JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant by the Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Cases/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Perambalur in Spl.Case No.02/2006 dated 21.09.2016 in Crime No.07/2004 and acquit him from all charges.) 1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein. 2. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption cases, Perambalur, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 3. By an order dated 21.09.2016, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption cases, Perambalur has convicted the accused under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 3 months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 3 months 4. The accused-Sivakumar is working as a Firka Surveyor at Taluk Office, Perambalur is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. The short facts as could be seen from the evidence are as under: (a) The accused, Firka Surveyour, Taluk Office, Perambalur was convicted under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced for one year R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-was imposed for each count. (b) P.W.2, the son of P.W.5 gave a petition Ex.P3 at Taluk office, Perambalur on 22.07.2004 on behalf of his father for surveying the house site and Ex.P2 is the chalan for payment of Rs.80/- (c) P.W.2 met P.W.10, Draftsman 3 days later and he enquired about the petition. P.W.10 searched for the petition and told that it was not available and asked him to apply for a fresh one. On 06.08.2004, P.W.2 gave a fresh petition, Ex.P5. (d) On 09.08.2004, P.W.2 went to Taluk Office, met P.W.10. He was asked to contact P.W.13, Deputy Surveyor and get the measurement done by him. P.W.10 searched for the petition and told that it was not available and asked him to apply for a fresh one. On 06.08.2004, P.W.2 gave a fresh petition, Ex.P5. (d) On 09.08.2004, P.W.2 went to Taluk Office, met P.W.10. He was asked to contact P.W.13, Deputy Surveyor and get the measurement done by him. P.W.13 told him that he should bring money for Flag Day collection and asked him to come for next day. Again he met P.W.10, who told him that the petition has been forwarded to the accused and asked him to contact the accused. When P.W.2 contacted the accused, he demanded money for measuring the house site. P.W.2 pleaded his inability to pay money. The accused demanded Rs.1500/- and refused to reduce the amount. (e) Again on 14.08.2004, P.W.2 met the accused and accused reduced the amount to Rs.1000/- and told that he cannot measure the site for lesser amount. P.W.2 was not inclined to pay the money. (f) On 17.08.2004, P.W.2 went to the V&A.C office at Trichy and lodged a report Ex.P6 to P.W.15, Inspector, who registered a case at 10.15 a.m., Ex.P23 is the printed F.I.R, wherein it is mentioned that the information was received at 8.30 a.m. (g) P.W.15 arranged for a trap and received Rs.1000/- M.O.1 series from P.W.2. He requested the service of P.W.3 and another and after their arrival explained the procedure and also demonstrated phenolphthalein test. He prepared an Entrustment Mahazar, Ex.P8. He told P.W.2 to pay the money as and when demanded by the accused and if the accused received the amount, give a signal by removing his watch from his left hand and tie it on the right hand. (h) All of them proceeded to go for Taluk Office at 11.30 a.m., and they reached the Taluk Office at 1.00 p.m. They were informed that the accused will come at 3.30 p.m., P.W.2 told P.W.15 met the accused along with P.W.3. P.W.2 asked whether the land can be measured on this day for which the accused told it will not be possible to bring the VAO and asked P.W.2 to come at the next day 9 a.m., with the amount. They returned to V&AC office and prepare a Mahazar, Ex.P9. (i) Next day on 18.10.2004, P.W.2 went to V&AC office at 6 a.m. P.W.2 and other proceeded to the V&AC office and the Mahazar Ex.P10 was prepared. They returned to V&AC office and prepare a Mahazar, Ex.P9. (i) Next day on 18.10.2004, P.W.2 went to V&AC office at 6 a.m. P.W.2 and other proceeded to the V&AC office and the Mahazar Ex.P10 was prepared. Then they proceeded to Taluk Office. P.W.2 met the accused with the P.W.3 at 10 a.m and asked the accused whether he can measure on that day. The accused asked him to come after lunch by 2 p.m. (j) P.W.2 went and informed the police and he asked them to wait. At 2.45 p.m., P.W.2 along with P.W.3 met the accused. The accused sent them to VAO, P.W.6 office at Koneripalayam to get some records from him. P.W.2 asked for certain records. P.W.6 sent for P.W.7 Thalayari and asked him to find out from the accused whether he sent them P.W.2, 3 and 7 came to accused office. Accused and P.W.7 had some