JUDGMENT G. JAYACHANDRAN, J. 1. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.04.2009 passed in C.C.No.11 of 2007 by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai is being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The appellant herein, former Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force [hereinafter referred to as 'RPF'] in charge of Milavittan Out Post in the office of Tuticorin, was tried for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'] for receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 2,500/- from one Paramasivam, Scrap Steel Merchant, for not prosecuting him for receiving stolen railway properties. The Trial Court found him guilty of both the charges and sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act and also sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. The period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently and the period of imprisonment already undergone was set off. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present criminal appeal is filed. 3. The brief facts leading to the appeal and the grounds raised in the of appeal are as under: (i) One Paramasivam, Scrap Steel Merchant at Tuticorin has lodged a complaint against the accused alleging that on 13.03.2007 under the guise of investigating a theft case, in which his brother Ganesan was one of the suspect, the accused herein demanded Rs. 2,500/- for not registering a false criminal case against him. Not inclined to give bribe, the complaint to Superintendent of Police was forwarded and the same was taken up for investigation by laying a trap. (ii) Accordingly, on 14.03.2007, trap was laid. When Paramasivam contacted Balakrishnan, over phone, he informed that he is on way to Tirunelveli and will meet him at Tirunelveli-Madurai bypass signal at about 15.30 hours and receive the bribe. Accordingly, trap team along with the de facto complainant and the shadow witness went near Tirunelveli-Madurai bypass road signal. The accused came to the junction and on seeing the complainant, he came near the tea stall and demanded the bribe amount. Accordingly, trap team along with the de facto complainant and the shadow witness went near Tirunelveli-Madurai bypass road signal. The accused came to the junction and on seeing the complainant, he came near the tea stall and demanded the bribe amount. Paramasivam took out the bribe amount from his left side shirt pocket and gave it to the accused. Receiving the bribe amount, the accused kept it in his shirt pocket. The trap team waiting in disguise, surrounded the accused. (iii) The right and left hands of the accused were dipped in the colour-less sodium carbonate solution. The solution colour turned pink. Since the test proved positive to the presence of phenolphthalein, samples from the solution were drawn and sealed. The accused produced the bribe amount of Rs. 2,500/- from his left side shirt pocket, which was compared and tallied with the numbers recorded in the entrustment mahazar. Hence, the bribe amount was seized under mahazar. The pocket portion of the shirt was also subjected to sodium carbonate solution test and sample was drawn. After completion of the investigation, along with Forensic Science Department Report and sanction to prosecute, the prosecution has laid the final report. (iv) Based on the final report, the trial Court has framed charge under Section 7 of P.C. Act for demand of illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 2,500/- from A. Paramasivam and further threatened him that if he failed to give bribe, false criminal case will be foisted against him as a receiver of stolen railway property. In furtherance of the said demand, on 13.03.2007, he received Rs. 2,500/- from Paramasivam on 14.03.2007 and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act for abusing his official position to obtain for himself pecuniary advantage of Rs. 2,500/- by corrupt and illegal means. (v) To prove the charges, the Trial Court has examined 11 witnesses and marked 19 exhibits and 5 material objects. To establish his innocence, the accused has submitted Ex.D.1, which is a statement given by Paramasivam (P.W.3) to the Inspector (accused) that he was summoned 11.03.2007 in connection with railway property theft case. He sometimes purchased railway properties innocently and he is ready to cooperate for investigation and appear before him as and when summoned. To establish his innocence, the accused has submitted Ex.D.1, which is a statement given by Paramasivam (P.W.3) to the Inspector (accused) that he was summoned 11.03.2007 in connection with railway property theft case. He sometimes purchased railway properties innocently and he is ready to cooperate for investigation and appear before him as and when summoned. (vi) The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution and the defence, has found the accused guilty and has sentenced him as stated above. (vii) The prosecution case stands on the deposition of the de facto complainant (P.W.3), who has deposed in support of his complaint (Ex.P.5), wherein he has narrated about the visit