JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in Special CC.No.33/2015 dated 14.06.2022 against the Petitioners, enlarge the Petitioners on bail pending disposal of Criminal Appeal.) 1. This Petition has been filed to suspend the sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in Special CC.No.33/2015 dated 14.06.2022 against the Petitioners and enlarge the Petitioners on bail pending disposal of Criminal Appeal. 2(a). The convicted A1 and A2 are the Petitioner herein. The Court below framed charges against the accused u/s. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2(b). The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/PW2 Srinivasan's mother Sivakami (P.W.4) owned 1200 Sq. feet house site at Ward D, Block No.28, Town Survey No. 91 part, Kamachikadu, Erode with a tiled house of 480 sq. ft at Erode Municipal limit. The first accused Venkatesan was a Town Planning Inspector at Erode Municipality and the second accused was a Chairman/Office Assistant, Town Planning Section, Erode Municipality. The defacto complainant's mother applied for planning approval at Erode Municipality to build a house on 18.09.2006. On 26.10.2006 her application was returned with three queries and the same was carried out and handed over to Al on 22.11.2006. On 08.01.2007, when PW2 met the 1st accused at 1.00 p.m. at his office and requested the building license, Al demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for taking necessary steps to issuance of the license. At the request of PW2, the 1st accused reduced the bribe amount to Rs.7,000/- and on further request, to Rs.5,000/-. On 29.01.2007 at 11.30 hrs, P.W.2 met A1 at his office and Al insisted the payment of Rs.5,000/- to be paid at 1.00 p.m. on 31.01.2007 at his office at Town Planning Section, Erode Municipality. As P.W.2 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Erode. 2(b). The Court below after trial, found both the accused guilty for the offences u/s.7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced the petitioners to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month for the offence u/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court below also sentenced the Petitioners to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month for the offence u/s.13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the above Criminal Appeal is filed and pending Criminal Appeal, they seeks for suspension of sentence. 3(a). The learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the there is inordinate delay in preferring the complaint by PW2. The alleged demand was on 08.01.2007, but the complaint was given only on 31.01.2007. The prosecution has not proved alleged demand by the first accused. Al was alleged to have demanded on two dates before the trap i.e 08.01.2007 and 29.01.2007. The defense has put forward through Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 that Al was not at all available in the office at the relevant time on those dates and he went to field work. 3(b). The license for which PW2 approached Al was already made ready by Al even on 26.12.2006. Moreover, that file has moved from the table of Al even on 26.12.2006 and the file subsequently went to various higher authorities up to the Commissioner of Municipality. 3(c). PW4/Sivagami, the mother of PWI had already received the license from the Computer Seva Counter of the Municipality. This fact has been admitted even by the prosecution witnesses namely PW6/Sadhasivam, Town Planning Officer, Erode Municipality, PW7/Prema, Junior Assistant, and PW10/Kailasam, Assistant. All of them not only admit that on 26.12.2006 itself, the license was issued to the mother of PW2 but also stated that the validity period of license was from 26.12.2006 to 25.12.2009. 3(d). According to PW3 when Al dipped his left hand fingers there was no colour change. Al did not deal the currency with his left hand. The chemical analyst in his report Ex.P23 has stated that the solution of left hand fingers of Al also contained Phenolphthalein. 3(e). PW3 would admit that the entrustment mahazar was a typed one but what has been produced in the Court was handwritten. 4. The learned Government Advocate raised his contention in support of the judgment of the trial Court. 5. 3(e). PW3 would admit that the entrustment mahazar was a typed one but what has been produced in the Court was handwritten. 4. The learned Government Advocate raised his contention in support of the judgment of the trial Court. 5. After perusing the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in Special CC.No.33/2015 dated 14.06.2022, I find that the plea that on the alleged date of demand, the first accused was not in the office, appears to have been rejected on the ground of Ex.P.17 that he was not granted any OD either on 08.01.2007 or 29.01.2007. The trial Court appears to have given importance to the oral evidence of PW1 rather on the documentary evidence of Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that even on the alleged dates viz., 08.01.2007 and 29.01.2007, the evidence of PW6/Town Planning Officer, PW7/Junior Assistant and PW10/Assistant, run contrary to the oral evidence of PW2/Defacto Complainant, which appears to have been not considered in proper prospective. PW4's/Mother of PW1, evidence regarding receipt of the license of Computer Seva Counter of the Municipality is also significance, in view of the version of PW6, PW7 and PW10, the official witnesses. 7. In view of the points raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as enumerated above and also some of the findings rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in Special CC.No.33/2015 dated 14.06.2022, I find that there are arguable points in the appeal and this Court is inclined to suspend substantive sentences of imprisonment alone on certain conditions. 8. Accordingly, till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal, the substantive sentences of imprisonment alone is suspended and the Petitioners/A1 & A2 are ordered to be enlarged on bail, on the following conditions:- i. The Petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. ii. The Petitioners shall report before the said Court on the first working day of every English Calendar month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.