discussion. Later, P.W.7 was asked to bring the records. P.W.7 and P.W.2 took the records to accused office. (k) Accused enquired whether the other party was informed and got P.W.2's signature in blank papers. Then the accused asked P.W.2 whether he brought the amount. P.W.2 handed over the money to the accused. Accused put it in his shirt pocket. P.W.2 came out and gave signal by removing the watch from left hand to right hand. P.W.15 came and P.W.2 identified the accused. P.W.2 was asked to wait outside. P.W.15 questioned the accused. (l) The accused took the money from his pocket and his hand was dipped into the phenolphthalein water and the answered positive. He was asked to remove his shirt and it was subjected to phenolphthalein test. P.W.15 seized Exs.P11, P4, P5, P12 to P17 from the table of the accused. Then the seizure mahazar Ex.P18 was prepared which was attested by P.W.4, one Varadharajan and another witness. P.W.15 prepared observation Mahazar, Ex.P19 and rough sketch, Ex.P24. (m) One Akbar Ali, took up the investigation and filed final report. (6) The Investigation Officer has laid the final report in the above Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2006, charges under Section 7 read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention and Corruption Act were framed against the accused. (7) To prove the charges on the side of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P25 and M.O.'s 1 to 5 were marked. (6) The Investigation Officer has laid the final report in the above Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2006, charges under Section 7 read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention and Corruption Act were framed against the accused. (7) To prove the charges on the side of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P25 and M.O.'s 1 to 5 were marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and no documents were marked. (8) The suggestive case of the defence is that D.W.1 who is a relative to P.W.2 borrowed Rs.1000/- from the accused, in the month of June. D.W.1 gave the amount through P.W.2 to pay to the accused. P.W.2 was selling vegetables in the Farmers' market. The accused was residing nearby Farmers' market. But P.W.2 failed to pay the amount to the accused. Accused questioned D.W.1 about the amount due. He was informed that the amount was paid to P.W.2. Then the accused questioned P.W.2 in the Farmers' Market and there was wordy quarrel between the P.W.2 and the accused. P.W.2 felt insulted and humiliated since accused shouted at him in front of the public in the market. (9) The trial Court has held that the prosecution has proved the charges and rejected the case of the defence and laid the conviction as stated supra. 10. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.V.Gopinath appearing for the appellant would contend that there is no whisper regarding demand by P.W.1 in the witness box on the alleged date i.e., on 09.08.2004 and 14.08.2004 and it is not a case of acceptance of the money as a bribe. Rather, it is the prosecution chasing the accused for planting the money. 11. P.W.2 had met the accused on 4 occasions, but he had not whispered anything regarding the demand and the Seizure Mahazar- Ex.P18 by P.W.15 suffers from material contradiction. The vital document namely the alleged requisition application given by the P.W.2 is found to be missing and Departmental action was initiated has admitted by P.W.10. 12. Trap proceedings was prepared on 4 occasions. Two times on the first day and two times on the second day. But the P.W.2 has not whispered anything on demand though P.W.2 on 4 occasions met the accused and hence the evidence of P.W.2 is tainted with malafide with the defence theory being probablized through D.W.1, the same is discussed infra. 13. Two times on the first day and two times on the second day. But the P.W.2 has not whispered anything on demand though P.W.2 on 4 occasions met the accused and hence the evidence of P.W.2 is tainted with malafide with the defence theory being probablized through D.W.1, the same is discussed infra. 13. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) drawn my attention to the charges 1&2 and the evidence of P.W.2. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 15. According to the prosecution, the demand was made on 4 occasions and trap was planned for two days on 4 occasions. Tainted amount was recovered from the hands of the accused, scientific report have been turned positive and hence, the prosecution has sought to invoke the presumption under Section 20(i) of the P.C. Act for which the learned Senior Advocate for the accused could drawn my attention to the evidence of D.W.1 and prayed to hold that the accused has probablized suggestive case. 16. P.W.1 officer who had issued Ex.P1 sanction for prosecution. The Trial Court has held that no irregularity is found and also there is a due application of mind in according the sanction as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 17. The prosecution has projected that demand was made on 4 occasions namely on 09.08.2004; 14.08.2004; 18.08.2004 and on 19.08.2004 (trap day). 