witness has spoken about A1 and A2 being involved in demand of illegal gratification. Even in the woman missing case given by PW-2 (Palani), it was only A1(Venkatachalapathy) as investigating officer done his duty and acted upon the complaint leading to rescue of Tamilselvi and her son Diwakar. The second accused role in this case does not find place in any of the records. 30. Independently, the recovery of M.O1 thali chain is assessed and analysised. First of all,, the prosecution should have established the ownership of the thali chain. The key witness could have been Tamilselvi from whom it is alleged that A1 has taken away the thali chain. There is no explanation or reason attributed by the Investigating officer why he has not examined Tamilselvi and why she was not brought to the Court to depose about the ownership of the thali chain and how it went to the hands of A1 and in turn it went to A2. 31. In the said suspicious circumstances, the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 attains significance. The motive attributed against the defacto complainant is that, after rescuing his wife Tamilselvi and her son Diwakar, the appellant(A1) produced her before the Magistrate as per the law but against the expectation of the defacto complainant to get the custody directly. Before the Magistrate, Tamilselvi has expressed her intention to go to her parents house and not with Palani. Immediately, Palani picked up quarrel with the accused for producing his wife before the Court and preventing him from taking her with him. 32. The specific case of PW-2 (Palani) in this regard is that, while his wife Tamilselvi left to her parents' house, told him that A2 has retained her thali chain. Immediately, Palani picked up quarrel with the accused for producing his wife before the Court and preventing him from taking her with him. 32. The specific case of PW-2 (Palani) in this regard is that, while his wife Tamilselvi left to her parents' house, told him that A2 has retained her thali chain. Therefore, he went to Villianur Police Station to collect the thali chain of his wife and at that time, A1(Venkatachalapathy) demanded Rs.10,000/- as reward. When the trap team went to Villianur, admittedly, A2(Saravanan) was not in station. After recovery of Rs.10,000/- from A1, A2 was called to the Villianur police station and he, according to the prosecution handed over the polythene cover containing three pieces of chain without thali. This has been recovered by the police and forwarded under Form-95 and marked before the Court as M.O.1 series. 33. The case of the defacto complainant is that his wife thali chain was taken by the accused(A1), but was recovered as three broken pieces of chain without thali. Therefore, very identification of the property has become doubtful. Only one person to clear the doubt would be the Tamilselvi, the person, who has wearing the thali. She should have been examined before the Court to identify M.O1. Series and to say it was taken by Venkatachalapathy (A1) when she was rescued from Murugan or there should be some evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW-2 that she informed PW-2 (Palani) about the said fact and told him to collect her thali chain from the accused. In the absence of evidence to that effect, the entire case of the prosecution as spoken by PW-2 is wholly unreliable. 34. Based on the unreliable evidence of PW-2(Palani), conviction of the trial Court cannot be sustained. Since the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective and the prosecution having failed to examine Tamilselvi the owner of MO-1 (series), this Court finds that the trial Court judgment cannot be sustained. 35. In the result, Both the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Puducherry dated 16.07.2014 is hereby set aside. Fine amount if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. 35. In the result, Both the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Puducherry dated 16.07.2014 is hereby set aside. Fine amount if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. Bail bond if any executed by the appellants shall be refunded to them. M.O.1 (series) boken chain (3 in number) and M.O.2 (series) currency Rs.10,000/- to be confiscated to the State.