JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Dindigul in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2003, dated 29.08.2005. 2. The appellant herein is the sole accused in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2003, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Dindigul, who convicted the accused to undergo 6 months S.I., and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, 2 months S.I., for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act., 1988 and also to undergo 1 year S.I., and a fine of Rs.4000/-, in default, 3 months S.I., for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the said accused challenging the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution is that while the accused officer was working as Inspector of Police in Chathirapatti Police Station, Dindigul, he demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as 'mamool', on 04.04.2002, at about 8.30 a.m., from P.W.2/Periyasamy/Complainant, who run the licensed Wine Shop, under the name and style of 'Velmurugan Wines', at Chathirapatti, as illegal gratification, to run the said shop peacefully without any interruption and also who desist from making raid on his licensed wine shop. 4. Pursuant to the earlier demand, the accused reiterated his demand again on 03.04.2002 at 3.30 a.m., in Palani Town Police Station from the said Periyasamy and the said Periyasamy expressed his inability to part with the amount. Hence, the accused directed him to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- at first instance on 04.04.2002 and instructed him to settle the balance amount of Rs.5000/-, a week thereafter. 5. In pursuance of the above demand, when the said Periyasamy met the accused on a call given by the accused at Chathirapatti Police Station on 04.04.2002 between 11.42 Hrs and 11.55 Hrs, the accused reiterated his demand and received a sum of Rs.5000/-, as gratification other than legal remuneration from the said Periyasamy and thereby, the accused had committed the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, being a public servant, by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official business. 6. 6. Since the accused denies the case of the prosecution, the following witnesses were examined by the prosecution, to prove the charges;- P.W.1/Kudavala/Superintendent of Police, spoken about issuing the order of sanction to prosecute the accused; P.W.2/Periyasami, spoken about the written complaint given against the accused, preparation and signing of the FIR, entrustment mahazar, trap proceedings and demand and handing over the bribe amount to the accused; P.W.3/Kanagaraj to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 in giving complaint, preparation of entrustment mahazar, and demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused; P.W.4/Kathiresan to speak about the preparation of entrustment mahazar he was accompanying with P.Ws.2 and 3, to witness the conversation between P.W.2 and the accused, acceptance of tainted money by the accused from P.W.2 and also preparation of recovery mahazar and house search of the accused etc.; P.W.5/Selvam spoke about the details of incoming and outgoing calls for the Mobile No.9842141116 in the name of P.W.2 and the Mobile No.9842124497 in the name of accused; P.W.6/Palanisamy spoken about visiting to the Office of Vigilance and Anticorruption in his car driven by him with P.Ws.2 and 3 and also Chathirapatti Police Station.; P.W.7/Kaleeswaran/Sub Inspector spoken about the arrest of the accused and handing over of Rs.725/- to the wife of the accused; P.W.8/Boopathi Raj spoken about the sale of Ambassador car, bearing Registration No.TAG 4884, to one Senthil; P.W.9/Palanisamy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, spoken about convening the monthly meeting on 03.04.2002 at Palani Town Police Station in which the accused participated; P.W.10/K.Subash Chandrabose/Trap Laying Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Dindigul, spoken about the receipt of the complaint from P.W.2, registration of the case and conducting trap proceedings including the arrest of the accused and conducting the search of the hose of the accused; P.W.11/R.Govindarajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai, spoken about the investigation conducted, recording the statement of the witnesses, seizure of the register, obtaining sanction order and filing of charge sheet. 7. Prosecution has marked Exs.P1 to P16 and M.Os.1 to 8 through its witnesses. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned/examined under Section 313-(b) Cr.P.C., in respect of incriminating evidences found in the prosecution side against him. 7. Prosecution has marked Exs.P1 to P16 and M.Os.1 to 8 through its witnesses. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned/examined under Section 313-(b) Cr.P.C., in respect of incriminating evidences found in the prosecution side against him. The accused denied the prosecution evidence as false and untrue and also filed his written statement under Section 314 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 to 8 were marked as defence evidence on the side of the accused. 