18. Initial demand was sum of Rs.1500/- subsequently reduced to Rs.1000/- on the alleged second occasion of the demand on 14.08.2004. 19. Foundational facts : P.W.2 had made Ex.P3 requisition for surveying the house site along with P2 challan. (a) The first petition Ex.P3 is not endorsed by the Deputy Tahsildar/P.W.8. The same is also not registered under the Disbursement Register under Ex.P14. There is no endorsement (Ex.P3) was sent to the accused has admitted by P.W.5 in the crossexamination assumes significance. (b) The second petition Ex.P5 is not signed by P.W.4 Tahsildar on 09.08.2004 because he was not in charge of Deputy Tahsildar on 09.08.2004 has admitted by the P.W.4 in the cross examination. Though the Ex.P5 is projected as a second petition, it was not sent to the accused officer by the Tahsildar for necessary action has admitted by P.W.15 Tahsildar in the cross-examination also crates doubt as to the coming into the existence of Ex.P5. Though the Ex.P5 is projected as a second petition, it was not sent to the accused officer by the Tahsildar for necessary action has admitted by P.W.15 Tahsildar in the cross-examination also crates doubt as to the coming into the existence of Ex.P5. (c) P.W.10 (draftman) in the chief examination itself has categorically deposed that P.W.2 came to the survey office and asked to Ex.P3 petition which was said to have been given by him on 22.07.2004. On being searched, he told the P.W.2 on that day itself that the said requisition said to have been given by P.W.2 namely Ex.P3 was not registered in the book and hence, he has requested him to give new petition. Furthermore, P.W.1 the sanctioning authority in the cross-examination has admitted that for missing the Ex.P3 petition, departmental action has been initiated against P.W.10 assumes significance. (d) P.W.10 (Draftsman) is projected to have returned both the petitions Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 for P.W.2. The same is admitted by the P.W.2. So also by P.W.3. Hence, I find that the finding of facts regarding the Ex.P2 first requisition petition for measuring the land and second requisition petition Ex.P5 was not properly established by the prosecution and hence, I find that foundational facts projected on which the prosecution projected the case is found to be shaky. 20. Demand, acceptance and recovery:- Whether the demand prior to the trap? and demand during the trap? (a) The complainant (P.W.2) has said in his chief examination that he gave a petition to Tahsildar to survey his house site. To conduct survey he met the accused at his office on 09.08.2004. The accused demanded him Rs.1500/- to measure his house site. Again P.W.2 met the accused at his office on 14.08.2004 and expressed his inability to give Rs.1500/-, for which the accused reduced Rs.500/- and demanded him Rs.1000. The accused said to have told that he will conduct survey only if Rs.1000/- given to him. (b) At this juncture, defacto complainant-P.W.2 would state in his cross examination that he did not meet the accused on 09.08.2004. So the alleged first demand of Rs.1500/- fails. 2) The second demand was on 14.08.2004. P.W.2 said that the accused reduced the amount from Rs.1500/- to Rs.1000/- on 14.08.2004. (b) At this juncture, defacto complainant-P.W.2 would state in his cross examination that he did not meet the accused on 09.08.2004. So the alleged first demand of Rs.1500/- fails. 2) The second demand was on 14.08.2004. P.W.2 said that the accused reduced the amount from Rs.1500/- to Rs.1000/- on 14.08.2004. When P.W.2 had not met the accused on 09.08.2004 and when there was no first demand of Rs.1500/- on 09.08.2004, how it could be reduced to Rs.1000/- on 14.08.2004? It is doubtful that P.W.2 did not meet the accused at his office on 14.08.2004. So the alleged second demand of Rs.1000/- also failed 3) It clearly shows that P.W.2 had not met the accused on 09.08.2004 and 14.08.2004. When P.W.2 had not met the accused in the above said said days how there would be a demand? 