JUDGMENT : The appeal is against the Judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai in C.C.No.11 of 2005, convicting the appellant herein for alleged offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'] and sentencing him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act and also to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. The sentence of imprisonment shall concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant was set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows : (i) A case came to be registered by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, based on the complaint given by one A.Dinakaran, against William Paulraj. According to the complaint, he had telephone service from B.S.N.L. bearing No. 244783 at his residence. He has shifted the residence to No. 17/362-A Furn Hill Road, Kodaikanal from No. 23/432-A, Furn Hill Road, Kodaikanal on 07.09.2005. He approached telephone mechanic attached to B.S.N.L. for shifting phone connection. As per his advise, he gave a requisition letter on 12.09.2005. When he met William Paulraj on 20.09.2005 and enquired about his application for shifting, William Paulraj demanded Rs.500/- as bribe and told him that if bribe of Rs.500/- is given, he will shift the service connection immediately or else, he cannot help him. Therefore, a complaint was given to the Inspector of Police, CBI, on 21.09.2005. (ii) Based on the complaint, trap was organized by the Inspector of Police, CBI, Thiru.A.Lazarus. He arranged for two independent witnesses from United India Insurance Company and demonstrated the sequence of sodium carbonate-phenolphthalein test to them and thereafter, prepared the entrustment mahazar narrating the pre-trap proceedings and incorporating the number of the currency entrusted to the de facto complainant. Dinakaran (de facto complainant) was asked to contact the accused to confirm the place of meeting. On the information given by the accused, Dinakaran (de facto complainant) along with Sivakumar, the shadow witness was sent to meet the accused and given the tainted money if the accused demands bribe. Dinakaran (de facto complainant) was asked to contact the accused to confirm the place of meeting. On the information given by the accused, Dinakaran (de facto complainant) along with Sivakumar, the shadow witness was sent to meet the accused and given the tainted money if the accused demands bribe. Further, to record the conversation between the bribe giver and the taker, a micro cassette recorder was also entrusted to Dinakaran. (iii) The accused told the de facto complainant to come and meet him near Classic Hotel. Accordingly, the trap team left to SDE (Phones), Kodaikanal at about 03.15 p.m. The de facto complainant and the shadow witness met the accused at the place he told to meet. The accused demanded bribe amount and the same was handed over by the de facto complainant. On receipt of the bribe money, the shadow witness gave the prearranged signal to the trap team, who were waiting in disguise. (iv) The trap laying officer, Mr. Lazarus after interrogating the accused, conducted phenolphthalein test in the hands of the accused. Thereafter, the bribe money was recovered from the pocket of the accused jerkin. The number found in the currency recovered tallied with the number found in the entrustment mahazar. Thus, after completion of the investigation and also after obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused, final report has been filed by the prosecution. (v) Based on the final report, the Trial Court has framed charge under Section 7 of P.C. Act alleging that the accused employed and working as Telecom Mechanic, SDE (Phones), Telephone Exchange BSNL, Kodaikanal, demanded Rs.500/- on 20.09.2005 from A.Dinakaran for shifting residential telephone connection from his old residence to new residence and that on 21.09.2005, at 02.00 p.m. to 02.15 p.m., he reduced the bribe amount of Rs.500/- to Rs.400/- on the request of the complainant and received the same. Further, as a public servant by receiving illegal gratification by corrupt and illegal means, he has committed misconduct and thereby punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act. (vi) The prosecution in order to prove the charges had examined 8 witnesses, marked 17 exhibits and 2 material objects. (vii) The Trial Court having appreciating the evidence for the prosecution and explanation provided by the accused, held the accused guilty and convicted as mentioned above. 3. (vi) The prosecution in order to prove the charges had examined 8 witnesses, marked 17 exhibits and 2 material objects. (vii) The Trial Court having appreciating the evidence for the prosecution and explanation provided by the accused, held the accused guilty and convicted as mentioned above. 