Madrasorders High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.82 of 2018the office premises. Subsequently, P.W.2 and P.W.5 proceeded to the vehicle stand. At about 4.30 P.M, the appellant/accused Rajarathinam arrived, and according to the prosecution, he checked whether P.W.2 had the money. P.W.2 answered in the affirmative, and at the appellant/accused's request, he handed over Rs.5,000/-, which he received with his right hand and kept inside his left shirt pocket. Afterwards, P.W.2 signaled the trap party, and the Trap Laying Officer immediately moved forward, caught hold of the appellant/accused, and took him inside the office. 5. Upon confrontation, he took out and produced 500 rupee tainted currency notes. When his right hand fingers were dipped into the said solution, it turned pink. He was given an alternative T-shirt, and his shirt was removed, then dipped in the solution, causing his pocket to turn pink. Subsequently, the appellant/accused was arrested, and the amount was duly recovered. The serial numbers were verified. Samples were drawn, mahazars were prepared, and the trap proceedings were completed. The 6/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018entire proceedings were then handed over to P.W.10, Raja, who completed the investigation and filed a Final Report, proposing the appellant/accused guilty of offences under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.6. The case was taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2013, and upon the appearance of the accused and furnishing the copies, the Trial Court framed two charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 06.03.2024. The accused denied the charges and stood trial. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-29, along with M.O.1 to M.O.5. When questioned about the incriminating evidence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the evidence as false. Subsequently, one Senthamizh Selvam was examined as D.W.1. The Trial Court heard the parties and found that, from the examination of P.W.2, the decoy witness, and P.W.5, the demand was proven by the production of the 7/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018relevant file, and P.W.1 confirmed the purpose. It concluded that the entire trap proceedings successfully demonstrated the acceptance of the amount. Therefore, the Court held that the prosecution proved the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced the accused accordingly. Aggrieved by this, the present Criminal Appeal was filed.7. Heard Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, and Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI cases) for the respondent.8. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand made in this case. The manner in which the decoy witness has deposed as if the demand was made for the first time on 21.08.2013 and that on the same day, he informed the C.B.I., and that immediately, on the next day, the officer was deputed and the complaint 8/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018was made at about 2.30 P.M, and the preliminary verification was completed and the trap was arranged within an hour, are all absolutely unbelievable on the face of it. In any event, P.W.2, in his cross-examination, has categorically deposed that there was no demand made by the accused. Even after the witness was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, the decoy witness, P.W.2, reiterated in further cross-examination on behalf of the accused that no demand was made by the accused. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind, and not all relevant materials were properly presented to it, which also taints the trial. The Senior Counsel further pointed out discrepancies in the evidence regarding the recovery, highlighted that another official witness was not examined, and noted investigation shortcomings, such as the non-production of call records. Based on these grounds, he urged the Court to acquit the accused by granting the benefit of doubt. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble 9/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018Supreme Court of India in N.Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu1 and Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2.10. Per contra, Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases), submits that even though P.W.2 turned hostile, his evidence need not be entirely discarded. It is evident that P.W.2 initially deposed about the demand and maintained his stance even during cross-examination. However, when P.W.2 was later summoned again for further cross-examination, he turned hostile and made prevaricating statements. Therefore, the Court can recognize the truth that there was a demand. Even afterwards, when the Public Prosecutor cross-examined P.W.2 as a hostile witness, he once again admitted the demand. Thus, based on the evidence of P.W.1, along with the testimony of official witness P.W.5 and the documentary evidence in the form of the representation by P.W.3 for the return of the document, the purpose and the demand are proved.1 (2021) 3 SCC 6872 (2023) 18 SCC 25110/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 201811. It can be seen that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were in urgent need of their documents back. Originally, a condition not to return the documents for a period of six months was imposed. Therefore, they approached, upon which the accused promised to return the documents and made the demand. Pursuant to the demand, the trap was properly set up and was witnessed by P.W.5, and the trap was successful. The Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink upon dipping the hands of the accused after receiving the money. Thereafter, the tainted money was duly recovered. The expert evidence was presented to prove the contents of the sample, and the report was also marked. The entrustment mahazar, the recovery mahazar, etc., are duly marked, and the trap was carried out in accordance with law. Therefore, all three elements to prove the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are established.12. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and 11/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018perused the material records of the case.13. First and foremost, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused made a demand. According to the prosecution's case, the first demand was made on 21.08.2013 to the decoy witness, P.W.2, and the second demand was made on 22.08.2013 during the trap. The prosecution relies on the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.5 to establish the demand. In this context, originally, the complaint of P.W.2, marked as Ex.P-11, states that he had approached the accused, who was in the office of the Deputy Tahsildar, Villianur, along with his uncle Murthy, multiple times, but received no response. On 21.08.2013, when P.W.2 visited the office, met Rajarathinam, and demanded the return of the document, the accused allegedly demanded Rs.5,000/- if he wanted the document immediately, and instructed him to pay the money on the afternoon of 22.08.2013 and to submit a petition. P.W.2 quickly prepared the petition with his uncle and handed it over, but he was unwilling to pay the bribe of Rs.5,000/-. As a result, he filed a 12/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018complaint. The entire complaint in Ex.P-11 is quoted below for reference."ehd; fle;j 5/5/2013 md;W cz;zhtpujk; rk;ke;jkhf tpy;ypaDhh; fhty;Jiwahy; ifJ bra;ag;gl;nld; fle;j 13/5/2013 md;W vdJ tHf;fwp"h; K:ykhf $hkPd; bgw;nwd; vdJ $hkPDf;F vd;Dila khkh jpU gh/K:h;j;jp mth;fSila mty; epyg;gj;jpuk; (vz; 3957-01) tpy;ypaDhh; Jiz khtl;l Ml;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; xg;gilj;jhh;fs; me;j epyg;gj;jpuk; jpUk;g bgWtJ rk;ke;jkhf ehDk; vd; khkh jpU/K:h;j;jp mth;fSk; tpy;ypaDhh; Jiz tl;lhr;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; cs;s vGj;jh; jpU/uh$uj;jpdk; mth;fis gyKiw re;jpj;J nfl;l nghJ rhpahd gjpy; jutpy;iy 21/8/2013 md;W ehd; tpy;ypaDhh; Jiz tl;lhr;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; ,J rk;ke;jkhf jpU uh$uj;jpdk; mth;fis re;jpj;J gj;jpuj;ij cldoahf jpUk;g bfhLf;Fk;go nfl;Lbfhz;nld; mg;nghJ jpU/uh$uj;jpdk; mth;fs; me;j gj;jpuk; cldoahf jpUk;g juntz;Lbkdpy; U:/5000-? mtUf;F 22/8/2013 kjpak; y";rkhf bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vdt[k; nkYk; Kiwahf xU kDt[k; bfhLf;f brhd;dhh; ,y;iy vd;why; me;j gj;jpuj;ij jpUk;g ju khl;nld; vd;D Twpdhh;/ mth; Twpago kDit vd; khkhtplk; bgw;W clnd bfhLj;J tpl;nld;/ Mdhy; vdf;F mth; nfl;l y";rgzk; U:/5000-? jpU/uh$uj;jpdj;jplk; bfhLf;f tpUg;gkpy;iy vdnt mth; nky; jf;f eltof;if vLf;FkhW 13/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018kpft[k; jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/"14. However, this version was abandoned by P.W.2 when his statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry. The statement, marked as Ex.P-23, indicates that on 05.05.2013, the surety was provided, and the original document was handed over. Later, in June 2013, he visited the office and met Rajarathinam, who noted his name and asked him to return after a week. He visited again after a week, but was told that the document had not been searched, and he was asked to come after another week. Then, on Monday, 15 August 2013, he inquired again. At that time, the accused requested the F.I.R. particulars. P.W.2 went to the Police Station to gather the particulars