JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.138 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai, by judgment dated 29.02.2012. Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/A2 passed by the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in C.C.No.138 of 2011 [Old C.C.No.30/2007] dated 29.02.2012 and convict the respondent/A2 for the offences framed against him and pass sentence against him.) Common Judgment 1. Convicted Accused No.1 in C.C.No.138 of 2011 [Old C.C.No.30 of 2007], on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai, is the appellant in Crl.A.No.176 of 2012 and as against the order of acquittal against Accused No.2, the State has preferred an appeal against the said order in Crl.A.No.427 of 2013. 2. By consent, both appeals are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this Common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief history of the case is as follows: (i) A case was registered against the accused under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Venugopal in Crime No. 19/AC/2005/CC-II. At the conclusion of the investigation a charge sheet was laid against both the accused mentioned above under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same was taken on file in old C.C.No.30/07 (New C.C 138/11) (ii) The case of the prosecution is that the A1 has demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe from one Venugopal (PW-2) Complainant for the release of an auto and not to register a case against one Linganathan (Relative of the complainant). The bribe amount was later reduced to Rs.5,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward when the complainant expressed his inability to give Rs.10,000/- as bribe. The bribe amount was later reduced to Rs.5,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward when the complainant expressed his inability to give Rs.10,000/- as bribe. (iii) In pursuance of the aforesaid demand made by the A1 on 23.12.2005 between 14.45 hours and 15.20 hours, at the J-3 Guindy Police Station, when Venugopal accompanied by an official witness S.Saranga Thirumal met the A1, he reiterated his demand of Rs.5,000/- and directed A2 to receive the bribe amount and as per the direction of A1, A2 accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/ from the defacto complainant as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for not registering the case against the Auto driver and to release the Auto, and thereby the accused have committed an offence under section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (iv) The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses viz., PW1 to PW10 to prove the case and exhibited 13 documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and marked no material objects. As stated supra, after full fledged trial, the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act has convicted the A1 and acquitted the A2 and hence, these appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the A1 would contend that (a) There is no demand and the same was not proved by the prosecution. (b) When there is no demand at all made by the A1, at the time of the transaction and the acceptance being from the acquitted accused i.e., A2, the conviction of the A1 cannot be sustained. (c) PW2-defacto complainant in the chief examination has not whispered about any demand and hence in the absence of any demand and acceptance by A2-(acquitted accused), A1 cannot be convicted and hence, prayed for acquittal. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the State made submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court in respect of conviction of A1. 6. In respect of the acquittal of A2, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the trap witness (PW-3) has deposed that the A2 has received the money from the complainant and put it in his right side shirt pocket. Only after the sodium carbonate solution prepared by the Investigation Officer, he produced the money from his pocket. 6. In respect of the acquittal of A2, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the trap witness (PW-3) has deposed that the A2 has received the money from the complainant and put it in his right side shirt pocket. Only after the sodium carbonate solution prepared by the Investigation Officer, he produced the money from his pocket. Hence from receipt of the money from PW-2 till the preparation of sodium carbonate solution by the Investigation Officer, the money was lying in the pocket of the A2. He was keeping quiet and he was consenting party to the receipt of bribe. 7. Learned Government Advocate further contended that presumption can be drawn, if public servant is found in possession of currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the prosecution does not have further duty to prove beyond the fact that the prosecution witness had paid the demanded money to the accused. 8. The learned counsel for the A2 would contend that the reason assigned by the learned Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, for acquitting the A2, is sustainable in law and also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CDJ 2015 SC 722 [P.Sathyanaryana Murthy Vs. The District Inspector of Police & Another] and Crl.A.Nos.100 - 101 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021 [N.Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu] and the decision of this Court in Crl.A.No.83 of 2012 dated 02.07.2018 [P.K.Chandrasekaran Vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai], on the scope of appeal as against the order of acquittal and submitted that the Court has to consider that once an order of acquittal is passed by the trial Court after full fledged trial, the innocence of the accused is got strengthened and prayed for dismissal of Crl.A.No.427 of 2013. 9. Submissions of all the learned Counsels are considered along with the documents that are marked. 10. The prosecution filed the final report against both the accused for the alleged offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The A1 was working as a Sub-Inspector and A2 was working as a Head Constable in J-3, Guindy Police Station (Crime), Chennai from 19.01.2005 to 23.12.2005 and 15.07.2002 to 23.12.2005 respectively and are public servants as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 11. The A1 was working as a Sub-Inspector and A2 was working as a Head Constable in J-3, Guindy Police Station (Crime), Chennai from 19.01.2005 to 23.12.2005 and 15.07.2002 to 23.12.2005 respectively and are public servants as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 11. The case of the prosecution as could be seen from the prosecution witnesses are that on 22.12.2005, one Mr.Parth Pandiyan of Eldams Road, Chennai, lodged a complaint to the Crime-Inspector, J-3, Guindy Police Station in connection with the missing of his cell phone. Based on the complaint one A.Linganathan, Driver of auto bearing Registration Number TN-02-6033 and the auto were illegally detained by the A1, the Sub Inspector on 22.12.2005. The defacto complainant M.Venugopal who is the relative of the auto driver Linganathan approached A1 in the fore-noon of 22.12.2005 and requested A1 not to register a case against his relative and to release the auto. The A1 demanded Rs.10,000/- for the same and the amount was later reduced to Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and as gratification apart from the legal remuneration and as motive or reward for not registering a case against the auto driver and for releasing the auto. Pursuant to the demand made by the A1 on 22.12.2005 between 14.45hrs. and 15.20 hrs., when Venugopal met A1 who reiterated his demand for Rs.5,000/- and directed A2 to receive the bribe amount who received the same. The A2 was sitting in the Inspector room and received the amount from the defacto complainant as gratification other than the legal remuneration as motive or reward for not registering the case against the auto driver and to release the auto. In the course of the same transaction, A1 and A2 as public servants by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing their official position, obtained Rs.5000/- for themselves as pecuniary advantage from Venugopal and thereby they have committed an offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 12. PW2 the defacto complainant, Venugopal who resides in Kilpauk lets out the van for rent that he owns. One Linganathan who is the auto driver is the uncle's son of the PW2-Venugopal and the said Linganathan, auto driver was examined as PW5 and his evidence is to the effect that the auto which he was taking on rent for driving and eking his livelihood belongs to one Jayakumar from Ayanavaram. One Linganathan who is the auto driver is the uncle's son of the PW2-Venugopal and the said Linganathan, auto driver was examined as PW5 and his evidence is to the effect that the auto which he was taking on rent for driving and eking his livelihood belongs to one Jayakumar from Ayanavaram. It is his further evidence that on 21.12.05 when PW5 was waiting in the Guindy auto stand, one passenger alighted the auto to go to Alwarpet and he was dropped there. After the passenger left the auto, one another passenger who travelled in the auto later, found a cell phone in the auto and handed over the same to PW5- Linganathan and PW5 after collecting the phone has retuned to his home. 13. It is the further evidence of the prosecution that on 22.12.2015, PW5 while waiting in the auto stand received a phone call from the police person and enquired about the cell phone and immediately PW5- Linganathan took the phone and gave it to the police personnel at Guindy Police Station. From the Police Station, PW5-Linganathan contacted PW2- Venugopal and explained the situation and therefore, PW2-Venugopal along with Jayakumar-PW4 came to the Guindy Police Station to meet PW2 and A1. 14. The further evidence of PW2 and PW4 is that the A1-Lawrence, the Sub Inspector of Police have told PW2 that he is going to register a case against PW5 for the theft of cell phone and demanded Rs.10,000/- for the release of the auto and not to register a case against PW5. When PW2 expressed his inability to pay Rs.10,000/-, he was made to wait till 9 pm on that night and has used belittling words against PW2 that 'you cannot get things done for nothing' in a sarcastic manner and further made a demand of Rs.5,000/- to release the vehicle. Having left with no other choice, the PW2 has accepted to pay the amount and the A1 demanded PW5 to give it in writing and take the auto. The letter given by the PW5 is marked as Ex.P2 during the trial. The PW2-Venugopal who is related to the auto driver, has made a written complaint to Vigilance and Anti-corruption cell against A1 and Ex.P3 is the written complaint by PW2, which was registered at 10.15am and the signature of the PW2 in the FIR is Ex.P4. The letter given by the PW5 is marked as Ex.P2 during the trial. The PW2-Venugopal who is related to the auto driver, has made a written complaint to Vigilance and Anti-corruption cell against A1 and Ex.P3 is the written complaint by PW2, which was registered at 10.15am and the signature of the PW2 in the FIR is Ex.P4. Pre trap proceedings appears to have been made and one Kannan and Saranga Thirumal, were deputed by the Trap Laying Officer. One of the official accompanying witness (shadow witness) Saranga Thirumal, is examined as PW3. 