4) The Investigation Officer (P.W.15) has admitted in his cross examination that because of the enmity between the accused and P.W.2, the complaint was falsely foisted by P.W.2 and unnecessary action has been taken by their department (V&AC) 21. During the trap proceedings is there any demand ?; (a) The complainant (P.W.2) has deposed in his chief examination that himself and trap witness (P.W.3) met the accused at his office on 17.08.2004 at around 3.45 p.m. He asked the accused, if he could conduct the survey that day. The accused said he could not conduct the survey and that he will do it next day morning. The accused told P.W.2 to come with money next day at 9.00 a.m. (b) The official witness (P.W.3) has deposed in his chief examination that himself and the complainant (P.W.2) met the accused at his office on 17.08.2004 at 3.45p.m. P.W.2 asked the accused about survey of his house site, the accused asked P.W.2, if he had brought the money for which P.W.2 replied that he has brought the money, then the accused said that survey could not be conducted thereafter and told P.W.2 to come with money next day at 9.00 a.m. 22. As stated supra, the trap day has been enlarged to two days and on 4 occasions in the said two days for trapping the accused P.W.2 has met the several times as per the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.15 TLO so many events have been traced as narrated in the chief and cross-examination. 23. As stated supra, the trap day has been enlarged to two days and on 4 occasions in the said two days for trapping the accused P.W.2 has met the several times as per the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.15 TLO so many events have been traced as narrated in the chief and cross-examination. 23. The complainant (P.W.2) has said in his chief examination that after 17.08.2004 again he met the accused at his office on 18.08.2004 at 10.00 a.m. He asked him if he could conduct survey that day. The accused replied that he will conduct survey after lunch and told him to come around 2.00p.m. In other words, it clearly shows that accused did not demand money from P.W.2 on 18.08.2004 at 10.00a.m. It confirms that the accused did not demand money from P.W.2 on 17.08.2004 at 3.45P.M and 18.08.2004 at 10.00a.m. 24. From the above discussion, this Court finds that when P.W.2 met the accused on 18.08.2004 at 2.45p.m he did not demand the money from P.W.2. P.W.3 would state in his cross-examination that he did not go to P.W.6 office. P.W.2 only went to P.W.6 office to ask the records. P.W.7 has deposed in his chief examination that P.W.2 only came to P.W.6 office at 4.00 p.m and asked Koneripalayam village records. then P.W.6 said to P.W.7 to confirm whether the accused asked the records. P.W.7 and P.W.2 went and met the accused at his office. It confirms that P.W.3 did not go to P.W.6 office with P.W.2 at 4.00p.m and P.W.3 did not come with P.W.2 and P.W.7 to the accused office from P.W.6's office. Then it is doubtful whether P.W.3 was with P.W.2 at the time when bribe amount was given to the accused. 25. From the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 coupled with the answer elicited in the cross-examination of said witnesses along with P.W.15, I find that in the chief examination, P.W.2 did not say anything about the enquiry being made by accused regarding P.W.3. The P.W.2's evidence indicates that the accused did not enquire about P.W.3, though a stranger had accompanied while giving bribe. Normally, the bribe amount is not accepted in the presence of a stranger. The accused would not have accepted the bribe amount in the presence of a stranger, i.e., P.W.3 Karuppaiah. It creates doubt. The P.W.2's evidence indicates that the accused did not enquire about P.W.3, though a stranger had accompanied while giving bribe. Normally, the bribe amount is not accepted in the presence of a stranger. The accused would not have accepted the bribe amount in the presence of a stranger, i.e., P.W.3 Karuppaiah. It creates doubt. The very fact that the accused did not enquire about P.W.3 is another circumstance which again throws a considerable doubt. As per P.W.3's statement in his cross-examination that there were five to six persons in the accused office when P.W.2 and P.W.3 met the accused. There were 1.5 feet distance between the accused table and other staff table. 26. The one of the starling evidence of P.W.15, the cross examination is that the Investigation Officer (P.W.15) has admitted in his cross examination that in all the four occasions when P.W.2 met the accused [1)17.08.2004 at 3.45 p.m, 2) 18.08.2004 at 10.00a.m, 3)18.08.2004 at 2.45 p.m & 4) 18.08.2004 at 4.45 p.m] the accused did not demand bribe amount from P.W.2. It clearly shows that the accused never demanded bribe money from the complainant (P.W.2). If there is no demand then the entire case of the prosecution would necessarily have to fail and hence, I find that the various omissions made by the P.W.2 certainly amounts to material contradiction regarding the allegation of demand and receipt of the money. 