JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., pleased to pass an order to set aside the conviction order dated 20.04.2018 passed against the accused/appellant in C.C.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and acquit the accused/appellant in the above case.) 1. The appellant/Thota T.Shivakumar a public servant, while serving as Senior Section Engineer, Permanent Way in Southern Railways was trapped for receiving illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- on 07.03.2014. He was tried and found guilty by the Special Court for C.B.I cases, Chennai, for the charge under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo 3 months S.I. For each of the above two offences. However, the period of substantive sentence was ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred. 3. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that, the accused while working as Senior Section Engineer at Permanent Way in the O/o.Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railways, Park Town, Chennai, demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification on 06.03.2014 from one L.G.Ravi, a Railway Contractor, for recording the measurement of the work executed by him in the Measurement Book. The said L.G.Ravi not inclined to give illegal gratification, gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, SPE:CBI:ACB, Chennai, on 07.03.2014. Case was registered in Crime No.RC/MA1/2014-A0008 and taken up for investigation. As a part of investigation, trap was laid. The defacto complainant L.G.Ravi was instructed to met the accused and give the bribe money smeared with phenolphthalein, to the accused if he demands. Thiru.A.Lakshmanasamy was instructed to accompany the defacto complainant and oversee the transaction. Accordingly, on 07.03.2014, at about 14.35 hours, the defacto complainant and the shadow witness A.Lakshmanasamy met the accused near My Lady Garden, Park Town, where the office of the accused located. The accused asked the shadow witness to wait outside the room and thereafter, by sign tossing his right hand index finger with thumb finger, asked for the money from the defacto complainant. Immediately, the defacto complainant took out marked currency of Rs.15,000/- and gave it to the accused. The accused asked the shadow witness to wait outside the room and thereafter, by sign tossing his right hand index finger with thumb finger, asked for the money from the defacto complainant. Immediately, the defacto complainant took out marked currency of Rs.15,000/- and gave it to the accused. Soon after, the trap team caught the accused and recovered the marked currency of Rs.15,000/- which was kept in his shirt pocket. The hand wash solution and shirt wash solution collected during the trap proceedings were sent for chemical analysis and found presence of phenolphthalein. After obtaining sanction to prosecute, the Investigating Officer filed final report. 4. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.11), marked 64 Exhibits (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.64). On the side of the defence, 3 witnesses (D.W.1 to D.W.3) and 19 Exhibits were marked (Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.19). The trap money, remnant of the solutions and shirt of the accused were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence and submissions made by the Learned Counsels held the accused guilty of offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and sentenced him as stated above. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the duty of the accused is to supervise the contract work, record the measurements of the work in the M-book and keep the log book and labour register upto date. The work of the accused will be verified and cross checked by the Executive Engineer and Deputy Chief Engineer, who are his Superiors. Once the measurement recorded by the accused is verified by his Superiors, then payment will be released. According to the complainant, for recording measurement, the accused alleged to have been demanded Rs.15,000/- as bribe. In fact, M-book clearly show that, even prior to the date of complaint, the accused has already recorded the measurement and there was no necessity to further record measurement in the Mbook. Therefore, the allegation that recording measurement in M-book is necessary to get payment is far fetching. 7. The prosecution has not proved the demand of illegal gratification either on 06.03.2014 or on 07.03.2014. The shadow witness admittedly was not with the defacto complainant at the time of alleged occurrence. He was standing outside the accused room and admittedly, he had not heard the conversation between the accused and the defacto complainant. 7. The prosecution has not proved the demand of illegal gratification either on 06.03.2014 or on 07.03.2014. The shadow witness admittedly was not with the defacto complainant at the time of alleged occurrence. He was standing outside the accused room and admittedly, he had not heard the conversation between the accused and the defacto complainant. Therefore, for want of corroboration to the evidence of P.W.2, case of the prosecution regarding demand of illegal gratification has been failed. 8. Regarding recovery mahazar alleged to have been prepared at the scene of occurrence which is a computer printed document. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the defacto complainant admits that, there was no laptop, printer or computer in the office of the accused. Therefore, the recovery mahazar proved to have been prepared elsewhere and not at the place of occurrence as mentioned in the recovery mahazar. 9. The accused have no power to stop the payment or make payment. His duty is to record the measurement. In this case, measurement were recorded for the work so far done by the complainant and the complainant has already received the payment for the work done and verified by the Senior Officers. 10. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that, the haste in recording the complaint without making preliminary verification is contrary to the manuals and guidelines. The credential of the defacto complainant, who is a defaulter and seeking extension of time without completing the work not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. The registers maintained clearly show that, for several days prior to the complaint, the accused has not engaged workers for execution of the work. From 21.02.2014, there was no activity carried by the defacto complainant and same has been recorded by the accused in the M-book. Aggrieved, the defacto complainant had given a false complaint as if, to record the measurement in the M-book, the accused demanded Rs.15,000/-. 11. The sketch does not depict the scene of trap. The place where the accused, the defacto complainant and shadow witness stood are not marked in the sketch. 12. The contradictions between P.W.2 the decoy witness and P.W.3 shadow witness regarding the sequence of events at the time of trap, create doubt over the prosecution case. 11. The sketch does not depict the scene of trap. The place where the accused, the defacto complainant and shadow witness stood are not marked in the sketch. 12. The contradictions between P.W.2 the decoy witness and P.W.3 shadow witness regarding the sequence of events at the time of trap, create doubt over the prosecution case. While P.W.2 L.G.Ravi had deposed that, the tainted money was recovered from the accused first and thereafter, phenolphthaleinsodium carbonate test was conducted. Whereas, the shadow witness P.W.3 A.Lakshmanasamy had deposed that, the Trap Laying Officer, first conducted phenolphthalein–sodium carbonate test and then, recovered the tainted money. 13. The presence of phenolphthalein in the hands and shirt portion of the accused even if it is assume to be true since the money was first asked to be handled by the accused and thereafter, phenolphthalein test been conducted. The presence of phenolphthalein in the sodium carbonate solution collected cannot be a proof of demand and obtainment of tainted currency. The presence of P.W.3 during the trap is highly doubtful since the recovery mahazar in which, he has signed is a computer print out. It has been elucidated through prosecution witness that, at the scene of occurrence, there was no computer or Lap Top or printer facility. 14. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further referring the testimony of D.W.1 to D.W.3 and the documents relied by the defence which are marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.19 submitted that, the defacto complainant, on 07.03.2014 had first met Superintendent of Police by name Smt.M.Roopa who was examined as D.W.3. Thereafter, only he had met the Trap Laying Officer Saravanan P.W.10. Though D.W.3 has made an endorsement directing Saravanan to verify and report, she has denied instructing Saravanan. 15. Ex.P.24 is the written complaint addressed to Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, Anti Corruption, Chennai. In the said complaint, D.W.3 has marked the complaint to Thiru.K.Saravanan, Inspector and instructed him to verify and report. Whereas, Thiru.K.Saravanan, even without verification, reported to the Superior Officer and has registered the complaint and proceeded with the trap. In the cross examination of P.W.10, K.Saravanan, Trap Laying Officer admitted that, the complainant did not give any books or record when he met him and what he learn from complain is that, he has completed 55% of the work but was paid only for 45% of the work. In the cross examination of P.W.10, K.Saravanan, Trap Laying Officer admitted that, the complainant did not give any books or record when he met him and what he learn from complain is that, he has completed 55% of the work but was paid only for 45% of the work. Regarding this fact, the Trap Laying Officer has admitted that, he has not caused any investigation. 16. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the statement of the Trap Laying Officer that he verified about the credential of the complaint over phone is unbelievable since the entire complaint centres around refusal to record the measurement in the M-book. Unless, the records are verified regarding the contract and date of completion of the work, one cannot jump to the conclusion about the complaint given by the contractor who is admittedly a defaulter and been repeatedly seeking extension of time and also admitted that, to complete the work, he had engaged third party contractor which is contrary to the terms of the contract. 