15. It is the further evidence of PW2 regarding the pre trap formalities and demonstrations of chemical examination by the Trap Laying Officer that as instructed by the Trap Laying Officer, PW2 and Saranga Thirumal went into the police station where A1, the Sub-Inspector received the money. After giving the money PW2 was asked to come out of the police station and signalled the vigilance officials by removing his watch, wipe it and wear it. Mr.Saranga Thirumal was directed to watch the conversation between PW2 and the A1. Entrustment mahazar which is marked as Ex.P5 was prepared between 12.30 to 1.15 p.m. 16. The crux of the evidence of the PW2 in connection with the charge are to the effect that they left the vigilance office at 2.45 p.m in a jeep and stopped it a little far away from the police station. PW2 and PW3-Saranga Thirumal entered the police station with an instruction to PW2 that he should pay the money to A1 only on his demand. At 2.45 p.m when both of them met the Sub-Inspector [A1], he questioned to PW2 as to whether he had brought the money. PW2 took the money from his shirt pocket and handed it over to the A1, the Sub-Inspector. The Sub-Inspector called A2- Vinodkumar who was in the adjacent Inspector room. A1 directed A2- Vinodkumar to receive the money and directed him to release the auto after getting a letter from PW2. As directed by A1, PW2 had handed over the money to A2 who after counting, kept it in his shirt pocket. PW2 gave a letter in writing and got the auto released and PW3-Saranga Thirumal signed as a witness and the letter is marked as Ex.P6. Then PW2 demanded the key of the auto. As directed by A1, PW2 had handed over the money to A2 who after counting, kept it in his shirt pocket. PW2 gave a letter in writing and got the auto released and PW3-Saranga Thirumal signed as a witness and the letter is marked as Ex.P6. Then PW2 demanded the key of the auto. A2 replied that the key of the auto was with A1 and then he obtained the key from A1 and gave it to PW2. 17. It is the specific evidence of PW2 that the Sub Inspector [A1] called Vinoth Kumar [A2], who was in the adjacent Inspector room and directed the A2 to receive the money and further A1 directed A2 to release the auto after getting the letter from PW2. As directed by A1, the PW2 handed over the money to A2 who after counting the cash, he kept it in his shirt pocket and PW2 gave a letter in writing and got his auto released and in the said letter Saranga Thirumal has signed as a witness and the said letter is marked as Ex.P6. PW3 Saranga Perumal has also identified his signature in Ex.P6, assumes significance and thus it is clear from the prosecution witness that PW2 demanded the key of the Auto and A2 replied that the key of the auto was with A1 and obtained the key from A1 and gave to A2 and thereby the PW2 has received the key from A2 and left as per the instructions. Thereafter as per the pre-arranged signal, the Vigilance Trap Laying officer entered the office and recovered the tainted money and also conducted the chemical test (phenolphthalein) which also turned positive in respect of A2. 18. The learned counsel for the A1 would contend that the demand was not proved in the manner known to law and since recovery was made only from the acquitted accused i.e. A2 and hence order of conviction passed against the A1 is not sustainable. 19. After perusing the evidence of PW2-Venugopal, the defacto complainant, the PW3-Saranga Thirumal, the shadow witness, PW4- Jayakumar, the owner of the Auto, PW5-Linganathan, Auto Driver, PW6- Mani, the then Inspector of Police, PW8-R.Vedha Rathinam, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW9-V.Sudhakar and PW10-Murugan, the police witnesses, the name of the A2 is not found either in Ex.P3, complaint given by the PW2 or Ex.P12-First Information Report. Further, during the alleged first demand and second demand as spoken to by PW2 and PW5, there is no overtact alleged against the A2, assumes significance. 20. From the evidence of PW2 to PW10, I find that A2 came into the picture only during the trap proceedings when the PW2-de facto complainant went and met the A1 to give the money as demanded by the A1. The A1 has directed the PW2 to hand over the money to the A2 and on instructions from A1, the A2 had received the money. It is further significant to note that even the auto key was kept by A1 as spoken to by PW2 in the cross examination, assumes significance. Hence, I find that there is no positive evidence for the alleged overtact as against A2 till on the trap day. Even during the trap proceedings only at the instance of the A1,innocently, A2 has received the amount and the further case of the defence of the A2 is discussed infra. 