JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment passed in Special CC No.41 of 2014, dated 27/03/2018 by the Special Court for Trial of case under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief :- A1-Jesuraj John Bosco was working as Commercial Inspector and A2-Ariyamuthu was working as Inspector of Assessment in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District, during the relevant period. The de-facto complainant constructed a new house at Kalaiyarkoil, Somanathamangalam Group, Mandali Village. For getting the electricity connection, on 10/08/2007 at about 10.15 am, he along with his brother-in-law namely Shanmugam met Sangiliraj, Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kalayarkovil and gave application Form. He received the application and verified the same, signed and gave to him asking to hand over the application and service connection amount to A1-Jesuraj John Bosco. So, the de-facto complainant and his brother-in-law met A1 and gave the application and service connection amount of Rs.1,600/-. A1 received the same and demanded Rs.300/- as illegal gratification. At the request of the de-facto complainant, it was reduced to Rs.200/-. It was told by A1 that receipt would be given after receiving the bribe amount of Rs.200/- and gave the application and service connection amount of Rs.1,600/- to A2. In turn, A2 also told that receipt would be given after receiving the bribe amount of Rs.200/-. Not willing to bribe, the de- facto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent. Based upon the complaint, trap was laid. Case in Crime No.3 of 2007 was registered for the offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused were arrested during trap. After completing the formalities of the investigation, filed final report. It was taken on file by the Special Court for Trial cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai, in Special CC No. 41 of 2014 for the offence under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused persons:- (i) The de-facto complainant constructed a house at Kalaiyarkoil, Somanathamangalam Group, Mandali Village. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused persons:- (i) The de-facto complainant constructed a house at Kalaiyarkoil, Somanathamangalam Group, Mandali Village. For getting electricity connection, on 10/08/2007 at about 10.15 am, he along with his brother-in-law namely Shanmugam met Sangiliraj, Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kalayarkovil and gave the application Form; He received the application, verified the same, signed and gave to the de-facto complainant asking to hand over the application and service connection amount to A1-Jesuraj John Bosco; The de-facto complainant and his brother-in-law met A1 and gave the application and service connection amount of Rs.1,600/-; A1 received the same and demanded Rs.300/- as illegal gratification; At the request of the de-facto complainant, it was reduced to Rs.200/- and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ; and (ii) In the course of the same transaction, the accused by using their position as public servant obtained Rs.200/- as pecuniary advantage for themselves from the complainant and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . 3. To that charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During the trial process, on the side of the prosecution, 15 witnesses have been examined and 35 documents marked. Apart from that, MO1 to MO4 marked. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 5. The case of the prosecution, as narrated through the prosecution witnesses :- PW1 purchased the property in Mandali village measuring about 5 cents. He constructed a house after getting proper permission. He approached TNEB for temporary service connection. On 10/08/2007 at about 10.30 am, he gave request and application with the Assistant Engineer namely Sangiliraj. He received the application and asked them to pay Rs.1,600/- as charges. They were referred to the Commercial Inspector table and at about 01.00 pm, the first accused Jesuraj John Bosco came to the seat. At that time, they demanded Rs.300/- as bribe amount. They told that apart from the legal charges, they have not paid any money, for which the accused demanded at least Rs.200/-. Again, the de-facto complainant has stated that he has not brought money. The accused told them to bring the money and get the receipt. At that time, they demanded Rs.300/- as bribe amount. They told that apart from the legal charges, they have not paid any money, for which the accused demanded at least Rs.200/-. Again, the de-facto complainant has stated that he has not brought money. The accused told them to bring the money and get the receipt. A1 handed over the receipt for the legal charge of Rs.1,600/- to A2 and told A2 to receive Rs.200/- and then issue the receipt. Even the receipt of Rs.1,600/- was not given stating that they must give Rs.200/-. On 14/08/2007 at about 11.15 am, he went to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department and lodged the complaint under Ex.P5, thereupon, the case was registered. 6. Further event is spoken by PW13 who was working as Inspector of Police. On 14/08/2007 at about 11.15 am, he received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2007 for the offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. He prepared FIR and submitted the original records to the court and copies to the concerned authorities. Thereafter, he made request to the Government Departments to depute two persons to assist him in the trap. At the request made by him, one Ashok and Mani were present before him. He introduced PW1 to the official witnesses and explained about their part as well as the importance of the pre-trap arrangements and trap proceedings. 