JUDGMENT : 1. The respondent/accused faced trial in Special Case No.1 of 2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum- Special Court, Karur, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was acquitted on 30.12.2005, aggrieved by which, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal against acquittal after obtaining special leave. 2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned counsel for the accused. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as under: 3.1. 2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned counsel for the accused. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as under: 3.1. The accused was working as Junior Engineer in Inam Karur Town Panchayat and that he had demanded bribe of Rs.10,800/- from Ilanchezian (P.W.2) and Thirumalai (P.W.3), who were Contractors, for having cleared their bills to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-; that Ilanchezian (P.W.2) and Thirumalai (P.W.3) were not willing to pay the bribe and hence, they approached the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department; that Ilanchezian (P.W.2) gave a written complaint Ex.P.2 on 10.06.1999, based on which, Viswanathan (P.W.12), the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered a case in Crime No.15 of 1999 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and organized a trap by requisitioning the services of Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4) from Agricultural Department and Baskaran (P.W.11) from Dairy Development Department; that the trap laying officer explained the process of trap to Ilanchezian (P.W.2), Thirumalai (P.W.3), Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4) and Baskaran (P.W.11) and demonstrated to them the phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate tests, after which, he prepared a pre-trap mahazar Ex.P- 4; that the trap party proceeded to the Office of the accused around 04.15 p.m on 10.06.1999; that Tihrumalai (P.W.3), to whom the tainted money of Rs.10,800/- was given, was directed to proceed to the Office of the accused along with Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4), the shadow witness; that when they went to the Office, they did not find the accused and his office was locked; that the trap party waited for sometime and around 06.30 p.m., the accused came to the Office and thereafter, Thirumalai (P.W.3) and Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4), went inside and after sometime, they both came out and Thirumalai (P.W.3) gave the pre-arranged signal, pursuant to which, the Investigating Officer along with Ilanchezian (P.W.2), Baskaran (P.W.11) and other Police Officials zeroed in on the accused; that thereafter, the post-trap procedure of making the accused dip his fingers in Sodium Carbonate Solution etc., was done and the tainted money was recovered from him and that the accused was placed under arrest and after completing the investigation, Ambigabathi (P.W.14), the Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a final report in Special Case No.1 of 2001, which was taken on file by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Karur. 3.2. 3.2. On the appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed and the accused pleaded "not guilty". 3.3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, marked 47 Exhibits and 7 Material Objects. On behalf of the accused 8 Exhibits were marked and no witness was examined on his side. 3.4. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same and gave some explanations. 3.5. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and hearing other side, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment in Special Case No.1 of 2001 on 30.12.2005. Hence, the appeal. 4. Some facts that are admitted by both sides are that: (a) the accused was the Junior Engineer in Inam Karur Town Panchayat from 14.12.1998 to the date of trap, namely 10.06.1999; (b) Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was a Contractor, who had bagged certain Civil contracts, like road laying, etc., of the Panchayat; (c) Thirumalai (P.W.3) was actively assisting him in the contract work. 5. 5. Ilanchezian (P.W.2), in his evidence before the Trial Court, had stated that he is a B.E. Graduate; that he is a registered Contractor with the Karur Town Panchayat Union; that Thirumalai (P.W.3) is also a registered Contractor; that Thirumalai (P.W.3) is his friend and, therefore, Thirumalai (P.W.3) would assist him in his contract work; that he had taken two contract works for Rs.1,07,000/- and Rs.73,000/- (Totally Rs,1,80,000/-), three years back and had executed the same; that the accused was the Junior Engineer, who was in-charge of supervising the said two contract works; that when he asked the accused to complete the measurements, the accused demanded 6% commission amounting to Rs.10,800/- as bribe; that he told the accused that the contract work has been executed without any faults; that the accused told him that he would clear the bills for these two contracts, but, he should pay Rs.10,800/- at the time of executing the other contracts; that he completed the other contract works and requested the accused to do the measurements and at that time, the accused reiterated the earlier demand of Rs.10,800/- and told him that only if the amount is paid, he will make entries in the measurement book; that this demand was made in June, 1999; that the accused asked him to bring Rs.10,800/- in two or three days and that Ilanchezian (P.W.2) agreed and said that he would send the money through Thirumalai (P.W.3); and that Ilanchezian (P.W.2) and Thirumalai (P.W.3) did not want to give any bribe and, therefore, they lodged the complaint on 10.06.1999, which was marked as Ex.P.2, based on which, Viswanathan (P.W.12) registered the First Information Report. Thereafter, Ilanchezian (P.W.2) has stated about the pre-trap mahazar proceedings, about which, there appears to be no dispute. 