21. The A1 stands charged for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As stated supra, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 clearly demonstrate about the demand made by the A1. Initially, the A1 has demanded Rs.10,000/- from PW2. PW5- Linganathan was the driver of the autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.TN026033 and the defacto complainant is PW2 and relative of PW5. After persuasion, A1 has scaled down the demand to Rs.5000 and also made belittling statement against the PW2 that “you cannot get things done on empty hands”. 22. It is the evidence on record that even on 23.12.2005 after registration of the complaint, the PW2-defacto complainant and PW3 decoy witness after entering the police station, the A1 has demanded the PW2 at 2.45pm as to whether he has brought the money as asked for and thus, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that there was a clear demand made by A1 and it has been spoken to by PW2 and PW3 in their evidence. 23. Further, it is the specific evidence of PW2 that the A1 has made a demand whether he had brought Rs.5000/- as spoken to. Similarly, PW2 has also spoken about the demand and acceptance by the A2, on behalf of A1. 23. Further, it is the specific evidence of PW2 that the A1 has made a demand whether he had brought Rs.5000/- as spoken to. Similarly, PW2 has also spoken about the demand and acceptance by the A2, on behalf of A1. In the absence of any material contradiction in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and in the absence of any motive for the complainant to lodge a false case against A1, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 are clear and cogent and duly corroborated by the recovery of tainted amount in the police station, though it was from A2. 24. There is ample evidence on record to demonstrate that the tainted money was demanded by the A1. When the tainted money was tendered by PW2 he was asked to hand over the same to A2, who was sitting in the Inspector Room. The evidence of PW2, PW4 and PW5 exhibits that a prior demand has been made even before the trap proceedings and thus, I find that the 1st demand on 22.12.2015 was by A1, for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the release of the auto and the 2nd demand was on 22.12.2015 at 9.00pm whereby the first accused has reduced the demand from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. On 23.12.2015, PW2, lodged the complaint before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police and the 3rd demand was during the trap proceedings at 2.45pm on 23.12.2005, whereby the earlier demand as reduced at the second instance by the A1 was made with further direction to the PW2 to pay the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- to the A2 and hence, I find that the initial demand on 22.12.2005 in the morning and reiteration of the initial demand on 22.12.2015 in the night and the 3rd demand during the trap proceedings have been clearly spoken to by PW2 and PW3. 25. With regard to the 1st and 2nd demand, the evidence of PW2 was duly corroborated by PW5-Linganathan. With regard to 3rd demand during the trap proceedings the version of the PW2 was duly corroborated by the PW3-Saranga Thirumal, the decoy witness and only on the instructions of the A1, the PW2 has paid the bribe amount to A2. 26. 25. With regard to the 1st and 2nd demand, the evidence of PW2 was duly corroborated by PW5-Linganathan. With regard to 3rd demand during the trap proceedings the version of the PW2 was duly corroborated by the PW3-Saranga Thirumal, the decoy witness and only on the instructions of the A1, the PW2 has paid the bribe amount to A2. 26. With regard to the version of the PW2, PW4 and PW5 regarding the retention of the auto of the PW5 by the A1, the necessary documents have been placed before the investigation officer under Ex.P6 letter to release the auto and Ex.P8 complaint of the cellphone owner, has also been marked, goes to show that what was spoken to by the PW2 and PW5 for the reason for the demand made by the A1 that for return of the auto and for not to register a case, stands demonstrated by the prosecution and hence, I find that the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance and recovery of the tainted amount from the office of A1 has been proved by the prosecution and in the absence of any explanation, the suggestive case of the defence was rightly and properly rejected by the learned Special Judge and hence, the order of conviction passed by the trial Court against A1 cannot be termed as erroneous and it is held to be sustainable in law for the reasons stated supra. 