JUDGMENT : The conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2007 passed in Spl. Case No. 2 of 2002 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Trichy are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The appellant herein was found guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding monthly bribe of Rs.1,000/- from one Peiryasamy, son of Muniyandi, under threat, if bribe money of Rs.1,000/- per month is not paid, he will foist a false case against him under the Tamil Nadu Prevention Act. 3. The facts of the case unfurled in the following manner. (i) Periyasamy was once an illicit arrack brewer. He was also arrested and convicted in the year 1996 for the said offence. Later he got reformed and leading a peaceful life as an agriculturist. However, in the beginning of the year 1999, a false case was foisted against him by Somarasampettai Police Station, Trichy District, and later he was acquitted. He has lodged a complaint to the higher authorities about the high-handedness of the prohibition wing police for foisting case against him. While so, on 04.12.2000, Head Constable Chandrasekaran, attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thiruverumber Unit called him, while he was walking along Somarasampettai Market. Told him that he shall continue to brew illicit arrack, for which he has to pay Rs.1,000/- every month, failing which, he threatened to foist cases against him. Though, he denied that he is not ready to brew illicit arrack, the accused emphasized monthly bribe and told him that he should pay the many by Saturday and also to continue to pay Rs.1,000/- every month else, he has to face criminal case. (ii) Periyasamy was not inclined to give bribe, so he met the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Trichy, on 09.12.2000 at about 12.00 hours and lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint, the respondent has arranged for trap, after conducting phenolphthalein test demonstration in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Sukumaran (P.W.3) and Kumararaja (not examined). Before proceeding to the house of the accused, the de facto complainant called him over phone. The accused informed him that he will not be available at his home on that day. Therefore, he told him to come the next day, after confirming his presence. Accordingly, the events of that day were reduced into writing by way of entrustment mahazer, Ex.P.4. The accused informed him that he will not be available at his home on that day. Therefore, he told him to come the next day, after confirming his presence. Accordingly, the events of that day were reduced into writing by way of entrustment mahazer, Ex.P.4. The subsequent decision to conclude the proceedings of the day, after confirming the non-availability of the accused, was also recorded as Ex.P.5. (iii) On 10.12.2000, at about 05.00 p.m., the de facto complainant called the accused over phone and the accused told him to come by 09.00 p.m. with money. Accordingly, the de facto complainant accompanied by Sukumaran (P.W.3) went to the house of the accused by 09.30 p.m. The trap team lead by Viswanathan (P.W.7) followed them. The accused opened the door on hearing the calling bell, invited the de facto complainant, offered seat to the de facto complainant (P.W.2) and the shadow witness (P.W.3) to sit on the bench. Demanded and received Rs.1,000/- and kept it in his shirt pocket. On receipt of the prearranged signal, the trap team entered the house of the accused. On seeing the police, the accused has thrown the money out, which fell near the bush. After conducting phenolphthalein test on the hands of the accused, the trap laying officer, collected samples of the hand wash, which are marked as M.O.2 and M.O.3. Thereafter, on enquiry, the accused showed the place, where he threw the currency. It was recovered and the numbers found in the currency were compared with the numbers recorded in the entrustment mahazer and found tallied. The said currency (10x100) is marked as M.O.1. (iv) Before the Trial Court, to prove the charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and marked 22 exhibits and 5 material objects. On the side of the defence, one witness, by name, Thiruvarutselvan, a friend of the accused, has been examined. (v) The prosecution has relied upon the complaint (Ex.P.2), entrustment mahazar on 08.12.2000 (Ex.P.4), the closure proceedings on the same day (Ex.P.5), second entrustment mahazer, dated 10.12.2000 (Ex.P.6), recovery mahazar (Ex.P.7) and, other documents relating to the case registered by Thiruverumbur Prohibition Enforcement Wing on 04.12.2000, 08.12.2000, 09.12.2000 and 10.12,2000, the general diary maintained by the police station, first information report registers and P.S.R. Registers were also marked as prosecution exhibits. (vi) The Trial Court has held that the accused being a Grade I Constable, attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thiruverumbur, has demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the de facto complainant Periyasamy on 04.12.2000, he has directed him to pay the money by 09.12.2000. Case has been registered against Peiryasamy showing him as an absconding accused in Crime No. 2243 of 2000, for offence under Section 4(1)(g) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act on 08.12.2000. Pursuant to his earlier demand, when the de facto complainant, went to his house, he has demanded Rs.1,000/- and received the same on 10.12.2000. Disbelieving the case of the defence that when the accused came to his house and requested him to help and get rid of the prohibition case, he told that he is helpless and advised the de facto complainant to meet the higher officials. 