17. The Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that, Ex.P.24 complaint itself is doubtful since P.W.2 the defacto complainant has deposed that, when he met Saravanan Inspector of Police, he gave five pages written complaint. Whereas, Ex.P.24 is three pages written complaint. There is every reason to presume that, the five pages complaint of P.W.2 been suppressed and substituted with three pages complaint. 18. Per contra, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/C.B.I submitted that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved through oral evidence of P.W.2 (defacto complainant), P.W.3 (shadow witness) and P.W.10 (Trap Laying Officer). The tainted currency notes of Rs.15,000/- which was received and kept in his left side shirt pocket of accused was recovered and the recovery forms part of the mahazar marked as Ex.P.28 in which the accused has also fixed his signature. 19. The accused, while questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has filed written statement admitting that, on 07.03.2014, at around 3.15 p.m, the defacto complainant entered his office and told him that, he had come to pay the dues to one Mr.Venkatesan learning the said Venkatesan not available. The defacto complainant went out of his Office. Immediately, some men barged into his office and demanded his Identity Card. The defacto complainant went out of his Office. Immediately, some men barged into his office and demanded his Identity Card. They introduced themselves as Officer of C.B.I and enquired where he has kept the money given by L.G.Ravi the defacto complainant. He has alleged that, Saravanan slapped him and when his colleagues came and saw the commotion, they were threatened. No plausible explanation given by the accused when opportunity was given to him to explain how he came in possession of the tainted money. 20. Regarding the contradiction between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/C.B.I submitted that, though P.W.2 had said that, the accused was asked to take out the money and thereafter, he was asked to dip his fingers in the sodium-carbonate solution as per the recovery mahazar Ex.P.28 and the oral evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.10, the money was recovered only after confirming the presence of phenolphthalein in the hands of the accused by conducting sodium-carbonate and phenolphthalein test. While the contemporaneous document Ex.P.28 (recovery mahazar) been corroborated by the independent witness and the Trap Laying Officer namely P.W.3 (A.Lakshmanasamy) and P.W.10 (K.Saravanan), the said sequence which is reduced into writing will prevail over the evidence of P.W.2 (L.G.Ravi). 21. Regarding the entires made in M-book marked as Ex.P.3, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that, last payment for the contractor was made in the month of January-2014. The accused, who is suppose to record the work done after January-2014 had delayed recording the work done, expecting bribe and this fact been deposed by the defacto complainant. Under Ex.P.23, Deputy Chief Engineer, instructed to complete the work listed in the letter immediately. Pursuant to that, he has completed the work and payment around Rs.2 lakhs was due and payable to him. He requested Deputy Chief Engineer through letter dated 21.01.2014 and 26.02.2014 to pay the money. As a consequence to his representation on 04.03.2014, Deputy Chief Engineer Govindasamy and Executive Engineer Selvaraj made a physical inspection at Aathipattu Pudhu Nagar site. Thereafter, Deputy Chief Engineer instructed the accused to record the measurement and submit it to him on 08.03.2014. However, he met the accused on 06.03.2014, he demanded bribe and therefore, he has given the complaint. 22. Thereafter, Deputy Chief Engineer instructed the accused to record the measurement and submit it to him on 08.03.2014. However, he met the accused on 06.03.2014, he demanded bribe and therefore, he has given the complaint. 22. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/C.B.I reading the testimony of defacto complainant P.W.2 L.G.Ravi and evidence of P.W.4 D.Govindasamy, Deputy Chief Engineer and P.W.6 R.Selvaraj, Executive Engineer submitted that, the prosecution has proved the fact that, for the work done by the defacto complainant, payment was not made and for payment, recording of measurement in M-book is compulsory. The accused/appellant is responsible for recording the measurement and he was instructed by his Superior Officer P.W.4 D.Govindasamy to complete the recording of measurement and bring the M-book for his verification by 08.03.2014. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly proved the accused in spite of inspection of the site along with his Superior Officer had not measured the work and recorded it in the M-book and for recording the measurement, he had demanded Rs.15,000/- and received it from L.G.Ravi, the contractor/defacto complainant. The said trap money of Rs.15,000/- was marked as M.O.1 recovered from the accused under the mahazar marked as Ex.P.28. Having proved the demand of bribe and recovery of the bribe money through testimony of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.10 duly recorded under Ex.P.28, the accused had not come out with any explanation and his explanation by way of written statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C found bereft of details to probabilise his defence and therefore, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the judgment of the trial Court has to be confirmed. Point for consideration:- Whether the trial Court judgment holding the accused guilty is sustainable in law and facts? 