27. At this juncture, it remains to be stated that it is a specific contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant/accused that the T.L.O along with P.W.2 was chasing the accused for planting the money. 28. In the cross examination of P.W.2 he had admitted that:- (a) The complainant (P.W.2) went to meet the accused at his office on 17.08.2004 at 1.10p.m, the accused was not there. P.W.2 came out and waited for the accused and met him after he arrived to the office at 3.45 p.m. The accused did not get money from P.W.2. (b) The next day on 18.08.2004, P.W.2 went to meet the accused at his office at 9.40a.m, the accused was not there. P.W.2 came out and waited for the accused and met him after he arrived to the office at 10.00a.m. The accused did not demand money from P.W.2. Again P.W.2 met the accused on 18.08.2004 at 2.45p.m. The accused did not demand money from P.W.2. P.W.2 came out and waited for the accused and met him after he arrived to the office at 10.00a.m. The accused did not demand money from P.W.2. Again P.W.2 met the accused on 18.08.2004 at 2.45p.m. The accused did not demand money from P.W.2. Again P.W.2 met the accused on the same day at 4.00 p.m and gave the money to the accused. 29. Thus, this Court finds that: (a) It shows that the raiding party was much interested in making the trap successful. Initially the trap was arranged on 17.08.2004, but, it was not success. If the accused really had the intention to take bribe for conducting survey, he would have accepted the bribe amount on 17.08.2004 itself. It is to be noted that, the next day on 18.08.2004 the complainant (P.W.2) came to V&AC office, on oral statement of the complainant to the Inspector of Police, the trap was re-arranged in anticipation of further incident. The witnesses were also called at 6.30am on 18.08.2004 by TLO without proper permission from their superiors. (b) It shows that the V&AC police continuously chased the accused for two days till P.W.2 gives the money to the accused. If the accused had demanded money from P.W.2, V&AC police had no need to chase the accused for two days for many times. (c) It is the contention that the raiding party has chased the accused for two days for many times and therefore, the entire prosecution case is held to be doubtful. 30. Yet another point is that there is a considerable delay in lodging the complaint and coming into the existence of the alleged time of complaint, which is also doubtful for the reason that as per the complaint the first demand was made on 09.08.2004 and again it was reiterated on 14.08.2004. The complaint was lodged only on 17.08.2004. It is pertinent to note that even after the alleged second demand, P.W.2 did not lodge the complaint without delay. He took two days and only on 17.08.2004 the complaint was lodged. There is no plausible explanation from P.W.2 for the delay of 2 days in giving the complaint. Why P.W.2 waited for two days in giving the complaint also throws a considerable doubt. It is the contention that the delay in lodging the complaint is not explained and the same is fatal to the prosecution case. There is no plausible explanation from P.W.2 for the delay of 2 days in giving the complaint. Why P.W.2 waited for two days in giving the complaint also throws a considerable doubt. It is the contention that the delay in lodging the complaint is not explained and the same is fatal to the prosecution case. 31 (a) As stated supra, regarding coming into the existence of the complaint and the alleged time, the complainant (P.W.2) has stated in his chief examination that he went to V&AC office on 17.08.2004 at 10.15a.m to lodge a complaint against the accused. (b) It is stated in the F.I.R that the information was received on 17.08.2004 at 8.30a.m. As per the evidence of P.W.2 himself, it is clear that he reached V&AC office on 17.08.2004 at 10.15a.m only. How in F.I.R it is stated that the information about the occurrence was received at 8.30a.m. (c) There is a discrepancy in the evidence by the prosecution as to when the complaint was really lodged. It is the contention that complaint Ex.P6 was not a genuine complaint and it has been created for the purpose of the case. 32. Hence, I find that the foundational facts has projected by the prosecution is found to be shaky. The alleged demand is also found to be doubtful and hence, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the tainted amount has been recovered from the accused and the scientific report Ex.P21 given by P.W.14 Kamatchi Krishnamoorthy, Forensic Department is also doubtful. 33. Recovery of tainted amount from the hands of the accused without any reasonable proof of demand will not save the charge. At this juncture, the suggestive case and the evidence of D.W.1 assumes significance. 