6. In the cross-examination of Ilanchezian (P.W.2), it was suggested to him that the other contract works, which were in the pipeline, were not dealt with by the accused, which, of course, he denied. To most of the questions relating to the contract work, Ilanchezian (P.W.2) candidly said that he does not know the details and that only Thirumalai (P.W.3) would know. For example, he had earlier stated in his examination in chief that he was executing three contract works at that time and in the cross-examination, when he was asked about the value of those contracts, he was not able to say anything. For example, he had earlier stated in his examination in chief that he was executing three contract works at that time and in the cross-examination, when he was asked about the value of those contracts, he was not able to say anything. He further admitted in the cross-examination that in the work that was completed by him, it was found that instead of laying 4 inch jelly, he had laid 3 inch jelly, on account of which, loss of Rs.20,000/- was incurred by the Panchayat. He was further cross-examined with regard to the two contract works, which he had already executed for Rs.1,80,000/-, for which, the bills were cleared by the accused wayback in April, 1999 itself. Though in the initial part of the cross-examination, Ilanchezian (P.W.2) had denied the suggestion that the three contracts with him were not executed during the tenure of the accused, yet, in the subsequent part of the cross-examination, he has stated that the accused had no role in the measurements of those three works. Ultimately, it was suggested to him that there was no demand made by the accused and that a false case has been foisted on the accused, since the accused had found out the deficiency in the work executed by him, which suggestion, he denied. Ilanchezian (P.W.2) admitted that he is a relative of Munisamy, the President of the Town Panchayat. 7. In order to establish the contract works, the prosecution have examined Rajendran (P.W.5), Junior Engineer, who succeeded the accused after 10.06.1999, Venkatachalam (P.W.6), Assistant Engineer, Karur Town Panchayat and Punyamoorthy (P.W.7), Assistant Executive Engineer, Inam Karur Town Panchayat, during the relevant period. From the evidence of these three witnesses, the following facts indubitably emerge: (i) Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was given a contract for laying concrete road work in Thiruvalluvar Nagar for Rs.1,07,000/-. This contract was supervised by the accused. The accused had completed the measurements and cleared the bills for this contract, pursuant to which, Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was paid Rs.43,480/- on 13.05.1999. The balance sum of Rs.63,572/- was paid directly to the suppliers of cement. (ii) Similarly, Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was awarded drainage contract work in Punjai Pugalur Village estimated at Rs.73,000/-. This contract was also supervised by the accused and the bills were cleared after the contract work was executed. Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was paid Rs.67,890/- on 04.06.1999 towards this contract. The balance sum of Rs.63,572/- was paid directly to the suppliers of cement. (ii) Similarly, Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was awarded drainage contract work in Punjai Pugalur Village estimated at Rs.73,000/-. This contract was also supervised by the accused and the bills were cleared after the contract work was executed. Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was paid Rs.67,890/- on 04.06.1999 towards this contract. The balance sum of Rs.5,110/- was deducted towards tax and other charges. In effect, Ilanchezian (P.W.2) received Rs.1,11,370/- (Rs.43,480 + Rs.67,890/-). 8. The learned counsel for the defence contended that 6% commission of Rs.1,11,370/- would amount to Rs.6,682/- and the demand of Rs.10,800/- as bribe stands belied. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that even in the complaint Ex.P.2 lodged by Ilanchezian (P.W.2), he has clearly stated that 6% bribe amount of Rs.10,800/-is for the total value of the contract, namely Rs.1,80,000/-. 10. This argument appears to be little unconvincing, because a demand for bribe will normally be based on the actual and not the nationals. 