23. The contractual relationship between the defacto complainant and the Railways proved through the exhibits relied by the prosecution. On the date of complaint (07.03.2014), the defacto complainant/contractor has alleged that, he is the successful bidder for the contract worth Rs.97,26,261/- which was awarded to him on 31.12.2012 for laying link of points crossing from Ennore – Athipattu Pudhu Nagar. He should have completed the work within the period of two months but he could not complete the work in time since the Railway failed to supply materials. He should have completed the work within the period of two months but he could not complete the work in time since the Railway failed to supply materials. In this connection, for the work already done, he had received three instalment of payments totally Rs.45,85,521/- and for the work already done still a sum of Rs.6 lakhs is due to him. In this connection, he has met the Deputy Chief Engineer Govindasamy (P.W.4) and Executive Engineer Selvaraj (P.W.6) and Thotta Siva kumar the accused. On 04.03.2014, when they all returning to Chennai in Train, P.W.4, Deputy Chief Engineer instructed the accused to measure the work done by the complainant and record it in the M-book. In this connection, when he met the accused on 06.03.2014 at about 11.00 a.m., the accused demanded Rs.15,000/- to measure the work and if fail to give the bribe, he will not record the measurement. 24. P.W.4 Govindasamy had deposed to the effect that the defacto complainant, who is the successful contractor was not able to complete the work within time prescribed and was repeatedly sought for extension of time, expressing difficultly faced by him in executing the work. Further, he had deposed about the request made by the contractor/defacto complainant (P.W.2) to release the payment for the work he has already done. 25. Regarding the averment in the complaint that, on 04.03.2014 when they all returning from Athipattu Pudhu Nagar site, he instructed the accused to record the measurement. P.W.4 Mr.D.Govindasamy had deposed as below:- “The contractor also one more letter to me dated 26.02.2014 in page No.115 requesting me to make payment for the leftover items which has not been paid for the value of approximately Rs.6 Lacs. In the letter, I made an endorsement in Executive Engineer to make out a reply and arranged for recording measurement for making payment. After that the contractor orally discussed with me over phone for making early payment. In turn, I instructed the contractor to come to work site for discussion about the pending payment. On 4.3.14, I went to Athipet Pudunagar site along with my EE, Thiru Selvaraj and T. Sivakumar Senior section engineer and other connected supervisor to review the work. After reviewing the work the contractor L.G.Ravi met me in the platform Athipet Pudunagar, I told him to get into the train and instructed the section Engineer Mr. On 4.3.14, I went to Athipet Pudunagar site along with my EE, Thiru Selvaraj and T. Sivakumar Senior section engineer and other connected supervisor to review the work. After reviewing the work the contractor L.G.Ravi met me in the platform Athipet Pudunagar, I told him to get into the train and instructed the section Engineer Mr. Sivakumar in the presence of EE Shri Selvaraj and Shri. LG Ravi, contractor for recording the measurement for 7 pending items and Sivakumar also told me that some of the rectification has to be done by the contractor before recording the measurement for which the contractor LG Ravi replied that he will attend the deficiency before 06.03.14 and Mr. Sivakumar told me that he will record the measurement on 08.03.2014.” 26. In the cross examination P.W.4 D.Govindasamy had stated that, on 04.03.2014, the contractor/defacto complainant claim payment for seven items of work done and when he enquired the accused about that, the accused informed that there are some deficiencies in the work done by the contractor and if the contractor rectifies the deficiencies, he will record the measurement. Witness also admits that, on the date of inspection i.e., 04.03.2014, item No.2 101 A and B cross over track work was incomplete and regarding Point No.3, 7 numbers of point crossing work was incomplete and the accused has not recorded the measurement of those incomplete work at Point No.3 and Point No.2 101 A and B track linking and 7 numbers point crossing. 27. P.W.6 Thiru.R.Selvaraj, Executive Engineer had substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 Govindasamy regarding the contract given to the defacto complainant and work done by him. He had deposed in chief that, when he received letter from the contractor seeking payment for the work already done, he sent the letter to the accused with endorsement for which the accused replied that the contractor has not completed his work in time hence, he is not able to present the track for the commission of Railway''s inspection. He, in turn, forwarded the letter to Deputy Chief Engineer to advice the contractor to complete the work. Further, the evidence of P.W.6 that, the measurement of the work was done by him on 18.03.2014 (after the trap) and sought approval of Deputy Chief Engineer for making payment. 