JUDGMENT (Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in connection with judgment dated 28.02.2014 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2012 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore and set aside the same and acquit the appellant from the charges level against him.) 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2014 passed in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2012 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused was working as an Accountant in Palladam Sub-Treasury and the de-facto complainant A.Radha was working as a nurse in ESI Dispensary, Naranapuram, Palladam. On 16.6.2011, the pay drawing authority of Palladam ESI Dispensary submitted G.P.F loan bill, One Man Commission arrears bill and Surrender Leave Salary of the de-facto complainant in the Palladam Sub-Treasury for clearance through one Harigopalakrishnan, Assistant of ESI Dispensary, Head Quarters, Tiruppur. At that time, the accused instructed Harigopalakrishnan to inform the de-facto complainant to come and meet him in person in his office. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant met the accused in his office at Palladam on 20.6.2011 and the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1200/- as illegal gratification to pass the said bills. Again on 23.6.2011 at 11.00 hours the de-facto complainant met the accused and when the accused reiterated his demand, the de-facto complainant told that she is not having such amount with her. Thereafter, the accused told the complainant to come on 24.6.2011 during the office hours along with money and then only he will clear the arrears bills. Since the complainant did not want to give the said illegal gratification to a public servant, she approached P.W.10 the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore and made a oral complaint against the accused. As per the trap proceedings, on 24.6.2011 the de-facto complainant went to the office of the appellant along with official witness one K.Danabal/P.W.3, between 15.45 to 15.55 hours and she gave Rs.1200/- to the accused as illegal gratification and the same was accepted by the accused. Subsequently, the trap laying officers recovered the bribe amount from the accused through Ex.P10 seizure mahazar and P.W.10 arrested the accused and registered a case against the appellant. Subsequently, the trap laying officers recovered the bribe amount from the accused through Ex.P10 seizure mahazar and P.W.10 arrested the accused and registered a case against the appellant. 3.On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No.7/2011/AC/CB against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ''PC Act'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and later it was altered into Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. After completing the investigation, P.W.10 laid a charge sheet before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The learned Special Judge taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.Case No.5 of 2012 and charges were framed against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. 4. In order to prove its case before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16, besides 3 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.3. 5.After examining the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused and he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced and no documentary evidence was produced. 6.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record found the accused was guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act and convicted and sentenced as under: Offence Sentence Section 7 of PC Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Sections 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of PC Act to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, toundergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Sections 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of PC Act to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, toundergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. the period of detention already undergone by the accused was directed to be set off under Section428 Cr.P.C 7.Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant has filed the present Appeal before this Court. 8.1 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the basic ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of PC Act have not been made out. In order to meet out the said offences there must be a demand for illegal gratification and that the evidence regarding the said demand is totally absent in this case. P.W.4/Assistant Treasury Officer is the competent authority to pass the arrear bills of the de-facto complainant and the appellant has no power to pass the bills. As per the prosecution, at the time of presenting the arrears bills of the complainant, the appellant told P.W.6 Harigopalakrishnan to inform the de-facto complainant to meet him in person in his office. However, without examining Harigopalakrishnan and without conducting any preliminary enquiry, the trap laying officer straight away registered the case against the appellant. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 shows that the appellant demanded illegal gratification on 20.06.2011 for passing of three bills and also reiterated that the said gratification amount should be given by 24.6.2011. However, on 20.06.2011 itself the appellant passed all the three bills and the same were sent to P.W.4 for his approval, but out of three bills Ex.P5/One Man Commission Arrear bill was returned by P.W.4 with an endorsement ''''sanction proceedings not in order incorrect increment certificate'''' that implies that she must comply with certain formalities required by One Man Commission. Even before, the so called payment of bribe on 24.06.2011, the accused had already passed the bills of the complainant and hence, the question of demanding bribe does not arise and the evidence of P.W.2 is false. The prosecution has not proved the prior demand, acceptance and recovery. In the absence of prior demand and acceptance, mere recovery is not sufficient to convict the appellant. 8.2 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there are discrepancies in identifying the accused by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.10. The prosecution has not proved the prior demand, acceptance and recovery. In the absence of prior demand and acceptance, mere recovery is not sufficient to convict the appellant. 8.2 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there are discrepancies in identifying the accused by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.10. Their evidence did not corroborate with each other and therefore, the identification of the accused is improper. Further, the demand of bribe amount of Rs.1200/- on 20.06.2011 and 23.6.2011 could not be correct in the light of the documentary evidence. There are vital contradictions regarding the recovery of tainted money between the version of P.Ws.2, 3 and 10 and the trial Judge has given undue importance to the version of P.W.4 which is clearly inadmissible as he was not a witness to the seizure. He further submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.2 the appellant after receiving the bribe amount, had handed over the same to the complainant and asked her to keep the same in his cupboard, it is highly unnatural and improbable that a public servant after receiving the bribe amount in the public, handed over the same to the complainant and asked her to keep the same in his cupboard. There are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the same will conflict the case of the prosecution. The trial Court failed to appreciate the entire materials in the right perspective and erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case and wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 9.1 Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the de-facto complainant was working as a nurse in ESI dispensary and she applied for G.P.F loan bill, Arrears bill and SLS bill. When the ESI authority submitted the said bills in the Sub-Treasury, Palladam, Tiruppur through P.W.6, at that time, the appellant, who was working as accountant in the concerned treasury instructed P.W.6 to inform the beneficiary P.W.2 to come and meet him in person during office hours. When the complainant met the accused in the office on 20.6.2011, he demanded illegal gratification for passing the said bills. When the complainant met the accused in the office on 20.6.2011, he demanded illegal gratification for passing the said bills. Again on 23.6.2011 she met the accused, he reiterated the earlier demand and told the complainant to come on 24.06.2011 along with money and then only he will clear the bills. However, since the complainant did not want to give illegal gratification to a public servant, he approached P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore and made a oral complaint against the accused and P.W.10 reduced the same into writing, which was marked as Ex.P2. Based on the complaint, on 24.06.2011, P.W.10 arranged a trap with the help of the de-facto complainant and two other official witnesses viz P.W.3/Dhanabal and Jagadeesan, they conducted a pre-trap demonstration. After completing pre-trap proceedings, P.W.10 along with P.W.2, P.W.3, Jagadeesan and other trap laying officers went to the office of the appellant and conducted the trap proceedings and at that time, P.W.2 gave M.O.1 series currency notes which were coated by Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate powder to the accused in the presence of the shadow witness/P.W.3. Thereafter, the complainant came out of the place and also shown pre-arranged signal to the trap laying officer. Then, P.W.10, P.W.3 and other trap laying officers went to the place and enquired the appellant, the appellant also accepted the illegal gratification took from the complainant. Thereafter, phenolphthalein test was conducted, which showed positive and P.W.10 recovered the money and arrested the accused and Ex.P10 seizure mahazar was prepared. 9.2 To prove the case of the prosecution, the de-facto complainant was examined as P.W.2 and she has clearly narrated the incident and the shadow witness, who accompanied with P.W.2 in the trap proceedings was examined as P.W.3. A person who informed the complainant regarding the instructions given by the appellant i.e. told the beneficiary to come and meet him in person during office hours was examined as P.W.6. The trap laying officer was examined as P.W.10. The entrustment mahazar was marked as Ex.P4; seizure mahazar was marked as Ex.P10; chemical analysis report was marked as Ex.P11 and the material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.3. From the oral evidence of P.W2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.10 and documentary evidence, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant. From the oral evidence of P.W2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.10 and documentary evidence, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 11. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses out of which, the de-facto complainant was examined as P.W.2 and she categorically stated that when she was working as a nurse in the ESI dispensary she applied for G.P.F loan, One Man Commission arrears and Surrender Leave Salary. Thus, the authority of the ESI dispensary sent her bills to the Sub-Treasury of Palladam. After sending the bills, P.W.6 enquired the accused, for which the accused told P.W.6 that he put tokens for those bills, but to pass the bills the complainant has to give him Rs.1200/- and instructed P.W.6 to inform the same to P.W.2. On 20.06.2011 at about 11.00 hours P.W.2 met the accused in his office and enquired about her bills, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1200/- as illegal gratification and she informed the accused that she cannot afford to give the said amount, for which the accused told that unless the said payment, he would not pass the bills. On 23.06.2011 again, the accused reiterated the earlier demand. However, since the complainant did not want to give any illegal gratification, she approached P.W.10 and gave a complaint Ex.P2. Based on the complaint, the respondent/Police registered the case and arranged for a trap and also pre-trap proceedings was conducted in the presence of two official witnesses P.W.3/Dhanabal and one Jegadheesan. On 24.06.2011 at about 15.45 hours P.W.2 went to the office of the appellant along with P.W.3, at that time, the accused was sitting in a west facing seat, when the complainant enquired about her bills in the presence of P.W.3, the appellant reiterated his earlier demand. On 24.06.2011 at about 15.45 hours P.W.2 went to the office of the appellant along with P.W.3, at that time, the accused was sitting in a west facing seat, when the complainant enquired about her bills in the presence of P.W.3, the appellant reiterated his earlier demand. The complainant gave M.O.1 series currency notes in the presence of P.W.3 to the accused and he received and counted and gave it back to P.W.2 and asked P.W.2 to kept the same in the right side drawer of his table, where he usually sit and accordingly, P.W.2 placed M.O.1 series in the accused table. Thereafter, the complainant made a signal to the trap laying officers and when they came to the place, the complainant identified the appellant and thereafter, as per the direction of the officer, she left the place. 12.The shadow witness, who is the witness for the trap proceedings, was examined as P.W.3 and he has clearly spoken that he himself and one Jegadheesan were the official witnesses to the trap proceedings. On 24.06.2011 at 11.30 hours both of them were introduced to P.W.2 by P.W.10 and P.W.10 explained about the complaint of P.W.2, pre-trap demonstration and trap proceedings. The serial number M.O.I series currency notes were entered into the entrustment mahazar and the same was marked as Ex.P4. In Ex.P4 P.W.2, P.W.3 and Jegadheesan and P.W.10 have signed. As per the trap proceedings, P.W.3 went to the office of the accused along with P.W.2 and enquired about her bills in his presence. As the appellant reiterated the earlier demand, the complainant gave the phenolphthalein coated amount from her money purse to the accused and the accused also received the said amount, counted and returned back to the complainant and asked her to keep the amount in the right side drawer of his table. As the complainant kept the same in the appellant''s table, came back and showed pre-arranged signal to P.W.10. Thereafter, P.W.10, P.W.3, Jagadeesan and other trap laying officers went to the office of the accused, when P.W.2 identify the accused and she was asked by P.W.10 to stay outside of the office. As the complainant kept the same in the appellant''s table, came back and showed pre-arranged signal to P.W.10. Thereafter, P.W.10, P.W.3, Jagadeesan and other trap laying officers went to the office of the accused, when P.W.2 identify the accused and she was asked by P.W.10 to stay outside of the office. Thereafter, P.W.10 along with P.W.3, Jagadeesan and other police officials enquired the accused and thereafter conducted phenolphthalein test in the presence of P.W.4/Assistant Treasury Officer, which showed positive and also they verified the tainted bribe amount with entrustment mahazar/Ex.P4 and the serial numbers M.O.1 series tallied and thereafter, P.W.10 recovered the amount from the accused and also arrested the accused. P.W.10 prepared seizure mahazar/Ex.P10, in which, P.W.3, P.W.4, Jagadeesan, P.W.10 have signed. 13. P.W.6 the then Assistant of ESI Dispensary, Head Quarters, Tiruppur has clearly stated about the prior demand made by the appellant for passing of the arrears bills of the complainant and his evidence is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2. 14.P.W.10/Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore, who has clearly stated about the complaint/Ex.P2, pre-trap demonstration and trap proceedings and recovery of the money and preparation of entrutment mahazar/Ex.P4 and seizure mahazar/Ex.P10. His evidence is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6. 