3. Aggrieved accused has preferred appeal on the following grounds : (i) The Trial Court had not properly appreciated the explanation submitted on behalf of the defence. The complaint is borne out of the mala fide. The de facto complainant in order to get shifting of his telephone connection without getting no objection certificate from the neighbours, had come out with a false complaint against the accused. (ii) The material contradiction found in the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7 had failed to weigh the mind of the Trial Judge. The evidence of these three witnesses are full of contradiction, discrepancy and the same is fatal to the prosecution. (iii) The complaint of demand of illegal gratification, which is marked as Ex.P.4, does not contain any endorsement to indicate that it was received by the Superintendent, CBI, Chennai, to whom, it is addressed or Lazarus, the trap laying officer. The First Information Report registered on the basis of the complaint is dated 21.09.2005, wherein the date of information is shown as 20.09.2005. Therefore, the complaint, dated 20.09.2005, upon which the First Information Report registered has not been placed before the Court, which is fatal to the prosecution. (iv) From the evidence of P.W.5, it is made clear that shifting of telephone line cannot be sanctioned without no objection certificate from the land owner. However, the BSNL has shifted the telephone to the complainant's new residence without obtaining no objection certificate, which would clearly show that the complaint itself was filed to overcome getting no objection certificate from the house owner. (v) The alteration in the record, discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution case in addition to failure to produce the transcription and prove the genuineness of the transcription alleged to have been found in the micro cassette, is germane to the case. The prosecution has failed to prove it beyond doubt. The transcription found in the micro cassette is not proved in the manner known to law. The voice test of the accused was not conducted to confirm whether the voice found in the micro cassette is that of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove it beyond doubt. The transcription found in the micro cassette is not proved in the manner known to law. The voice test of the accused was not conducted to confirm whether the voice found in the micro cassette is that of the accused. The appellant herein is entitled for acquittal. However, the Trial Court had not gone into the merits of the evidence let in by the prosecution and has erroneously held the accused guilty. (vi) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would forcibly submit that the de facto complainant had animosity against the appellant and when he sought for shifting the telephone line without getting no objection certificate from the land owner, the appellant refused to concede his illegal request. Aggrieved by that, he had given a false complaint to the CBI with false allegation. (vii) On 21.09.2005, Dinakaran met him and told that Thangamani is calling him. When he came out, Dinakaran tried to thrust something in his jerkin. He pushed it away. The money fell down. Two or three persons came and detained him illegally in the false case. This explanation has not been properly considered by the Court below. 4. In support of the above said submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would rely upon several Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court : (i) Mere recovery of tainted money cannot be a ground to presume or sufficient to prove demand and acceptance of bribe to convict the accused [A.Subair v. State of Kerala reported in (2010)1 MLJ (Crl) 995 (SC)]. (ii) When the demand and acceptance of money is not proved, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt and conviction of accused cannot be based on inference. [Banarsi Das v. State of Haryana reported in (2010)3 MLJ (Crl) 132 (SC)] (iii) When possible explanation is adduced by the accused for the presence of money in his position, the presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act should not be drawn against the accused. [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in (2009)3 Supreme Court Cases 779]. (iv) Failure to record the statement of the accused immediately after the trap, is fatal to the prosecution. [Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Vellore v. M.L. Rajan, Asst. Educational Officer, Thimiri, Arcot Taluk reported in 2013-2-L.W.(Crl.)157]. 5. [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in (2009)3 Supreme Court Cases 779]. (iv) Failure to record the statement of the accused immediately after the trap, is fatal to the prosecution. [Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Vellore v. M.L. Rajan, Asst. Educational Officer, Thimiri, Arcot Taluk reported in 2013-2-L.W.(Crl.)157]. 5. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases would submit that the appellant, a public servant working as telecom mechanic (lineman), (SDE Phones), BSNL, Kodaikanal had demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification to shift the telephone line of the de facto complainant from his old residence to the new residence. Dinakran (P.W.3) gave application to P.W.3 for shifting his telephone from his old address to the new residential address. Since the appellant/accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500/- for shifting, the complaint (Ex.P.4), dated 21.09.2005 was given to the CBI addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai. After making a preliminary enquiry about the veracity of the complaint as well as the credential of the accused person, case was registered against him and as per instruction of the Superintendent of Police, CBI at Chennai, Lazarus, trap laying officer, proceeded with the trap. Ex.P.12, the letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, informing the receipt of complaint and the discreet enquiry conducted by Lazarus will prove that only after a proper verification, trap was laid and succeeded. The independent witnesses have corroborated the version of the de facto complainant (P.W.3) regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the recovery of Rs.400/- from the possession of the accused has been strongly proved by the witnesses to the recovery. The prosecution is able to establish cogently the sequence of events through de facto complainant (P.W.3) and Sivakumar (P.W.4), the shadow witness. P.W.6 Sivashilam, a staff of BSNL, has deposed about the recovery of all the incriminating materials. Therefore, not mere recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused is proved, but also the demand of illegal gratification coupled with the recovery from him is also proved beyond doubt. Whereas the explanation given by the accused for the possession of the tainted money has been found to be utter falsehood, since P.W.5, Thangamani, the Junior Telecom Officer, had been examined by the prosecution, who had said nothing to corroborate the explanation offered by the accused. 