28. He, in turn, forwarded the letter to Deputy Chief Engineer to advice the contractor to complete the work. Further, the evidence of P.W.6 that, the measurement of the work was done by him on 18.03.2014 (after the trap) and sought approval of Deputy Chief Engineer for making payment. 28. From the correspondence and the evidence, it is obviously clear that, the defacto complainant had not completed the work within the time stipulated under the contract. However, his request for extension of time accepted by the Railways and he was allowed to continue the work. For the contract of around Rs.97 lakhs, he was already paid Rs.45 lakhs and on the date of complaint, around Rs.6 lakhs was due. In this regard, the accused had refused to measure the work and record it in the M-book since there was deficiency in the work. This has been recorded by way of reply by the accused to his Superior Officers namely P.W.6 Selvaraj. 29. P.W.4 and P.W.6 both these witnesses admit that, the accused was insisting the contractor to rectify the deficiencies in the work before he could measure and record the work done in the M-book. The defacto complainant neither in his complaint nor in his evidence had stated that, he has rectified the deficiency on 06.03.2014 and despite that, the accused demanded bribe from him for measuring the work. 30. The accused by examining D.W.1 R.Parasuraman, Senior Section Engineer had justified his refusal to measure the incomplete work. This witness had spoken about the antecedent of P.W.2 L.G.Ravi, who had failed to complete the contract awarded to him in connection with Karaikal - Nagore line and the railway was forced to engage a different contractor for completing the work so as to commission the line within the time prescribed. D.W.2 V.Vaiyapuri, who is the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) had deposed that, on 07.03.2014 i.e., date of trap, he went to Athipattu Pudhu Nagar site for inspection and he found that, the contractor L.G.Ravi had not done any work for nearly one month. This witness had further deposed that, on the instruction of the accused, he took photograph of the site in his mobile phone and on his return to his office at Chennai, met the accused and shared the photographs to the accused, at that time, the trap team came and manhandled the accused. This witness had further deposed that, on the instruction of the accused, he took photograph of the site in his mobile phone and on his return to his office at Chennai, met the accused and shared the photographs to the accused, at that time, the trap team came and manhandled the accused. Then gave interview through TV and arrested the accused. However, the photograph so alleged to have been taken was not produced by the accused or by D.W.2 31. D.W.3, Smt.Roopa, Superintendent of Police, had deposed that, on 07.03.2014, P.W.2 first met her and as per her instruction, he met S.Vellaipandi, Superintendent of Police Grade- II. According to her evidence, complaint was received and registered by Superintendent of Police, Rank Officer after conducting verification. Contrarily, in the written complaint Ex.P.24, we find endorsement by this witness D.W.3 Smt.Roopa, instructing K.Saravanan, Inspector of Police, to verify and report. Ex.P.58 is the verification report submitted by P.W.10 Saravanan to D.W.3 Smt.Roopa. In this verification report, D.W.3 has made an endorsement in writing to Shri.K.Saravanan, Inspector of Police, to register a case and lay a trap. In this verification report, P.W.10 K.Saravanan had stated that, the complaint is genuine and the accused Thota.Siva Kumar is not enjoying good reputation. 32. P.W.10 K.Saravanan in the cross examined, admits that, he did not verify any record to substantiate the genuineness of the complaint and he admits that, till the time of registering the complaint, there was no adverse record against the accused to infer his bad reputation. Further, P.W.10 had stated that, his verification was over phone and he could not disclose the source of his information. Having relied upon as much as the 64 exhibits, the communication which prove that the measurement of work for which the accused alleged to have demanded bribe was incomplete and the accused was not inclined to measure the work without the contractor rectifying the deficiencies not been considered by the trial Court. Accused to his Superior Officers namely P.W.4 and P.W.6 had informed about work deficiency and they also admit that, the accused refuse to measure the work unless the contractor complete the work and rectify the deficiencies. Nowhere, the complainant had stated or proved that, he had rectified the deficiencies. Accused to his Superior Officers namely P.W.4 and P.W.6 had informed about work deficiency and they also admit that, the accused refuse to measure the work unless the contractor complete the work and rectify the deficiencies. Nowhere, the complainant had stated or proved that, he had rectified the deficiencies. In fact, through D.W.2 the accused has probabilised that, on 07.03.2014 when D.W.2 visited the site, the work was incomplete and for nearly a month, the accused has not carried the work in that site. To prove the fact that, the defacto