15.This Court, being an appellate Court, as a final Court of fact finding in this case and it has to independently re-appreciate the entire evidence and to give independent finding. Accordingly, this Court has also thoroughly gone into the entire materials and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 16.Since it is a case based on the trap proceedings, the Court has to see as to whether prior demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe are proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. On a perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, it is seen that the complainant/P.W.2 has clearly deposed that for what purpose she approached the appellant and the demand and acceptance made by the appellant. P.W.6 has clearly stated about the demand made by the appellant for passing the bills of the complainant. Further, P.W.3 has categorically stated about the demand and acceptance made by the appellant and also recovery of the tainted bribe amount. P.W.10 has categorically stated about the trap proceedings and preparation of entrustment mahazar and recovery of seizure from the appellant. P.W.6 has clearly stated about the demand made by the appellant for passing the bills of the complainant. Further, P.W.3 has categorically stated about the demand and acceptance made by the appellant and also recovery of the tainted bribe amount. P.W.10 has categorically stated about the trap proceedings and preparation of entrustment mahazar and recovery of seizure from the appellant. Therefore, this Court finds that from the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.10, the prosecution proved the demand, acceptance and recovery. Further, to strengthen the case of the prosecution the Scientific Officer attached to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai, who conducted Chemical Analysis on M.O.2 and M.O.3 and submitted a report/Ex.P11 was examined as P.W.9 and her evidence is corroborated with Ex.P10 seizure mahazar. Further, P.W.7 the employee of ESI dispensary, Palladam states that as per the instructions of PW.6 he went to the Sub-treasury, Palladam and handed over the bills of P.W.2. Further, the then Assistant Sub-Treasury Officer was examined as P.W.5 and he has spoken that on 24.6.2011 when he was in the office at about 4 0''clock the trap laying officer came and caught red handed the appellant and they have also conducted phenolphthalein test and recovered the bribe amount. The Assistant Sub-Treasury officer, who is the competent authority to pass the bills was examined as P.W.4 and he has also stated that out of three bills, he passed two bills and one bill was returned only based on the query raised by the appellant and also stated that he witnessed in the seizure mahazar/Ex.P10. At the time of occurrence i.e. on 24.06.2011 already two bills were cleared and one bill was pending. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6 it is clear that the appellant demanded money for passing the bills. From the evidence of P.W.4 it is clear that the appellant is the one who raised query and based on the query he returned the bill. The fact remains that from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6 the prosecution proved the demand of bribe by the accused on three occasions i.e. prior to trap on 18.6.2011, 20.6.2011 and 23.6.2011 and also the demand of bribe by the accused during the trap on 24.6.2011. The demand and acceptance was proved from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The recovery of tainted money through seizure was proved from the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.10. The demand and acceptance was proved from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The recovery of tainted money through seizure was proved from the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.10. Therefore, the basic ingredients of Section 7 of PC Act i.e demand of bribe, acceptance and recovery were proved by the prosecution in the manner known to law. 17.It is a settled proposition of law that once the prosecution proved the foundational facts of demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money, there is a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the accused has to rebut the same in the manner known to law. Unless the contrary is proved by the accused, the Court can safely come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 18.This Court while re-appreciating the entire materials finds that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of Section 7 of PC Act and the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded conviction. The appellant is a public servant, he obtained illegal gratification and the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds that the prosecution proved the principles of sine qua non in the trap case i.e., the demand, acceptance and recovery and it is for the appellant to rebut the presumption that the amount recovered from him is not a bribe money and how the phenolphthalein powder came in his hand. However, the appellant has not rebutted the presumption in the manner known to law. 19.In fine, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2012 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore is confirmed. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any and the same shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.