6. Whereas the explanation given by the accused for the possession of the tainted money has been found to be utter falsehood, since P.W.5, Thangamani, the Junior Telecom Officer, had been examined by the prosecution, who had said nothing to corroborate the explanation offered by the accused. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases would further submit that the Trial Court had analysed the evidence of the prosecution very meticulously in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court covering the legal issue and had come to the right conclusion of convicting the accused. The Trial Court has listed out the version of the accused and ruled out none of the explanation probabilises the defence. 7. Point for consideration : “Whether the finding of the Trial Court needs any interference having given a conscious consideration to the evidence placed before this Court and the grounds of appeal?” 8. This Court would find the following facts are not disputed. The de facto complainant (P.W.3) is a subscriber of BSNL having Phone No.244783. He had given an application for shifting the phone line from old address to his new residential address. The said application is Ex.P.3. From the evidence of P.W.6, it is clear that for shifting, the subscriber need not pay any money. From the evidence of P.W.5, it is also proved that no objection certificate from the land owner is required for shifting the phone. The accused himself accepts that on 21.09.2005, P.W.3 met him and thrusted something inside his jerkin. With these admitted facts, when the evidence let in by the prosecution is tested, this Court finds no reason to doubt the prosecution case. 9. Dinakaran (P.W.3) is a customer of BSNL and unnecessarily he need not give a complaint against a staff of BSNL, unless he is some way aggrieved. No subscriber will get aggrieved if he is told that his landlord should give no objection certificate for shifting. Therefore, the ground of motive attributed against P.W.3, does not carry any merit. 10. Regarding the demand of illegal gratification, the evidence of P.W.3 is corroborated by the evidence of Sivakumar (P.W.4), Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company. No subscriber will get aggrieved if he is told that his landlord should give no objection certificate for shifting. Therefore, the ground of motive attributed against P.W.3, does not carry any merit. 10. Regarding the demand of illegal gratification, the evidence of P.W.3 is corroborated by the evidence of Sivakumar (P.W.4), Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company. He has deposed about the complaint given by P.W.3 to trap laying officer, meeting of the accused along with P.W.3 in front of Classic Hotel on 21.09.2005 at about 12.00 to 12.30 noon, heard the demand of bribe by the accused and reducing the amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.400/-. The conversation has been recorded in the micro cassette and later transcribed, which is also marked as Ex.P.7, since voice of accused has not been subjected to voice test and transcription, need not be relied. But the eye witness to the demand had spoken about the same and therefore no better evidence is required to hold that the accused demanded bribe for facilitating the shifting of the telephone line. 11. The discrepancies regarding the receipt of the complaint forwarding it to Chennai and registration of FIR as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, does not carry much significance in view of the explanation the manner in which the complaint was received and forwarded to the head office at Chennai by FAX, receipt of authorisation to proceed over telephone and pursuant to the said authorisation, P.W.7 has proceeded with the trap arrangement. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.7, who had come down from Chennai to Kodaikanal, pursuant to the information given by P.W.3. Post trap proceedings and the enquiry conducted by P.W.7 is fully corroborated by P.W.6. In the said circumstances, the minor discrepancies which is natural in any criminal prosecution will not go to the root of the prosecution case to disbelieve it. The evidence of prosecution adequately proved beyond doubt the charge against the accused. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the Judgment of the Trial Court. 12. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and sentence dated 20.12.2006 passed in C.C.No.11 of 2005 by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai is confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 12. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and sentence dated 20.12.2006 passed in C.C.No.11 of 2005 by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai is confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellant 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.