JUDGMENT : Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Sections 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the Judgment, dated 4th July 2014 made in Special Case No.61 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai and set aside the Conviction and Sentence imposed against the Appellant/Accused and allow the above Appeal by acquitting the Appellant/Accused. 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment, dated 4.7.2014 made in Special Case No.61 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of P.C. Act Cases, Madurai. 2. The Respondent herein while investigating the case in Crime No.7 of 2003 filed a Second Charge-sheet against the Appellant herein. Cognizance was taken for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Appellant was then working as Deputy Director, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services, Southern Region, Madurai, from 14.2.2003 to 29.9.2003. The case of the prosecution is that during this period, the Accused habitually obtained illegal gratification from various officials. Charge was framed against the Appellant under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as eight Witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the side of the Accused, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked. The learned Trial Judge after a consideration of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. The Fine amount of Rs.5,000 was also levied. Default sentence was also imposed. Questioning the same, this Appeal came to be filed. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the Respondent. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the Memorandum of Grounds and submitted that the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside and Appellant has to be acquitted and the Appeal allowed. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the impugned Judgment does not call for any interference and wanted this Court to dismiss the Appeal. 6. In support of the charge, the Prosecution examined one Pandi as PW2. The said Pandi was working as Station Fire Officer in Tiruchuli Fire Station. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the impugned Judgment does not call for any interference and wanted this Court to dismiss the Appeal. 6. In support of the charge, the Prosecution examined one Pandi as PW2. The said Pandi was working as Station Fire Officer in Tiruchuli Fire Station. He deposed that on 20.5.2003, the Assistant Divisional Officer, Thiru. Ilango contacted him over phone and instructed him to meet the Accused who was said to be staying at the guest house in Virudhunagar. PW2 deposed that he met the Accused at around 9.00 p.m. in the Guest House. During the said meeting, the Accused is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.1,000. PW2 claims that he complied with the said request. Subsequently, on 29.7.2003, the Accused came to Aruppukottai Fire Station for annual inspection. He had sent toward through one Thiru. Perumal to PW2 to meet him. When PW2 met him on the said date at around 9.00 p.m., the Accused is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.5,000 as bribe for regularising his service. PW2 states that he handed over a sum of Rs.2,500 to one Razak, who was working as Driver for the Accused. The Accused is said to have sent word to PW2 through one Thiru. Chandrasekar, Station Writer, on 15.8.2003 to meet him. When on 16.8.2003 at about 9.00 a.m. PW2 met the Accused, the Accused demanded a sum of Rs.10,000 for favourably considering the request for transfer already made by PW2. PW2 also gave a Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, in this regard. 7. The question is whether the testimony of PW2 can be taken at its face value. There is complete lack of corroboration. Thiru Ilango, Assistant Divisional Officer who is said to have passed on the message from the Accused to PW2 on 20.5.2003 was not examined as a Witness. Similarly, there has been no examination of Thiru. Perumal and Thiru. Chandrasekar who were said to have passed on the information on the subsequent occasions. 8. PW3-Selvendran was working as Station Fire Officer in Sivakasi in the year 2002. There was a fire accident in Sivakasi on 4.7.2003. To conduct an inspection in that regard, the Accused came to Sivakasi on 21.7.2003. Perumal and Thiru. Chandrasekar who were said to have passed on the information on the subsequent occasions. 8. PW3-Selvendran was working as Station Fire Officer in Sivakasi in the year 2002. There was a fire accident in Sivakasi on 4.7.2003. To conduct an inspection in that regard, the Accused came to Sivakasi on 21.7.2003. He came to Sivakasi Fire Station in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. At that time one Durairaj informed PW3 that the Accused is demanding a colour T.V. as gift. PW3 would claim that such a T.V. was purchased from his brother-in-law's Shop and delivered to the accused subsequently. Murugan, the driver who is said to have effected delivery of Onida Colour T.V. was examined as PW4. PW5 turned hostile. PW6 was the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statements of the various Witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. PW7-Thiru P. Mohan was the investigation officer and it was he who recorded the statements of the various Witnesses. PW8 filed Final Report after obtaining sanction. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Accused, the testimony of PW2 to PW4 should receive some corroboration. In this case, there is absolutely no corroboration. The Colour T.V. in question was not at all recovered. PW2 & PW3 did not lodge any Complaint immediately after the demand was made by the Accused officer. They had chosen to remain silent. Only during the course of investigation into another case against the Accused, PW2 to PW4 were examined and it was then, they had stated about the demand and payment of illegal gratification. 10. Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act will be attracted, if a Public servant habitually accepts illegal gratification. In the case on hand, the prosecution has projected only two Witnesses. The question that arises is whether this would amount to habitual acceptance of illegal gratification. Since the prosecution case is totally bereft of any corroboration, I am of the view that it would be most unsafe to predicate the finding of guilt on the testimony of PW2 to PW4. 11. The Court below has chosen to take the testimony of these Witnesses as gospel truth. The Court below ought to have looked for corroboration. The statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. could not have been marked as Ex.P6. 11. The Court below has chosen to take the testimony of these Witnesses as gospel truth. The Court below ought to have looked for corroboration. The statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. could not have been marked as Ex.P6. The Court below has failed to take note of the enormous delay between the alleged demand of illegal gratification and recording of statements. 12. It is necessary to emphasise that at no point of time these Witnesses lodged any formal Complaint or information before the Police. Their Statements were incidentally recorded while conducting investigation into another case. Therefore, in such a background, corroboration was absolutely necessary. In the absence of corroboration, the Court below could not have found the Accused guilty. 13. In this view of the matter, the Judgment impugned in this Criminal Appeal stands set aside. The Appellant is acquitted. This Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The Bail Bond, if any, executed by the Appellant shall stand cancelled and the Fine amount, if any, paid by him, is to be repaid to him.