27. On the point of acquittal for the A2, the PW8 investigation officer has categorically deposed that the name of the A2 was not mentioned in the complaint [Ex.P3], so also in the FIR [Ex.P12] and during the trap proceedings. The name of the A2 never appeared during the initial period, during the pre-trap proceedings or during the trap proceedings, except for the incident that A1 has instructed the PW2 to hand over the money to A2 and A2 was asked to collect the same. 28. The name of the A2 never appeared during the initial period, during the pre-trap proceedings or during the trap proceedings, except for the incident that A1 has instructed the PW2 to hand over the money to A2 and A2 was asked to collect the same. 28. Furthermore in order to probabilise the suggestive case, the A2 has entered the witness box and deposed that on the said day he was handling another case of theft wherein recovery of stolen articles were made and at that time the A1 has instructed him to receive the amount and he has innocently received the amount from the defacto complainant thinking that it is recovery of stolen articles, as instructed by his superior officer/Inspector of Police/A1 and kept in his shirt pocket. The A2 was innocent and unaware of the fact that PW2 is going to hand over the money to him as an illegal gratification. 29. Therefore, taking into the consideration the answer elicited from the cross examination of PW8 that till the last payment made by the PW2, the A2 was not at all in the picture and no overtact or no demand to bribe was alleged against him and only at the instance of his superior officer/A1, he has received the amount and in order to probabilise the suggestive case that on that day he was engaged in the collection of recovery made in the another case, documents viz., Ex.D1-FIR in Cr.No.2309/05 dt. 14.12.2005, Ex.D2-FIR in Cr.No.2333/05 dt. 22.12.2005, Ex.D3-Seizure mahazar in Cr.No.2333/05, Ex.D4, the copy of Form-95 in Crl.No.2309/05 and Ex.D5, the copy of the Form-95 in Cr.No.2333/05 were also marked and the A2 being the station Head Clerk and Writer, he was engaged in that case and he was under the impression that what was ordered to be collected by the A1 is recovery in the above said Crime Numbers only, appears to be more probable. 30. Furthermore, this Court takes note of the scope of the appeal against the order of acquittal, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.Nos.100 & 101 of 2021 [N.Vijayakumar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu], which reads as follows: “10....Further in the judgment in the case of Murugesan & Ors Vs. 30. Furthermore, this Court takes note of the scope of the appeal against the order of acquittal, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.Nos.100 & 101 of 2021 [N.Vijayakumar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu], which reads as follows: “10....Further in the judgment in the case of Murugesan & Ors Vs. State through Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383 , relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, this Court has considered the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal recorded by the trial court. 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 ] this Court has 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. 11. By applying the above said principles and the evidence on record in the case on hand, we are of the considered view that having regard to material contradictions which we have already noticed above and also as referred to in the trial court judgment, it can be said that acquittal is a “possible view”. 11. By applying the above said principles and the evidence on record in the case on hand, we are of the considered view that having regard to material contradictions which we have already noticed above and also as referred to in the trial court judgment, it can be said that acquittal is a “possible view”. By applying the ratio as laid down by this Court in the judgments which are stated supra, even assuming another view is possible, same is no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal and to convict the appellant for the offence alleged. ... 12. 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 this 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.” 31. Therefore, in view of the decision stated supra, I find that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court as against A2, does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and in view of the absence of any other possible view and taking note of the limitation of this Court and the scope of the appeal against the order of acquittal, I hereby hold that the judgment of the trial Court as regards the acquittal of A2 does not warrant any interference at this appellate jurisdiction. 32. 32. In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the charges against A1 through valid and reliable evidence. The trial Court has considered all the issues raised by the defence and arrived at a conclusion which in the view of this Court is correct and needs no reconsideration. 33. The prosecution through its witnesses had not only proved mere recovery of tainted money but had also proved that the money so recovered was received by the A1 on demand to release the auto and further not to register the case against PW5-Linganathan. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court to interfere with the conviction of A1 as well as acquittal of A2. 34. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals viz., Crl.A.No.176 of 2012, filed by the A1 as against his conviction and Crl.A.No.427 of 2013, filed by the State as against the order of acquittal of A2, are dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court dated 29.02.2012, made in C.C.No.138 of 2011 [Old C.C.No.30 of 2011] by the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai, is confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure A1 to serve the remaining period of sentence imposed by the trial Court.