complainant has not done any work in the site since on 21.02.2014 the accused has relied on Ex.D.10 which is the xerox of the labour register signed by contractor and the Southern Railway for the period from 02.01.2013 to 06.03.2014. As per this document, the last work done in the site was on 20.02.2014. Against this entry the contractor as well as SSE/P.WAY (accused) initialled. Thereafter, from 21.02.2014, the accused had continuously recorded no activity at work spot and made his initial but the contractor has not signed. The perusal of the entires found in this register for the previous dates, we find whenever there is no activity on the site, the contractor has not made his initial. This piece of evidence would clearly show that after the inspection of the site on 04.03.2014 by the Superior Officer, it was made clear to the contractor that, to claim the bill, he has to clear the deficiencies. He also agreed to rectify the deficiency by 06.03.2014 but he has not rectified the deficiencies. Contrarily has given this complaint as if, the accused has demanded illegal gratification to measure the work and record it in the M-book. 33. The consistent defence of the accused is that, he refused to record measurement with rectifying the deficiency in the work. Though Ex.P.10, the accused had proved that the accused who promised to rectify the deficiency did not go to site and no activity carried on the site. This is also well fortified by the oral evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6. The work for which the complainant sought for payment was not completed and there was deficiencies in the work, till the deficiencies are rectified, the accused has categorically informed his Superior Officials and the contractor that he will not record the measurement in the M- book. 34. This is also well fortified by the oral evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6. The work for which the complainant sought for payment was not completed and there was deficiencies in the work, till the deficiencies are rectified, the accused has categorically informed his Superior Officials and the contractor that he will not record the measurement in the M- book. 34. In the light of refusal, there is a strong motive for the defacto complainant to make a false complaint against the accused. The Trap Laying Officer had not made proper verification about the credential of the complainant as well as the accused soon after receiving the complaint at about 11.15 a.m. P.W.10 had deposed that, he conducted verification of the complaint between 11.15 a.m to 11.45 a.m and submitted his verification report Ex.P.58 to the Superintendent of Police and thereafter, registered the F.I.R at 12.00 hours. The official witnesses came to the office at 12.40 hours. The entrustment started at 12.45 hours and completed at about 13.45 hours. The recovery mahazar Ex.P.28 indicates that, at about 14.35 hours, Shri L.G.Suresh (sic) L.G.Ravi entered into the office of Senior Section Engineer along with the accompanying witness. Within few minutes, Shri.Lakshmanasamy P.W.3 shadow witness was seen coming out of the room and standing outside. 35. The recovery mahazar is a computer print out. Though, it is stated that, it was prepared on 07.03.2014 at office room of the Senior Section Engineer, Permanent Way (Constructions) near My Lady Garden Park, Park Town, Chennai. P.W.2 had categorically deposed that there was no computer accessories in the office of the accused to prepare the mahazar using computer. 36. Now turning to the recovery of tainted money from the accused, the grave contradiction between P.W.2 and P.W.3 had doubt over the entire prosecution case. The accused having probablised his innocence through cross examination of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6, to prove motive behind the complaint and by examining D.W.2 and by marking the labour Register Ex.D.10 he has proved beyond doubt that the complainant had attempted to get payment by forcing the accused to record measurement in the M-book without completing the work. 37. The accused having probablised his innocence through cross examination of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6, to prove motive behind the complaint and by examining D.W.2 and by marking the labour Register Ex.D.10 he has proved beyond doubt that the complainant had attempted to get payment by forcing the accused to record measurement in the M-book without completing the work. 37. Recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused also found to be doubtful since the demand and acceptance by the accused as spoken by P.W.2 not seen by P.W.3 who was standing outside the room but for the sake of supporting the prosecution case he had deposed that, he saw the accused receiving the money. However, his falsehood been exposed when he was not able to support the case of the prosecution about what happened after the trap team entered the room of the accused. His version contrary to the version of P.W.2 and P.W.10. makes his testimony highly unreliable. 38. For the reason stated above, this Court finds that the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is Allowed. Fine amount paid if any by the accused, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond if any executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.