of the accused to his shop on 13.03.2007 at about 02.30 p.m. and asked him to appear before him at RPF Police Station for enquiry. Accordingly, at 03.30 p.m., he went to RPF Police Station and met the accused and at that time, he threatened the de facto complainant that he has received information about the de facto complainant regarding receipt of railway property and to allow him go scot-free, demanded bribe of Rs. 2,500/- and directed him to bring the money on 14.03.2007 at 11.00 a.m. near Railway Station Pillaiyar Temple. If bribe money is not given, P.W.3 was threatened by the accused that he will foist false case against P.W.3. This content of the complaint, besides calling the accused over phone to know where the bribe money should be given and the trap proceedings, are cogently spoken by the prosecution witness/P.W.3 in his deposition. The same being corroborated by the shadow witness Gurusamy(P.W.4). Based on these witnesses and other corroborative evidence regarding material facts, the Trial Court has held the accused guilty. 4. In this appeal, the appellant/accused contended that there is material contradiction between the witnesses for prosecution and the same has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the facts as found in the sanction to prosecute and the deposition of P.W.2 and the content of the complaint are contrary to each other. When the prosecution case is that initially the accused demanded Rs. 7,500/-, later reduced to Rs. 2,500/-, the same has not been proved through the prosecution witnesses. The sanction to prosecute the accused was accorded without application of mind and perusal of records. When the prosecution case is that initially the accused demanded Rs. 7,500/-, later reduced to Rs. 2,500/-, the same has not been proved through the prosecution witnesses. The sanction to prosecute the accused was accorded without application of mind and perusal of records. P.W.1 admits that the sanction order was prepared without he knowing the exact meaning of certain words and gist of the provisions of P.C. Act. Since the sanction is irregular and invalid, the prosecution gets vitiated. On the very next day of issuing sanction to prosecute, the final report has been filed by the prosecution, which improbabilises proper application of mind. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would further submit that the allegation of demand on 11.03.2007 and 12.03.2007 are not proved through reliable witnesses. While the complaint indicates that the accused fixed Pillaiyar Temple as place of receiving bribe, the real trap spot was Madurai-Tirunelveli bypass as found in the recovery mahazar. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the entire documents relied on by the prosecution were not prepared in the manner in which the prosecution has stated, but prepared elsewhere to suit the false case of the prosecution. 6. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would submit that Ganesan (P.W.5), the younger brother of the de facto complainant had deposed before the Court that on 11.03.2007 at about 08.30 p.m., the accused along with others came to his house and enquired about his brother Paramasivam (P.W.3) and thereafter took him to Tuticorin RPF Police Station. One Isaac demanded Rs. 5,000/- and also induced him to sign in the blank papers and left him to go home. Thereafter, he tried to contact his brother and informed about the enquiry made by the accused and his team of police. Since he was not able to contact his brother over phone, he conveyed the message to Samuvelu (P.W.6) that police came in search of Paramasivam (de facto complainant) and since he was not available they have taken him [Ganesan, brother of Paramasivam] to police station. Later Paramasivam was taken to police station by the accused in the night of 11.03.2007. He was pressurised to give money or to face false criminal case. 7. Later Paramasivam was taken to police station by the accused in the night of 11.03.2007. He was pressurised to give money or to face false criminal case. 7. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would submit that the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6, on a cumulative reading, is unimpeachable regarding the illegal demand made by the accused under the threat of foisting criminal case. As a consequence, P.W.3 has lodged the complaint and pursuant to that, trap was laid and the tainted money of Rs. 2,500/- received by the accused from the de facto complainant was soon-after recovered under mahazar on completion of the trap. 8. In this regard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would refer the recovery mahazar (Ex.P.7), chemical analysis report (Ex.P.3) and the depositions of the de facto complainant (P.W.3), the shadow witness (P.W.4) and Ganesan (P.W.5), who has corroborated the evidence of P.W.3. 9. Point for consideration: "Whether there is any material contradiction in the prosecution case which missed the notice of the Trial Court while convicting the accused?" 