7. PW1 handed over two Rs.100/- notes. The Trap Laying Officer noted the currency note numbers in a mahazar. As per the instruction of PW13, Constable Selvakumar prepared the Sodium Carbonate Solution and asked one of the official witnesses to dip his hands and accordingly, he dipped his hands. There was no colour noticed. Later, he was asked to count the currency notes, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Again, he dipped his hands in the Sodium Carbonate Solution. It turned pink. He prepared the mahazar mentioning the note numbers and events happened. He instructed PW1 to give money to the first accused if demanded and give signal. He asked the official witnesses to accompany PW1 and witness the occurrence. After completion of the formalities, along with a team of police, they proceeded to the office of the first accused. They alighting in a nearby area and hiding. He instructed PW1 to give money to the first accused if demanded and give signal. He asked the official witnesses to accompany PW1 and witness the occurrence. After completion of the formalities, along with a team of police, they proceeded to the office of the first accused. They alighting in a nearby area and hiding. He instructed PW1 and the official witnesses to go inside the office of the accused and if any demand is made give the money and show signal. With the above said instructions and along with the official witnesses, they went to the office of the accused and reached at about 02.00 pm and hiding in a nearby area. PW1 and the official witnesses instructed to go inside and they also went inside. 8. Further event is spoken by PW1 . After going inside the office, they approached A1 and enquired about the receipt for legal charges. At that time, A1 enquired whether he brought Rs.200/-. He gave the money to A1. He received the same and put it in the drawer and issued receipt for the legal charges. At that time, the official witness namely Ashok and Mani were present. As instructed earlier, they came out of the office of the accused. At about 02.15 pm, he made signal, upon which the police team entered and enquired about the events. He narrated the entire events to the Trap Laying Officer, identified the accused. 9. Further event is spoken by the Trap Laying Officer. On entering in the office of the accused, he enquired PW1 about the occurrence and he narrated the events, which was corroborated by the official witness Ashok. At that time, the Assistant Engineer Sangiliraj came to that place. He asked to be a witness to the event. Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared. The first accused was directed to dip his hands in two separate Sodium Carbonate Solution bottles. It turned pink. Solution was stored in a glass bottle, covered, sealed and labeled and signed by the accused and other witnesses. 10. On enquiry, the first accused told that he received the money. But told that out of the legal charges of Rs.1,600/-, Rs.200/- notes were spoiled notes. Two soiled notes were replaced for the currency note given by PW1. Immediately, PW11 called and enquired PW1 whether legal charge was paid to the Commercial Inspector. 10. On enquiry, the first accused told that he received the money. But told that out of the legal charges of Rs.1,600/-, Rs.200/- notes were spoiled notes. Two soiled notes were replaced for the currency note given by PW1. Immediately, PW11 called and enquired PW1 whether legal charge was paid to the Commercial Inspector. But bribe amount of Rs.200/- was given to A1. Money was handed over by A1. It was compared with that of the numbers mentioned in the mahazar. It was found tallied. Test was conducted in the drawer with phenolphthalein solution. Again it turned pink. It was collected, labeled and sealed. He recovered relevant records and registers, etc. A2 was enquired about the allegations made against him. He gave a statement. Both accused were arrested and sent for judicial custody. He prepared parvai mahazar and rough sketch in the place of occurrence and the presence of the witnesses, the entire events were reduced into writing. In which the accused and the witnesses signed. Search was made in the house of A1, wherein documents and cash of Rs.21,000/- were seized. Rs.400/- was returned to A1. But Rs.21,000/- was seized. 11. He submitted the records and the material objects to the Court and handed over the investigation to PW14 the Inspector of Police. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, sent the material objects for chemical examination. He received the chemical examination report and concerned sanction order. After completing the investigation, filed the final report. 12. PW2 is the brother-in-law of PW1. He has spoken about the purchase of the property and other affairs. 13. PW3 is the official witness, who accompanied PW1 during the pre-trap and trap events. 14. PW4 spoken about the procedure followed in processing the application for temporary service connection. 15. PW6 and PW7 have spoken about the trap events. 16. PW11 was working as President of Kalayarkoil Panchayat Union. He has spoken about the plan approval granted to PW1 for constructing a new house. 17. PW12 is the Scientific Assistant, attached to FSL, Chennai. He analyzed and confirmed the presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate under Ex.P27 Chemical Analysis Report. 18. After closure of the prosecution evidence, when the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. 19. 17. PW12 is the Scientific Assistant, attached to FSL, Chennai. He analyzed and confirmed the presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate under Ex.P27 Chemical Analysis Report. 18. After closure of the prosecution evidence, when the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. 