4. As a result, the Trial Court has found him guilty, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of P.C. Act and also sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act. 5. The appeal challenging the finding of the Trial Court is on the following grounds : The alleged telephone call details between the de facto complainant and the accused on 09.12.2000 and 10.12.2000 were not collected by the prosecution. It is purely an imaginary allegation that on 09.12.2000 and 10.12.2000, before proceeding to the house of the accused, the de facto complainant called him over phone. The allegation found in the complaint, Ex.P.2, that on 04.12.2000, the accused asked P.W.2 to pay bribe of Rs.1,000/- every month or he will foist case against P.W.2, is a false allegation in total and the reason for not lodging the complaint immediately is unexplained by the prosecution. P.W.2 knowing fully well that a case has been registered against him on 08.12.2000, to escape from the prosecution, has given a false complaint. The trap laying officer and the investigation officer without proper investigation has proceeded against him. P.W.3 was not present on the day of trap. He did not come to his house along with P.W.2. P.W.2 knowing fully well that a case has been registered against him on 08.12.2000, to escape from the prosecution, has given a false complaint. The trap laying officer and the investigation officer without proper investigation has proceeded against him. P.W.3 was not present on the day of trap. He did not come to his house along with P.W.2. When P.W.2 came to his house and cried holding his hands, D.W.1, Thiruvarutselvan alone was present. The falsehood in the testimony evidence of P.W.2 has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. The money was not recovered on the information given by the accused. In fact, it was planted by P.W.2 without the knowledge of the accused. The trap laying officer, who conducted phenolphthalein test of his shirt, had phenolphthalein in his hand. Therefore, the shirt pocket portion has proved positive to phenolphthalein. Since the de facto complainant held his hands and cried to held him and he opened the door to complainant to come out, the phenolphthalein in the door handle might have contacted his hands. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused would submit that there was no demand or acceptance or recovery from the appellant/accused. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 6. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the following judgments : (i) Rakesh Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2013(1) CLT (Cri) 14. (ii) P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. The District Inspector of Police and Another reported in CDJ 2015 SC 722. (iii) S.P. Paulraj v. State reported in 2009 Crl.L.J. 2107. (iv) Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana reported in (2010)3 MLJ (Crl)132 (SC). (v) A.S. Kannan v. State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai City II Detachment, Chennai - 600 020 reported in (2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 950. (vi) The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Wing, City Special Unit - I, hennai v. S.Jacob reported in CDJ 2017 MHC 6619. (vii) Unreported Judgment dated 30.08.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.580 of 2013 [S.P. Tamilarasan v. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the de facto complainant, Periyasamy was once the accused of prohibition offence. (vii) Unreported Judgment dated 30.08.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.580 of 2013 [S.P. Tamilarasan v. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the de facto complainant, Periyasamy was once the accused of prohibition offence. The revision petitioner herein, a Constable attached to Thiruverumbur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, has compelled Periyasamy to involve in illicit arrack brewing, which he has refused. On 04.12.2000, at about 10.00 a.m., the accused has called Periyasamy, while he was crossing Somarasampettai Market. He told the de facto complainant to carry on illegal arrack brewing and pay Rs.1,000/- bribe every month. He did not stop with that, but also threatened Periyasamy, if he does not pay bribe of Rs.1,000/- every month, he will foist false case against him. The above complaint of Periyasamy was given to the Inspector of Police, Visvanathan, on 09.12.2000. Since cognizable offence has been made out in the complaint, Ex.P.2, First Information Report was registered and trap was arranged to apprehend the accused. The demand of illegal gratification and threat to abuse his power on 04.12.2000, has been spoken by P.W.2 in his evidence. On 09.12.2000, before going to the house of the accused, P.W.2 has called him over phone to ascertain whether he is available at his house. Since the accused has said he is not available and instructed P.W.2 to come on the next day after calling him over phone, the trap laying officer prepared the entrustment mahazar, Ex.P.4 and also the mahazar regarding the proceedings of the day under Ex.P.5. 8. On the day of trap, on the instructions of the accused, P.W.2, went to his house at about 09.20 p.m. He was accompanied by P.W.3. The demand and acceptances is spoken by P.W.2 and P.W.3. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of the accused and shirt pocket has proved positive and the same has been spoken by the Chemical Analyst and reaffirmed in the Chemical Analysis Report. While so, on seeing the trap team, the accused threw away the currency towards the nearby bush and later recovered. The conduct of the accused throwing the money on seeing the trap team is a tell-tale evidence of his conduct, which is admissible in evidence. While so, on seeing the trap team, the accused threw away the currency towards the nearby bush and later recovered. The conduct of the accused throwing the money on seeing the trap team is a tell-tale evidence of his conduct, which is admissible in evidence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the recovery is not from the possession of the accused, is unsustainable. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the very conduct of the accused entertaining the de facto complainant into his house and keeping the name of the accused blank in the First Information Report registered on 04.12.2000 in Crime No.2227 of 2000, is a strong evidence against the appellant/accused that he has created record and forced the de facto complainant to involve in prohibition offence and threatened him of dire consequence of foisting false case, if he does not pay him bribe of Rs.1,000/- per month. Till 09.12.2000, he gave time for the de facto complainant to give bribe and if he failed to do so, thereafter, he will foist a case against the de facto complainant for prohibition offence and show him as an absconding accused. If really, Periyasamy on 09.12.2000, was involved in prohibition offence and absconded himself, why the appellant should entertain him into his house, lock the door and had one to one talk with him. Why should he advise the de facto complainant to approach the higher officials instead of apprehending him immediately, since he has involved in prohibition offence and absconding as per his office records. Therefore, pointing out the improbability of the defence version, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Point for consideration : “Whether the finding of the Trial Court that demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification proved by the prosecution, is sustainable?” 11. According to the complaint, Ex.P.2, the accused has demanded Rs.1,000/- per month, as monthly bribe. He has threatened the de facto complainant that if he does not pay money, he will foist case under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The entry in Ex.P.22, Register would go to show that the appellant herein has shown the column meant for name of the accused as “unknown” in Crime No. 2227 of 2000, dated 04.12.2000 for offence under Section 4(i)(g) of T.N.P. Act. The entry in Ex.P.22, Register would go to show that the appellant herein has shown the column meant for name of the accused as “unknown” in Crime No. 2227 of 2000, dated 04.12.2000 for offence under Section 4(i)(g) of T.N.P. Act. 100 litres of illicit arrack and two mud pots are shown as seized. On the same day, as per Ex.P.2, he has also called the de facto complainant and told him to involve in prohibition offence and had demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-. He has told the de facto complainant that he should pay the money on or before 09.12.2000 at his residence. The entry made in the Register showing the accused as “unknown” in Crime No. 2227 of 2000, dated 04.12.2000 and showing the name of the de facto complainant as an absconding accused in Crime No.2243 of 2000 registered on 08.12.2000, would clearly show that the accused has abused his office to obtain pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means. 12. The Registration of case against him on 08.12.2000 has made the de facto complainant to realize that the threat of the accused made on 04.12.2000 is not an empty threat and if he does not pay money he will foist false case and forced him to involve in prohibition offence. To lead a dignified life and to get rid of the threat of the appellant, who has bent upon to foist false case, P.W.2 has approached the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing and given the complaint Ex.P.2. 13. Therefore, the evidence produced by the prosecution cause this Court has no doubt regarding the alleged demand made by the appellant/accused on 04.12.2000 and on 09.12.2000 over phone. Later on 10.12.2000, the demand and acceptance is spoken by P.W.2 and P.W.3. There is no necessity for P.W.3 to say any falsehood against the appellant. D.W.1, a friend of the accused would say that on 10.12.2000, at about 09.30 p.m., he and the accused alone were in the house when P.W.2 came to the house. He admits that on seeing P.W.2, the accused welcomed him and entertained him in his house. The above evidence of D.W.1 fortifies the case of the prosecution that on 10.12.2000, P.W.2, who is an absconding accused as per the records maintained by the appellant/accused, has visited the house of the accused. He admits that on seeing P.W.2, the accused welcomed him and entertained him in his house. The above evidence of D.W.1 fortifies the case of the prosecution that on 10.12.2000, P.W.2, who is an absconding accused as per the records maintained by the appellant/accused, has visited the house of the accused. Instead of arresting him, in the case booked in Crime No. 2243 of 2000, on 08.12.2000, the appellant/accused has entertained him in his house and advised him to approach his higher officials to get rid of the case. This explanation itself would clearly show that the appellant/accused has only created a record as if the de facto complainant has involved in prohibition offence case so as to extract money from him and that is why he did not arrest the absconding accused, who visited his house. 14. Further, as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the very conduct of the appellant throwing the money in the bush on seeing the trap team is a conduct to draw adverse inference, coupled with the fact that the presence of phenolphthalein in his hands and shirt pocket clearly establishes the fact that M.O.1, Rs.1,000/- recovered from the premises of the appellant/accused was earlier obtained by the appellant from P.W.2 towards illegal gratification and the same has been received with corrupt and motive by abusing his official position as Constable, Prohibition Enforcement Wing. Thus, the charges framed against the appellant/accused are well established. The Judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused are factually not relevant to the case in hand, where demand, acceptance and recovery are proved beyond doubt by the prosecution and the explanation offered by the accused for the visit of P.W.2 to his house on the night of 10.12.2000 is only a false tale, which has no legs to stand. Therefore, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2007 passed in Spl. Case No. 2 of 2002 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Special Judge, Trichy are confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/ accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The bail bond if any executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.