10. Mr. N. Venkataramulu, Head Constable (P.W.9), who was working along with the accused during the relevant point of time, is the pivotal witness for the prosecution which lends support to the case of the de facto complainant. According to this witness, on 11.03.2007, at about 08.30 p.m., he under the leadership of Balakrishnan, Assistant Sub Inspector (accused) went along with one Anto, accused in a theft case to identify the shop which he alleged to have sold the stolen railway property. Though, nobody was in the shop, on enquiry through the neighbouring shop owner, they came to know that the brother of the shop owner is residing nearby. So, they went to the house of Ganesan, who is the brother of Balakrishnan (de facto complainant in this case). They have brought Ganesan to the RPF Police Station at Tuticorin by 09.00 p.m. The accused has enquired Ganesan about his brother Paramasivan, got the phone number of Paramasivam and also signature from Ganesan and made him to wait. Thereafter, Paramasivam come to RPF Police Station. The accused enquired Paramasivam whether he has purchased any railway property. When he denied, the signatures were obtained from Paramasivam in a blank paper. 11. According to this witness (P.W.9), at about 11.00 p.m., they have taken Anto in an auto to Milavittan Police Station. Thereafter, Paramasivam come to RPF Police Station. The accused enquired Paramasivam whether he has purchased any railway property. When he denied, the signatures were obtained from Paramasivam in a blank paper. 11. According to this witness (P.W.9), at about 11.00 p.m., they have taken Anto in an auto to Milavittan Police Station. On 12.03.2007, Paramsivam (de facto complainant) came to RPF Police Station at about 10.00 a.m. and he was again interrogated. When he denied any purchase of stolen property, Assistant Sub Inspector demanded money from the de facto complainant for not registering the case against him. The further deposition of this witness (P.W.9) is that soon-after he left the station to produce the accused before the Magistrate for remand. This portion of the evidence of P.W.9 totally corroborates with the evidence of Paramsivam (P.W.3) and his brother Ganesan (P.W.5). 12. The defence side document Ex.D.1 also only fortifies the fact that on 11.03.2007, Paramasivam was brought to RPF Police Station, Tuticorin by the accused. From the evidence of Paramasivam (P.W.3), Gurusamy (P.W.4) and Lavakumar (P.W.10), the demand of illegal gratification on the day of trap and obtaining the money by the accused and recovery of the same, are proved. 13. The place of receiving the bribe money had been fixed by the accused over phone. This has been spoken by P.W.3 in his deposition and therefore, both on the day earlier and on the day of trap, it was the accused who has fixed the place of receiving bribe and the trap team has acted accordingly. 14. Gurusamy (P.W.4) is the shadow witness, who has assisted the prosecution on the request of the trap laying officer. He has no ill-will towards the accused. The evidence of this witness which is quite natural and cogent, narrates about the pre-trap proceedings, entrustment of tainted money to P.W.3, arrival to Pillaiyar Temple on 14.03.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., waiting for the accused till 10.50 a.m. and thereafter, the phone call made to the accused and his response to come near Tirunelveli-Madurai bypass junction, are all stand proved and unimpeachable. 15. 15. Meeting of accused and Paramasivam (P.W.3) near Guru Cafeteria, receipt of tainted money by the accused from Paramasivam (P.W.3) and thereafter the trap team surrounded the accused on receiving prearranged signal also spoken by this witness, which is in consonance to the prosecution case spoken through other witnesses and mahazar drawn and signed by the witnesses. 16. Though it is contended that Paramsivam (P.W.3) and Ganesan (P.W.5) are brothers and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon being interested witnesses, the Trial Court has not based the conviction solely on the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5. The overwhelming evidence let in by the prosecution through independent witness Gurusamy (P.W.4), co-staff of the accused, N.Venkataramulu (P.W.9), the evidence of the trap laying officer (P.W.10) and recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused, which was entrusted to P.W.3 few hours earlier to the trap proceedings were all cumulatively taken note by the Trial Court, which has led to conviction of the accused. The contradictions and infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would no way lead to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 17. In the light of the overwhelming evidence against the appellant/accused placed by the prosecution through the P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.9 coupled with the recovery of tainted currency marked as M.O.4, this Court finds that there is no material to interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court and therefore, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.04.2009 passed in C.C.No.11 of 2007 by the learned 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.