34. Pitchai (D.W.1) is a friend to the accused and residing in the Annamangalam village. D.W.1 is relative to the complainant (P.W.2) admits this in his cross examination. D.W.1 had received a hand loan of Rs.1000/- from the accused in the month of June 2004. At that time D.W.1 had given Rs.1000/- to P.W.2 and asked him to hand over the money to the accused in Perambalur farmers market because the accused is residing near to farmers market. P.W.2 used to sell vegetables in farmers market. P.W.2 admits this in his cross examination that he did not give the money to the accused and prolonged. At that time D.W.1 had given Rs.1000/- to P.W.2 and asked him to hand over the money to the accused in Perambalur farmers market because the accused is residing near to farmers market. P.W.2 used to sell vegetables in farmers market. P.W.2 admits this in his cross examination that he did not give the money to the accused and prolonged. When the accused met D.W.1, he had asked him to repay the amount of Rs.1000/-. D.W.1 had said to the accused that he already gave the amount through P.W.2 to handover it to him in farmers market. D.W.1 had said to the accused to collect the money from P.W.2. The accused met P.W.2 in farmers market and asked the amount. There were quarrel between P.W.2 and the accused. After that D.W.1 hearsay that P.W.2 foisted a case against the accused in V&AC. After three months when D.W.1 met P.W.2 in a function, P.W.2 had said to D.W.1 that because of anger, he falsely foisted the case against the accused. D.W.1 - Pitchai has admitted all these things in his cross examination. The Investigation Officer (P.W.15) has admitted in his cross examination that because of the enmity between the accused and P.W.2, the complaint was falsely foisted by P.W.2 and unnecessary action has been taken by their department (V&AC). 35. Hence in view of the answer elicited in the crossexamination of P.W.2, the relationship between him and the D.W.1 and the accused is established and the money transaction between the accused and the D.W.1 (relative of P.W.2) is also established and it is also significant to note that the Investigation Officer P.W.15 had admitted in the cross-examination that there is a clear enmity between the accused and the P.W.2, I find that the suggestive case of the defence to D.W.1 is more probable than the prosecution case. Even the alleged Ex.P3 Requisition letter given by the P.W.2 is not found. So also Ex.P5. Even the alleged Ex.P3 Requisition letter given by the P.W.2 is not found. So also Ex.P5. It has been admitted by the P.W.10 and P.W.5 and Departmental action was also initiated for missing of the above said Exs.P2 and P5 as admitted by the P.W.1, the Sanctioning Authority and there is a chasing of the accused by the trap witness along with P.W.2 and there was a two Entrustment Mahazar Exs.P8 and P10 for 17.08.2014 and 18.08.2014 though the accused has met along with trap team, 4 occasions on the two days, the demand said to have been made by the accused was not firmly established and as stated supra, the first and second demand projected by the prosecution was not whispered by the P.W.2 in the witness box and from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.15, this Court found that there is no demand of money from the P.W.2 on 18.08.2014 at 10.00a.m so also on 2.45 p.m and on the second trap day and hence the accused did not demand money from P.W.2 on 17.8.2004 at 3.45 p.m and 18.08.2004 at 10.00 a.m and the demand and acceptance was not proved in the manner known to law. 36. Hence, I find that the prosecution witnesses are bristled with the infirmity and inconsistency and the revenue witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 37. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to hold the charge under Section 7 read with 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and hence, I find that the prosecution has not made the foundational facts for raising the presumption in their favour. Besides, as per the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the suggestive case is appears to be more probablize than the prosecution case and hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and by operation of law, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, I hold that the accused is entitled for acquittal on the failure of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same is set aside. 38. 38. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence passed by the Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Cases/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Perambalur in Spl.Case No.02/2006 dated 21.09.2016 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The bail bond shall stand cancelled. Fine amount is ordered to be returned.