19. After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial court found the first accused guilty of the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months SI for the offence under section 7 of PC Act; and further convicted under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, sentenced him to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months SI and directed to run the sentences concurrently. 20. Against which, this criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant. 21. Heard both sides. 22. The background facts :- PW1 is the complaint. PW2 is the brother-in-law. During the course of the chief examination, PW1 has supported his complaint regarding the demand made by A1 namely the appellant herein, acceptance, etc. facts. There was no cross examination immediately. Chief examination was made on 27/10/2005. He was cross examined by the accused, on 17/11/2005. At that time, he supported the case of the defence. Now, again mistake was committed by the prosecution. He was not treated hostile immediately. Even on the date of the cross examination, the prosecution has stated that there is no reexamination. But later recalled at the instance of the prosecution. Only at that time, he was treated as hostile. 23. PW2 was cross examined on the very same day I.e., on 27/10/2005. At that time, he would say that demand of Rs.200/- as bribe amount was made by A1, directing A2 to issue certificate after receiving the bribe amount. During the course of cross examination, he would say that only on 09/08/2007, he went to the office of the accused along with PW1 and thereafter did not. But during the chief examination, he has stated that on 10/08/2007 at about 10.15 am, he went to the office of the accused along with PW1. 24. During the course of cross examination, he would say that only on 09/08/2007, he went to the office of the accused along with PW1 and thereafter did not. But during the chief examination, he has stated that on 10/08/2007 at about 10.15 am, he went to the office of the accused along with PW1. 24. PW1 during the course of the chief examination would say that on 10/08/2007 at about 10.15 am, PW2 also came along with him. Only at that time, demand was made by A1. 25. Whether recording of the evidence by the trial court with reference to the date is correct or not is clarified by the subsequent event by the prosecution by treating PW2 also hostile. So, the prosecution has very specific to the effect that the first attempt was only made on 10/08/2007 and not on 09/08/2007. But when cross examination was made by the prosecution, PW2 has stated that on 10/08/2007, he went along with PW1 to the office of the accused. Whether he went on 09/08/2007 or not is not able to speak. But anyhow, he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. Both PW1 and PW2 turned hostile. So, whether the evidentiary value of PW1 and PW2 has any impact upon the prosecution case can be taken in course of time. 26. The defence that was taken is that Rs.1,600/- was paid by PW1 towards legal charges for getting the temporary service connection. Rs.200/- notes found soiled. So, PW1 was directed to replace the soiled notes. When the replacement was made, trap was laid as if it is a bribe amount. This is the contention raised by the accused during the course of trial. So, this defence itself shows that there is no denial of recovery or receiving of the money from PW1, even though during the course of the argument, the appellant has raised many issues with reference to the trap event, recovery, etc, 27. Now we will concentrate mainly on the first defence taken. 28. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that if on the date of the trap what was paid by PW1 is the amount for replacement of soiled notes, then the accused would have produced the soiled notes, either at the time of the trap or subsequently. Absolutely, there is no explanation on the side of the defence on this point. 29. Absolutely, there is no explanation on the side of the defence on this point. 29. The second defence that was taken by the accused is that PW4 is a motived person, had enmity with him; To wreck vengeance only, he has given evidence in support of the prosecution; The prosecution has not satisfactorily explained the missing of Rs.200/- in the hands of the accused at the time of trap. As per Ex.P16, deficit was made much prior to the date of trap. So, there is no demand of any bribe amount. This defence has taken only as secondary. We will discuss this in the course of time. 30. Now we will go to the evidence on record with regard to the demand, acceptance and recovery. 31. Before that, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon number of judgments in support of his contention. We will take up those judgments at the relevant point of discussion. 32. The next aspect, which is brought on record by the accused is relating to the defective application. 33. Much argument was advanced by this appellant on that defective application issue and from that, they want to establish the fact that the application itself is defective and created one. Absolutely, there is no chance for demanding illegal gratification. 34. The next ground is self-contradictory in nature. 35. As noted above, the preliminary defence is that only soiled notes were replaced. When that is being the position, how the defence can take advantage of this point is not known. But however, it is the duty of this court to address this point also. 36. According to the appellant, it is admitted by PW4 that three persons must attend the application submitted by PW1. As mentioned above, there were corrections and improper plan approval, etc. So, there was a delay on the part of the accused to process the application. More-over, it is even admitted during the course of the cross examination that all the three persons must present in the office to attend that application. The application was originally returned, on 09/08/2007 due to some defects. Only on 20/08/2007, the plan approval was given. Even at that time, there were corrections in the name. Since there were manipulations, that application was also rejected. 