11. Be that as it may, let us proceed to examine the veracity of the evidence of Ilanchezian (P.W.2) and Thirumalai (P.W.3). It is the contention of Ilanchezian (P.W.2) that when he requested the accused to come for the measurements of the works in relation to the three works at hand, the accused demanded Rs.10,800/- as a pre-condition. 12. Now, from the evidence of Rajendran (P.W.5), Venkatachalam (P.W.6) and Punyamoorthy (P.W.7), it is seen that Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was awarded the following three contracts: (i) Kandampalayam - laying cement road - Rs.40,000/-; (ii) Sembadampalayam - laying RCC cover slab - Rs.3,000/-; (iii) Kulanthaivel Nagar - laying RCC culvert - Rs.40,000/- 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when Ilanchezian (P.W.2) and Thirumali (P.W.3) called the accused to come for measuring the works done for the above three works, the accused demanded the bribe of Rs.10,800/-. However, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that though these three works were awarded during his period, they were not even commenced by Ilanchezian (P.W.2) and Thirumalai (P.W.3) and, therefore, there is no question of he being called for measuring the work. However, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that though these three works were awarded during his period, they were not even commenced by Ilanchezian (P.W.2) and Thirumalai (P.W.3) and, therefore, there is no question of he being called for measuring the work. There appears to be sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused, because from the evidence of Rajendran (P.W.5), who succeeded the accused after 10.06.1999, it is clear that the measurements for Kandampalayam contract work was done by him on 18.06.1999, 19.06.1999, 25.06.1999, 28.06.1999 and 07.07.1999. It is common knowledge that road laying measurements would be done on a day-to-day basis and the measurements would be entered in the measurement book. Thus, it is seen that Kandampalayam work was started by Ilanchezian (P.W.2) only after the accused was arrested on 10.06.1999 and, therefore, there is no question of Ilanchezian (P.W.2) calling the accused for measuring the work. Similarly, Rajendran (P.W.5) has stated that the measurement with regard to Sempadampalayam contract work was done by him on 06.08.1999, which is after the arrest of the accused on 10.06.1999. Of course, this is a very small contract work for Rs.3,000/- to lay a RCC slab. That apart, in the cross-examination of Rajendran (P.W.5), he has clearly admitted that the Kandampalayam contract work and Sembadampalayam contract work were completed during his tenure. 14. Now, coming to the evidence of Venkatachalam (P.W.6), with regard to the third contract work, he has stated that Kulanthaivel Nagar contract for Rs.40,000/- was supervised by him and that he had done the measurements from 16.08.1999 to 20.09.1999 and entries have been made in the measurement book. This is also after the arrest of the accused on 10.06.1999. Thus, from the conspectus of the evidence of witnesses Rajendran (P.W.5), Venkatachalam (P.W.6) and Punyamoorthy (P.W.7), it is beyond cavil that Ilanchezian (P.W.2) and Thirumalai (P.W.3) had not even commenced the three projects and, therefore, there is no question of they asking the accused to come for the measurements and the accused demanding Rs.10,800/-. 15. Bearing this in mind, now, we may proceed to discuss the actual trap witness. 16. Admittedly, Ilanchezian (P.W.2) stayed away with the Inspector of Police and did not go into the room of the accused. Thirumalai (P.W.3) and Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4) went into the Office of the accused around 06.15 p.m., on 10.06.1999. 15. Bearing this in mind, now, we may proceed to discuss the actual trap witness. 16. Admittedly, Ilanchezian (P.W.2) stayed away with the Inspector of Police and did not go into the room of the accused. Thirumalai (P.W.3) and Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4) went into the Office of the accused around 06.15 p.m., on 10.06.1999. What transpired there can be best explained by extracting the relevant portion from the examination in chief of Thirumalai (P.W.3) and Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4): Thirumalai (P.W.3): “TAMIL” Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4): “TAMIL” 17. From a reading of the above evidence, it appears that the accused asked Thirumalai (P.W.3) whether he has brought Rs.4,000/- and Rs.7,000/-, for which, Thirumalai (P.W.3) replied that he has brought Rs.10,800/-. In the cross-examination of Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4), he admitted that a quarrel ensued between the accused and Thirumalai (P.W.3). In this background, it may be necessary to analyze the evidence of Thirumalai (P.W.3). Thirumalai (P.W.3), in his chief-examination, has stated that Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was awarded two contracts for Rs.1,07,000/- and Rs.73,000/- which were executed in April, 1999; that when both met the accused and requested him to come for measurements, the accused demanded Rs.10,800/- as bribe for measuring those works. He has further stated that on 07.06.1999 he along with Ilanchezian (P.W.2) called on the accused and asked him to pass the bills for the two works executed by them, for which, the accused demanded Rs.10,800/- as bribe. Thus, there is a patent contradiction between the evidence of Ilanchezian (P.W.2) and Thirumalai (P.W.3) in this regard, inasmuch as according to Ilanchezian (P.W.2), the accused had already cleared the bills for the two contract works and that he had received payment, but whereas, Thirumalai (P.W.3) has stated that the accused demanded bribe for clearing the bills for the two contracts. It may be necessary to state here that Thirumalai (P.W.3) was declared hostile after he admitted in the cross-examination that he had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the accused and that the accused had demanded the return of the money with interest amounting to Rs.11,000/-. 18. Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that Thirumalai (P.W.3) has been won over by the accused and, therefore, that part of the evidence, which is in consonance with the prosecution case, should be accepted and not his entire evidence. 19. 18. Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that Thirumalai (P.W.3) has been won over by the accused and, therefore, that part of the evidence, which is in consonance with the prosecution case, should be accepted and not his entire evidence. 19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that Thirumalai (P.W.3) was examined in chief on 19.11.2003 and on the same day, he was cross-examined and that he was declared hostile only after he was examined in cross. 20. It is a trite that a witness can be declared hostile even after his examination in cross. Section 154(2) of the Indian Evidence Act does not permit the Court to completely ignore the evidence of a hostile witness and the Court can act upon certain portions of the evidence, which inspires its confidence. In this case, the actual Contractor is Ilanchezian (P.W.2). The First Information Report was given by Ilanchezian (P.W.2). It is not known why Thirumalai (P.W.3) was sent to give the bribe money. As stated above, when Thirumalai (P.W.3) and Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4) entered the cabin of the accused, he demanded Rs.4,000/- and Rs.7,000/-. This demand appears to be very strange. 21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that Rs.11,000/- represents 6% commission of the total contract of Rs.1,80,000/-, but, whereas, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the records clearly show that Ilanchezian (P.W.2) was given only Rs.1,11,370/- towards the two contracts, in which case, 6% commission would be only Rs.6,682/-. That apart, the accused has established from the evidence of Rajendran (P.W.5), Venkatachalam (P.W.6) and Punyamoorthy (P.W.7) that the three works, which were entrusted to Ilanchezian (P.W.2), were not commenced at all prior to 10.06.1999 and they were all commenced after the arrest of the accused. Vinayagamurthy (P.W.4) has stated that a quarrel arose between the accused and Thirumalai (P.W.3) inside the cabin on the day of trap. In such view of the matter, even if we are to hold that Thirumalai (P.W.3) was won over by the accused, the other evidence are not in supportive of the case of the prosecution. 22. In Arulvelu v. State reported in 2009(10) SCC 206 , the Supreme Court has held as follows: "36. In such view of the matter, even if we are to hold that Thirumalai (P.W.3) was won over by the accused, the other evidence are not in supportive of the case of the prosecution. 22. In Arulvelu v. State reported in 2009(10) SCC 206 , the Supreme Court has held as follows: "36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment cannot be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law." 23. In Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab [ 2017(8) SCC 136 ], the Supreme Court has held as follows: "13. The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegal gratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A.Subair v. State of Kerala, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. Carrying this enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained. 14. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy, this Court took note of its verdict in B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P. underlining that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 14. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy, this Court took note of its verdict in B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P. underlining that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. Not only the proof of demand thus was held to be an indispensable essentiality and an inflexible statutory mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as well qua Section 20 of the Act, that any presumption thereunder would arise only on such proof of demand. This Court thus in P.Satyanarayana Murthy on a survey of its earlier decisions on the pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 and the proof thereof summed up its conclusions as hereunder: (SCC p.159, para 23) "23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." 24. In fine, when there are two views possible, the view that is favourable to the accused merits consideration, especially, in an appeal against acquittal. 25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed.