JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment of acquittal of the respondent/Accused passed by the Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in C.C.No.4 of 2011 (Old C.C.No.30/2010) dated 23.06.2014, convict and sentence the Respondent/Accused of the charges framed against him.) 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment of acquittal of the Respondent/Accused, passed by the Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in C.C.No.4 of 2011 (Old C.C.No.30/2010), dated 23.06.2014. 2(a). The case of the prosecution is that V.Vinayagamoorthi, the Respondent/Accused, formerly worked as Office Assistant at the office of the Thasildar, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk Office, K.K. Nagar, Chennai is a public servant as defined under section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2(b). The defacto complainant K.Ramesh (PW2) as a resident of Taramani, Chennai gave two applications to the Tahsildhar, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk Office, sought for Income Certificate for himself and Community Certificate for his children. When he went to the Taluk office in the morning on 16.02.2009, the Accused voluntarily received the applications from him and demanded Rs.800/- as illegal gratification, for the delivery of the said Certificates and asked him to come in the evening and to collect the certificates and when requested by the said K.Ramesh, the Respondent/Accused reduced the demand amount to Rs.500/-. 2(c). The said Ramesh (PW2) met the Respondent/Accused V.Vinayagamoorthy at his office @ K.K.Nagar in the evening of 16.02.2009, the Respondent/Accused gave all the required certificates to him and on verification, it was found that the name of his son Ilayarajavel was written as Ilayarajagopal in the Community Certificate and when it was brought to the knowledge of the Accused, he retained Community Certificate with him and handed over the Income Certificate and asked him to come in the afternoon of 18.02.2009, with the bribe amount and to collect the said corrected certificates. 2(d). The said K.Ramesh (PW2), who was not willing to pay the bribe, lodged a complaint and thereafter, a trap was organized after registration of F.I.R. 2(e). 2(d). The said K.Ramesh (PW2), who was not willing to pay the bribe, lodged a complaint and thereafter, a trap was organized after registration of F.I.R. 2(e). In pursuance of the above said demand, trap was planned, the said K.Ramesh (PW2) accompanied by the official witnesses PW3 & PW4 met the Respondent/Accused on 18.02.2009, at his office and the Respondent/Accused reiterated his earlier demand and accepted the demanded amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward, by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official position as pecuniary advantage for himself. 2(f). The Respondent / Accused was caught red-handed, after his demand and acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.500/- from PW2, the defacto complainant, herein. 2(g). The Phenolphthalein test conducted on the right and left hand fingers and inside the shirt pocket of the Respondent/Accused, who received the bribe amount from PW2, were proved positive. The tainted currencies were seized from the Respondent/Accused through a seizure Mahazar. The Respondent/Accused was arrested for demanding and accepting illegal gratification and sent for judicial custody. 2(h). The further investigation was done by Kanagaraj Joseph (PW11) and later by Ali Bahsa (PW12), Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai and after completion of the detailed investigation, the investigation Officer filed a Charge sheet against the Respondent/Accused for the offences under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the Principle Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.30 of 10 by the Court below and thereafter, the case was transferred to the learned Special Judge for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai and was taken on file in C.C.No.4 of 11. 2(i). Charges were framed against the Respondent/Accused under sections 7, 13(2) r/w.13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 and to prove the case of the prosecution 12 witnesses were examined, 18 exhibits were marked and 5 Material Objects were also marked. 2(j). After full fledged trial, the Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai, acquitted the Respondent/Accused from the charges framed against him. Aggrieved over the above judgement of acquittal of the Respondent/Accused, the present Appeal. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and the learned counsel for the Accused and perused the available records. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Aggrieved over the above judgement of acquittal of the Respondent/Accused, the present Appeal. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and the learned counsel for the Accused and perused the available records. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would contend that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the Accused of charges is against the principles of law, established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the reasons assigned by the learned Special Sessions Judge for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act that, non observance of the Rule 47 of the Vigilance Manual, is not a mandatory one, it is only a directory one, and by relying upon the Crl.A.No.605 of 2016, further contended that minor discrepancy as to whether the Accused was sitting or standing at the time when P.W.2 entered the office cannot be blown out of proposition and that demand and acceptance has been proved in the manner known to law and the pre-trap proceedings and trap proceedings has been materialised. P.W.3 has duly corroborated the receipt of money and also demand on 18.02.2009 at about 15.55 hrs. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that the demand as projected by the prosecution is not proved in the manner known to law. As such the Accused has no authority to issue a certificate, in view of the evidence of PW4 and PW8 and the Accused has no connection with D6 section, which is competent to issue Community Certificate and the alleged demand said to have been made in the crowd place is against in all probability. The trap proceedings is not conducted in the manner known to law. Therefore, the Trial Judge has rightly held that the trap proceedings are doubtful and accordingly, passed an order of acquittal. Learned counsel further relied upon Crl.A.No.428 of 2014 and Crl.A.Nos.100 and 101 of 2021 as to the powers of the Appellate Court against the orders of acquittal in the sense that unless other possible view is there, the Accused is entitled for acquittal. 6. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the Appellant is that the sanctioning authority has accorded sanction to prosecute the Respondent/Accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, only after perusal of the entire records pertaining to the case. 6. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the Appellant is that the sanctioning authority has accorded sanction to prosecute the Respondent/Accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, only after perusal of the entire records pertaining to the case. PW2/Defacto Complainant deposed that the Respondent/Accused demanded and accepted the bribe amount and the said accepted bribe amount of Rs.500/- is to deliver the Community Certificate and Income Certificate and the amount which was recovered from the Respondent/Accused, is the amount which was entrusted to PW2, under the entrustment mahazar, Ex.P.5. 7. As per prosecution, PW3, accompanying official witness, who accompanied the PW2 also deposed about the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the Respondent/Accused from PW2. The evidence of PW2, PW3 & PW10 clearly establish the demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money from the Respondent/Accused and serial numbers of currencies seized from the Respondent/Accused were tallied with numbers mentioned in Ex.P.5, Entrustment Mahazar, that was prepared in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption office. The colour change of Sodium Carbonate solution, when both hand fingers and shirt pocket of the Respondent/Accused were subjected to Phenolphthalein Test, proved that the fingers contained Phenolphthalein. It is evident that the bribe money (tainted money) was received by the Respondent/Accused. This fact was clearly deposed by PW9, Scientific Assistant. 8. In short, the sum and substance of the submission of the learned Government Advocate is that the prosecution has proved the essential ingredients to prove the charges viz., (i) Demand, (ii) Acceptance & (iii) Recovery. 9. Per contra, the learned defence counsel made submission in support of the judgment of the trial Court. 10. Accused/V.Vinayagamoorthy, who worked as Office Assistant at the office of the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk Office, K.K.Nagar, Chennai from 30.06.2006 to 19.02.2009 is a public servant, within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Accused was charged for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w.13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988. 11. To substantiate their case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and has marked 18 documents and Accused did not let in oral or documentary evidence. 12. The Accused was charged for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w.13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988. 11. To substantiate their case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and has marked 18 documents and Accused did not let in oral or documentary evidence. 12. The main thrust of the defence counsel is that the Accused is in no way connected with the issuance of Community Certificate and Income Certificate and the proper Section is D6 and there is a delay in giving the complaint. The suggestive case of the defence, with regard to the recovery of tainted money from the Accused is that, on 16.02.2009, there was a wordy quarrel by the defacto complainant in Mambalam-Guindy Taluk Office, because there was a mistake in the Community Certificate issued for his son. At that time, the Accused along with others shouted at the Defacto Complainant. In order to wreck vengeance, PW2 has foisted the false case against the Accused, by thrusting the money in his pocket. 13. The Defacto Complainant was examined as PW2, who deposed that on 16.02.2009, the Accused demanded Rs.200/- for each certificate and was asked to come in the afternoon and has demanded Rs.500/- as bribe. In the evening at about 05.00 pm, he had been given the certificates, wherein his son's name was misspelled as Ilayarajagopal instead of Ilayarajavel and hence, for correction of the name, which is wrongly written, it was returned. It is his further evidence that in respect of Community Certificate, the Accused has called to come back on 18.02.2009 and asked to bring Rs.500/- as demanded. On 18.02.2009, he lodged a complaint before Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. In the cross examination he had admitted that prior to the incident, he has not paid any amount to the Accused as requested by him, since he required the certificates in urgent, and in one of the certificates, the name was wrongly written, he returned the certificate to the Accused. In the cross examination, he has categorically admitted that out of the documents requested by him, in respect of document that has been issued, correctly, the Accused has not demanded any money, assumes significance. Relevant portion of his cross examination is extracted as follows: 14. In the cross examination, he has categorically admitted that out of the documents requested by him, in respect of document that has been issued, correctly, the Accused has not demanded any money, assumes significance. Relevant portion of his cross examination is extracted as follows: 14. PW3 is the accompanying official witness, who had deposed regarding the demand on the ultimate date of the receipt of the amount and also the trap proceedings. In the cross examination of PW5/C.A.Devaraj, who was working as Junior Assistant in the said office has categorically deposed that subsequent to the trap proceedings, necessary correction in the name has been effected. He had admittedly stated that on 16.02.2009, evening, in view of the wrong committed in the name, PW2 has created a ruckus in the Taluk office and the Accused has softened and pacified him. PW10/Anthony Hari is a Trap Laying Officer, who deposed regarding the conduct of pre-trap formalities and trap formalities and the cross examination. He further deposed that after recovery of the tainted amount from the Accused, he had enquired the Accused, as to why he had accepted the money, for which, the Accused appears to have kept silence. Though a point has been raised by the learned counsel regarding the capacity of the Accused to issue Community Certificate and the Income Certificate, the trial Court has recorded a finding as follows: “Eventhough the Accused is not the authority to issue the certificate, he is involved in the process of issuance of certificate and PW2 clearly deposed that the Accused had handed over the certificates to him and further the Accused received the certificates back for rectifying error in the certificates. This facts clearly establishes the involvement of the Accused in the issuance of certificate.” which does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference. 15(a). It remains to be stated that at the first instance, when PW2 had met the Accused at 5.00 pm on the same day, he received all the certificates as stated supra and also it is a fact that he did not pay any amount to the Accused. It is his further evidence that on perusal, he has noticed that his son's name was wrongly recorded as Ilayarajagopal instead of Ilayarajavel. Though PW2 has received the Income Certificate, Community Certificate was returned to the Accused for name correction. It is his further evidence that on perusal, he has noticed that his son's name was wrongly recorded as Ilayarajagopal instead of Ilayarajavel. Though PW2 has received the Income Certificate, Community Certificate was returned to the Accused for name correction. It is his further evidence that PW2 was asked to come and collect the rectified certificate on 18.02.2009. In this connection, evidence as stated supra, goes to show that the intention of PW2 in preferring the complaint to the vigilance authorities is to get the certificate, rather than his displeasure in the alleged bribe gratification. 15(b). PW2 categorically stated that on 16.02.2009, though there was initial demand, he has not taken any amount along with him. On the date of the trap, both PW2 & PW3 had deposed that the Accused had told PW2 to collect the certificate, outside the office, since there was a huge crowd. Admittedly, at the first instance, when he went to collect the certificate, he has not taken any amount with him, as admitted by PW2 in the cross examination, assumes significance and indicates that there was no demand at all, and a similar finding recorded by the trial Court, with regard to the first demand and second demand have not been proved in the manner known to law, appears to be just and proper. 15(c). Only on the penultimate day of trap proceedings, in the presence of PW3, the Accused had demanded Rs.500/- and received the same (tainted amount) from PW2. An explanation was offered by the Accused that, he never demanded any money, it was thrusted in his pocket. It is a specific defence of the Accused that on 18.02.2009, while the Accused was sitting in front of the Tahsildar Department, the Defacto Complainant came to his seat, before he could react and realise, the Defacto Complainant, thrusted something in his left pocket and left the place hurriedly. When the Accused, called him, the trap laying officer came to take out, what was thursting on his pocket, only then, the Accused realised that the Defacto Complaint has placed currencies in his pocket and hence the explanation offered by the Accused was accepted by the trial Court. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in Cr.A.Nos.100 & 101 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021, while dealing with the scope of the Appeal, by referring the Murugesan & Ors. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in Cr.A.Nos.100 & 101 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021, while dealing with the scope of the Appeal, by referring the Murugesan & Ors. v. State through Inspector of Police reported in (2012) 10 SCC 383 , stated as follows: “In the said judgment, it is categorically held by this Court that only in cases where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view, then only High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of conviction. In the said judgment, distinction from that of “possible view” to “erroneous view” or “wrong view” is explained. In clear terms, this Court has held that if the view taken by the trial court is a “possible view”, High Court not to reverse the acquittal to that of the conviction. The relevant paragraphs in this regard where meaning and implication of “possible view” distinguishing from “erroneous view” and “wrong view” is discussed. ... “In the case of Hakeem Khan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 5 SCC 719 , considered powers of appellate court for interference in cases where acquittal is recorded by trial court. In the said judgment it is held that if the “possible view” of the trial court is not agreeable for the High Court, even then such “possible view” recorded by the trial court cannot be interdicted. It is further held that so long as the view of trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, verdict of trial court cannot be interdicted and the High court cannot supplant over the view of the trial court.” ... “It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the Accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55 . Reference can be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55 . In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 17. In view of the admission by PW2, in the cross examination, on 16.02.2009 evening, when he went to collect the certificates, he has not taken any amount with him for payment, which created serious doubt as to the initial demand said to have been made by the Accused and on the said day for the wrong in the name of the son of the PW2 in the Community Certificate, PW2 has created ruckus, as could be seen from the other official witnesses, PW5 & PW6. Thereafter only, PW2 has preferred complaint on 18.02.2009, assumes significance and hence, this Court finds that the alleged initial demand on two occasions, prior to the trap proceedings are surrounded with doubt and suspicious, in view of the own admission of PW2 as stated supra. 18. On the point of demand and acceptance projected to by PW2 & PW3 on the date of trap. It remains to be stated that an explanation has been offered by the Accused that, it was thrusted in his pocket, without there being any demand by the Accused. 18. On the point of demand and acceptance projected to by PW2 & PW3 on the date of trap. It remains to be stated that an explanation has been offered by the Accused that, it was thrusted in his pocket, without there being any demand by the Accused. From the evidence of PW4 and PW5/Official witnesses, the corrected certificate was subsequently given, after the trap proceedings, and therefore, the version of PW2 is that even without receiving the certificate, he had made the payment appears to be unnatural and hence, I find that the view expressed by the learned trial Judge that the suggestive case of the defence appears to be more probably. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion that, the alleged earlier demand (prior to trap proceedings) are doubtful and admission of PW2 that, at the first instance, when he went and collected the certificates, he has not taken any money for payment to the accused also throws doubt to the earlier demand and action of PW2 in the alleged payment of the amount, without receipt of certificate from the accused, causes serious doubt as to the truth and veracity of the version of PW2. In one hand he could say that the accused gave certificate and not collected any amount as alleged, nor he (PW2) had taken amount for payment to the accused at the earlier incident, in the later part, he could say that he paid the amount, however, not collected the document on the penultimate date of trap. The evidence of the official witnesses that certificates have been handed over to PW2, after correction in the name, after the trap proceedings causes serious doubt on the version of PW2. Accordingly, the finding rendered by the learned trial Judge appears to be possible view, in the absence of any other possible view and also taking note of the scope of the Appeal against the order of acquittal as initiated in the above said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Cr.A.Nos.100 & 101 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not proved the charges beyond doubt. 20. In this view of the matter, I find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court for the purpose of acquittal, on the point of no demand is hereby confirmed. 20. In this view of the matter, I find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court for the purpose of acquittal, on the point of no demand is hereby confirmed. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in C.C.No.4 of 2011 (Old C.C.No.30/2010), dated 23.06.2014 is confirmed. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.