37. The application was originally returned, on 09/08/2007 due to some defects. Only on 20/08/2007, the plan approval was given. Even at that time, there were corrections in the name. Since there were manipulations, that application was also rejected. 37. It is the further contention that if really, any demand was made by the accused, immediately PW1 ought to have made complaint to the higher officials. But no such step was taken by him. Even though, the amount was remitted and the application was returned for the purpose of collecting or replacing the soiled notes, as mentioned above, this sort of defence is not supported by any evidence. 38. PW4 who is the Head of the office, during the relevant time, is the competent person to make any such return, rejection, etc. He would say that no such defect was brought to his notice. All the suggestions made by the accused to PW4 were denied by him. But regarding the corrections in the name of the applicant, he would say that at the time of receiving the application, he did not notice it. But in-fact, there is correction in the name of the applicant by using whitener. So, absolutely there is no reason for PW4 to entertain that sort of defective application and directing the accused to attend the work against the procedure. So, this defence is also not supported by any circumstance evidence. So, this is also not properly probabalised by the accused. 39. With these in mind, now let us go to the evidence on record on the particular day of trap. 40. PW3 is the shadow witness. He would corroborate PW1 regarding pre-trap demonstration. There is no defect pointed out by the accused regarding the pre-trap arrangement. We can take that the pre-trap arrangement was made as per the procedure. 41. Coming to the main event, PW3 would say that as per the instructions given by the Trap Laying Officer, along with PW1 he went to the office of the accused. PW1 demanded issue of the receipt for payment of Rs.1,600/-. At that time, A1 asked the de-facto complainant to give Rs.200/- as demanded by him. He handed over Rs.200/-, treated with phenolphthalein powder. A1 received the same and put it in the table drawer and issued a receipt for the payment of legal fees. PW1 demanded issue of the receipt for payment of Rs.1,600/-. At that time, A1 asked the de-facto complainant to give Rs.200/- as demanded by him. He handed over Rs.200/-, treated with phenolphthalein powder. A1 received the same and put it in the table drawer and issued a receipt for the payment of legal fees. So, this is the evidence of PW3 regarding the demand and acceptance on the date of trap. 42. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would rely upon the following judgments:- (i) D.Dass, Inspector of Police (Ex-Inspector of Police, Cuddalore Police Station, No.7, Krishswami Nagar, Kuthapakkam, Cuddalore-2 Vs. State, rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Wing, Cuddalore (2010(1)CTC 492); (ii) S.M.Vijakumar Vs. State of Karnataka 2016(1)Crime 503(Karnt.) (iii) C.Sukumran Vs. State of Kerala (2015)11 Scc 314 ); (iv) The State by the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai Vs.v.Vaidiyalingam and another (2017(2)MWN(Cr.)439); (v) Selvaraj Vs. State of Karnataka (2015)10 SCC 230 ); (vi) Tmt.P.Mohana Vs. Tr.K.Chandrasekaran (2018-2-L.W.(Crl.) 439); and (vii) S.P.Tamilarasan Vs. State (2017(3)MWN(Cr.) 435 for the purpose of argument that the burden of proof is always upon the prosecution. The demand and recovery must be established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. If the demand is not proved, mere recovery of money from the accused is not sufficient to find out the guilt for the offences charged against him. Apart from that, it is also submitted that when the de-facto complainant is absent or is not supporting the case of the prosecution, then the duty is heavily cast upon the court to shift the shadow witness, other witnesses. 43. For the purpose, he would rely upon the judgment of this court in S.P.Tamilarasan Vs. State (2017(3) MWN (Cr.) 435). 44. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that when the appellant has taken out the plea of probability, that is not established. Simply because the de-facto complainant turned hostile, the prosecution case should not be thrown out. 45. Another ground of argument advanced by the appellant is that when he has brought on record the evidence to probabalsie his defence, then the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 46. Further, he would submit that non-recording of the statement of the accused after arrest is vital to the prosecution. On that also, he is entitled for acquittal. 46. Further, he would submit that non-recording of the statement of the accused after arrest is vital to the prosecution. On that also, he is entitled for acquittal. He would rely upon the judgment of this court reported in S.P.Tamilarasan Vs. State (2017(3) MNW (Cr.) 435. 47. All the judgments are speaking about the basic and fundamental principle to be kept in mind by the court, while analyzing the evidence. It is always possible for the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusion. When two views are possible one of which in favour of the accused must be taken. These are the basic fundamental principle. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish beyond, all reasonable doubt the basic requirement of demand, acceptance and recovery. 48. Here, as mentioned above, the appellant would submit that demand goes away in view of the specific admission made by PW1/De-facto complainant. So, according to him, in view of the above said admission, when the demand goes away, mere recovery is not sufficient in view of his explanation. 49. Re-appreciation of the evidence is required by this court, now we will go to the evidence on record on this aspect. 50. As stated in the opening paragraph of the discussion, the trial court may not be handicapped due to the hostility of the de-facto complainant. The persecution is always well within its power to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt to bring on record the circumstances. Whether these circumstances are available is the point to be considered. 51. Even though, PW1 turned hostile during the course of the cross examination, but the evidence of PW2 fully supported the case of the prosecution. As mentioned above, by mistake or by wrong information, the prosecution though it fit to treat PW2 hostile as to the date of the demand. But, as mentioned above, he is very specific in his evidence, even during the course of the cross examination that on 10/08/2007, he went along with PW1 to the office of the accused regarding the temporary electricity temporary service connection. This is corroborated by the evidence of PW4 Sangiliraj. As mentioned above, he would say that on 10/08/2007, PW1 came to the office and requested for temporary connection. He made initials in that application and forwarded the same to the first accused. This is corroborated by the evidence of PW4 Sangiliraj. As mentioned above, he would say that on 10/08/2007, PW1 came to the office and requested for temporary connection. He made initials in that application and forwarded the same to the first accused. So, this clearly shows that on 10/08/2007, only PW1 contacted A1 regarding temporary service connection. When we look into the evidence of PW2, I find no reason to discard his evidence. 52. During the course of the cross examination by the accused also, nothing was brought on record, except the difference in the dates of visit. So, if we take the evidence of PW2, we can easily conclude that the initial demand made by the first accused was established beyond all reasonable doubt. 53. Now coming to the trap event. PW2 shadow witness would say that along with PW1, he also went inside the office of the accused and enquired about the initial demand. After that, the above said events follow up as mentioned above. So, this is the evidence of PW3 shadow witness. During the course of the cross examination, nothing has brought on record to discard his evidence. As mentioned above, it is submitted by the appellant that the shadow witness is also part of the riding team. So, his evidence alone is not sufficient. 54. The prosecution has not only relied upon the evidence of PW3, but also the evidence of PW4 Sangiliraj. PW4 Shangiliraj is not a witness to the demand or acceptance of money on the date of trap. He was a witness to the event which took place subsequent to the acceptance. 55. As mentioned above, it is not the case of the defence that no such acceptance was made by him. But contrary, he received the money for replacing the soiled notes. PW4 would say that after the Sodium Carbonate solution test was over, the first accused told the Trap Laying Officer that out of Rs.1,600/- towards the legal charges, some of the currency notes were spoiled and that was replaced by the complainant. So, this shows that the statement of the first accused was orally taken, but that was not reduced into writing. That may not affect the prosecution case entirety. The explanation offered by the first accused was heard by the Trap Laying Officer as well as PW4. So, this shows that the statement of the first accused was orally taken, but that was not reduced into writing. That may not affect the prosecution case entirety. The explanation offered by the first accused was heard by the Trap Laying Officer as well as PW4. The simple mistake committed by the Trap Laying Officer may not assume any importance, at all in view of the above said clear admission on the part of the first accused that he received the money. 56. But PW4 has committed a mistake in mentioning the date of receipt of the application. According to him, by mistake, he has noted it, as 09/08/2010, but actually the application was presented only on 10/08/2010. Because of that only, there was some confusion in the mind of PW3 regarding the date of their visit and presentation of the application. That does not assume any importance. Now the another circumstance 57. At the time of trap, the appellant/A1 herein was found in possession of Rs.2,800/-, a LIC receipt and another Rs.8,300/- in cash. When enquiry made regarding that amount, it was told that Rs.2,800/- belongs to Vallimayil, who was examined as PW5. She has also corroborated the statement of the first accused in relation to that amount. That amount was returned to him. Regarding the balance of Rs.8,390/-, first accused was giving contradictory explanation. How this event supports the case of the accused is not known, even though, argument was advanced on the side of the appellant in this regard. Cross examination was made to PW5 by the first accused in this regard to the effect that out of Rs.3,000/- paid by her, only Rs.2,800/- was available. What happened to the balance amount of Rs.200/-, according to her, it was explained by the first accused that he took it for his expenditure. 58. From the overall assessment of the evidence on record, it stands established by the prosecution that the first accused in-fact demanded the bribe amount of Rs.200/-, accepted the same and thereby committed the offences as stated above. 59. The conclusion reached by the trial court absolutely is legal and reasonable, which requires no interference at all at the hands of this court. However, the sentence of imprisonment alone is reduced to one year Rigorous Imprisonment for both offences. 60. With the above said modification, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.