8. The trial Court considered the evidences adduced by both sides and convicted the accused as stated supra. 9. Admittedly, the accused being a public servant was working as Inspector of Police, Chathirapatti Police Station, Palani Sub Dividion, Dindigul District. The defacto complainant/P.W.2 was running a licensed liquor shop, viz., 'Velmuurgan Wines', at Chathirapatti Police limit. It is further admitted in the evidence of prosecution that P.W.3 was not only a partner, but also Manager of the said wine shop. P.W.6 was also another partner of the said wine shop and the licence of the said shop was in the name of P.W.2. Ex.P14/FIR was registered on the basis of the written complaint signed by P.W.2 and attested by P.W.3, as witness, which is marked as Ex.P2. As per the complaint, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as mamool from P.W.2, in the presence of P.W.3, on 02.04.2002 at 08.30 a.m., in his residence/Police Quarters at Oddanchatram to run the wine shop peacefully and if not, he would register cases and he instructed P.W.2 to bring the said amount on 03.04.2002 at 08.00 a.m., at Palani Town Police Station, when he would come and attend a meeting there. 10. It is further stated that P.W.2 along with P.W.3 came to Palani Town Police Station on 03.04.2002 at 8.00 a.m., and P.W.2 expressed his inability to part with the demanded amount, when the accused reiterated his earlier demand and he also directed P.W.2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- at first instance on 04.04.2002 and to settle the balance amount of Rs.5,000/-, a week thereafter. Since P.W.2/Complainant was not willing to pay any amount as bribe, as demanded by the accused, he preferred a complaint. Since P.W.2/Complainant was not willing to pay any amount as bribe, as demanded by the accused, he preferred a complaint. P.W.2/complainant has categorically admitted that the accused at Chathirapatti Police Station did not register any case against the 'Velmurugan Wineshop' and its employees at any time and the accused did not conduct any raid at 'Velmurugan Wine Shop' at any time. However, the demand of 'mamool' amount of Rs.10,000/- on 02.04.2002 and on 03.04.2002 at his residence and Palani Town Police Station respectively from P.W.2, in the presence of P.W.3, is proved in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, though P.W.3 was declared as hostile witness by the prosecution during his chief examination. 11. P.W.3 has categorically admitted and support the case of the prosecution during evidence in respect of demand of Rs.10,000/- on 02.04.2002 and 03.04.2002 to run 'Velmurugan Wine Shop' peacefully. P.W.3 has further stated during his evidence that the accused reiterated the demand of Rs.10,000/- on 03.04.2002 and directed P.W.2 to pay Rs.5,000/-, as first instalment on 04.04.2002, and the balance amount of Rs.5000/-, a week thereafter. P.W.2 expressed his inability to pay the demand amount of Rs.10000/-. Admittedly, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the well known persons to the accused even prior to the alleged demand. 12. The evidence of P.W.5 proves the fact that Mobile No.9842124497 stands in the name of accused and Mobile No.9842141116 stands in the name of P.W.2 and calls were made on 01.04.2002 at 11.20.37 Hrs, on 02.04.2002 at 18.57.56 Hrs and on 04.04.2002 10.08.05 Hrs from Mobile No.9842124497 to Mobile No.9842141116/(Ex.P11) and on 02.04.2002 at 20.17.43 Hrs., and on 04.04.2002 at 09.20.41 Hrs from Mobile No. 9842141116 to Mobile No..9842124497 (Ex.P12). 13. P.W.2 has deposed during his evidence that he received a call from the accused on 01.04.2002 at about 08.00 p.m., asking him come to his residence on the next day morning at about 08.30 a.m., and he went to his residence accordingly with P.W.3 and a demand of Rs.10,000/- was made by the accused, in the presence of P.W.3 and P.W.2 was directed to give the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the accused on the next day morning at about 08.00 Hrs at Palani Town Police Station. P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the Palani Town Police Station on 03.04.2002 at 08.00 a.m., and saw the accused and he reiterated the same demand. P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the Palani Town Police Station on 03.04.2002 at 08.00 a.m., and saw the accused and he reiterated the same demand. P.W.2 expressed his inability to pay such amount and the accused instructed P.W.2 to pay Rs.5,000/- at first on next day and to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/-, a week thereafter. 14. P.W.9 has deposed that the accused came on 03.04.2002 to Palani Town Police Station, for attending the monthly meeting held between 9.30 a.m., to 2.30 p.m. P.W.3 also corroborated the same in his evidence regarding the demands made by the accused on 02.04.2002 and 03.04.2002. P.W.3 further corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 demanding the amount of Rs.5,000/- by the accused on 04.04.2002 and received the same from P.W.2 in the Chathirapatti Police Station between 11.35 to 11.40 Hrs. The factum of demand of gratification prior to the trap is established through the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with documentary evidence of Ex.P2 and acceptance of tainted currency notes of Rs.5,000/- by the accused from P.W.2 is also established through the evidence of P.Ws,2, 3 and 4. 15. So, a demand of Rs.10,000/- as 'mamool', for conducting the 'Velmurugan Wine Shop' peacefully and without any interruption, was made on 02.04.2002 and 03.04.2002 by the accused in his residence and Palani Town Police Station respectively from P.W.2 in the presence of P.W3 is proved and also demand and receipt of Rs.5,000/-, in the presence of P.W.3, on 04.04.2002, by the accused in Chathirapatti Police Station from P.W.2 is also proved by the prosecution. 16. Phenolphthalein Sodium Corbonate test was conducted upon both hand washes and pant pocket wash of the accused in the presence of the witnesses after receipt of tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- (M.O.1 and M.O.2 series) from P.W.2 by the accused and such test ended positive. P.W.4/shadow witness has also deposed that he has seen the accused receiving the tainted currency of Rs.5000/- (M.O.1 and M.O.2 series) from P.W.2 on 04.04.2002 in Chathirapatti Police Station. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would contend that M.O.1 and M.O.2 series, amount seized from the accused on 04.04.2002 by P.W.10/trap laying officer, is not a bribe amount, as contended by the prosecution and the said amount is a loan amount, payable by P.W.3, to the accused, which was received by P.W.3 from the accused some days back. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would contend that M.O.1 and M.O.2 series, amount seized from the accused on 04.04.2002 by P.W.10/trap laying officer, is not a bribe amount, as contended by the prosecution and the said amount is a loan amount, payable by P.W.3, to the accused, which was received by P.W.3 from the accused some days back. P.W.3 has deposed during his cross-examination that he received a sum of Rs.5000/- as hand loan from the accused prior to 01.04.2002 and paid the same to the accused on 04.04.2002 through P.W.2, since the accused has to go Chennai on that day. P.W.2 did not depose as stated by P.W.3. P.W.3 did not say that the accused demanded his loan amount from him prior to 04.04.2002, but P.W.3 has categorically stated that the accused has demanded Rs.10,000/- from P.W.2 alone to run his Wines Shop on 02.04.2002 and 03.04.2002. 18. P.W.4 has deposed as follows:- xxx xxx xxx 19. P.W.10/Trap laying Officer has deposed as follows:- xxx xxx xxx 20. As per the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, accused demanded and directed P.W.2 to bring Rs.5,000/-, first instalment out of Rs.10,000/- on 04.04.2002 at Chathirapatti Police Station and received the said amount from P.W.2 and not from P.W.3 on 04.04.2002, which was witnessed directly by P.Ws.3 and 4. But different explanation was offered for the receipt of tainted notes of Rs.5,000/- seized from the accused immediately to the trap laying officer, who examined the accused. 21. Hence, the accused has offered inconsistent explanation, when the same question was put forth to P.W.2 by way of suggestion during cross- examination he denied the same. Initially the accused had stated that he asked the hand loan of Rs.5,000/- from P.W.2 and immediately changed his version by saying that P.W.3 had received a hand loan of Rs.5,000/- from him some time back, which was given back while demanded on 04.04.2002. The allegations made in Ex.P2/complaint given by P.W.2 are corroborated and proved in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who wrote the contents narrated by P.W.2 22. The explanation offered by the accused immediately to the Trap Laying Officer, after seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 series, is not only inconsistent, but also unbelievable one. P.W.2 has also admitted that he did not operate the tap recorder during conversation between the accused and P.W.2, on 04.04.2002. The explanation offered by the accused immediately to the Trap Laying Officer, after seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 series, is not only inconsistent, but also unbelievable one. P.W.2 has also admitted that he did not operate the tap recorder during conversation between the accused and P.W.2, on 04.04.2002. P.W.1/Sanctioning Authority had considered all those materials placed before him and accorded sanction. 23. In the above stated circumstances this Court concludes that the illegal demand and acceptance of the amount from P.W.2/complainant by the accused is proved by the prosecution and the prosecution has also established the case and guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the conviction passed by the trial Court in its Judgment dated 29.08.2005. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the accused and make him to undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2003.