and then handed them over to him. 15. Thereafter, he found the bundle and asked whether P.W.2 could read English. He answered in the negative. He informed him that the 14/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018condition is to hand over the document only after six months and inquired why the decoy witness's friend had not come. He explained that since his uncle is asking for the document, he alone came. The accused then asked him how much he had. He replied that he had Rs.3,000/-. The accused then said that that would not work and informed him that P.W.2 better get the document after six months. Thereafter, P.W.2 was waiting at the gate. After some time, the accused asked him why he was still waiting. P.W.1 is said to have deposed that he urgently needed the document, upon which the accused demanded that he call his friend to bring Rs.5,000/- and also pay another Rs.5,000/-, then only the document would be released. He called his friend, who replied that he only had Rs.2,000/-. P.W.2 had another Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, he informed the accused that he would arrange Rs.2,000/- from his friend and that he had Rs.1,000/-, so a total of Rs.3,000/- could be paid. 16. To that, the accused is said to have informed that they could even come after two days, but unless they come with Rs.10,000/-, the document 15/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018cannot be released. At least, he should give Rs.5,000/- for his document, and if his friend does not provide money, a warrant will be issued against him. Thereafter, on 21.08.2013, he went with the sum of Rs.4,000/- and handed over Rs.4,000/-. However, he refused to accept the money and stated that since Rs.15,000/- was demanded as a condition, if he does not pay the bribe, a warrant will also be issued against him. He also insisted that Rs.5,000/- be paid at 1:30 P.M the next day. Immediately, he informed his friend, who suggested they could try going directly to the Sub Collector. On the same day, the petition was given to the Collector requesting the return of the document. When he also telephoned Rajarathinam to say that the money was ready, Rajarathinam replied that since he had promised to do the job, his uncle's approach to the Collector through a petition was unnecessary, and he directed him to come with the amount the next day. These circumstances led P.W.2 to file a complaint.17. The statement made before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 16/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018164 of Cr.P.C., is not a piece of evidence and at best, can be used only to corroborate the witness and recording contradiction. It is not a document and by however, in this case, when P.W.2 decoy witness turned hostile, it is the prosecution who cross-examined P.W.2 by putting in the statements made under Section 164 to him and it was marked as Ex.P-21, in that context. Therefore, to that extent, the contradictions can be taken into account by this Court. 18. Be that as it may, after P.W.2 was produced before the learned Magistrate and a statement was recorded in detail on 01.10.2013, the Investigating Officer, for reasons best known to him, chose to ignore the said Section 164 of Cr.P.C., statement and filed the Final Report as if the demand was made only once, on 21.08.2013. Accordingly, the charge was also framed. In his chief examination, P.W.2, a decoy witness, aligned with the Investigating Officer, abandoned the version given in the Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement, and stated the following with reference to the demand:-17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018"////////////////mjd; gpwF 21/08/2013 md;W Jiz khtl;l Ml;rpah; mYtyfj;jpw;F brd;W me;j mry; gj;jpuj;ij fpsh;f; uh$uj;jpdk; M$h; vjphpaplk; brd;W nfl;nld;/ mry; gj;jpuk; jpUk;g ntz;Lk; vd;why; U:gha; 5000 gzk; bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W brhd;dhh;/ md;W vd;dhy; bfhLf;f KoahJ vd;Wk; kWehs; jahh; bra;J te;J jUtjhf brhy;yptpl;L te;njd;/ mjd; gpwF ehd; gzk; ,y;yhky; rpwkgLtjhy; kj;jpa g[ydha;t[ Jiwf;F jfty; brhd;ndd;/ mjw;F rp/gp/I nghyprhh; brd;id mYtyfj;jpy; ,Ue;J ehis vd;id te;J ghh;g;ghh;fs; vd;W jfty; brhd;dhh;fs; mjd; gpwF 22/08/2013 md;W fhiy Rkhh; 10/30 kzpastpy; vdf;F nghd; bra;jhh;fs;////////////"19. The main examination of P.W.2 was on 16.03.2015. Thereafter, he was first cross-examined only on 18.01.2016. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated as follows:-"///////////21/08/2013 kjpak; 2 kzpf;F ehd; vjphpia ghh;j;njd;/ gj;jpuj;ij bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;why; U:gha; 5.000 bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W vjphp vd;dplk; Twpdhh;/ mth; nkw;TwpathW me;j gzj;ij vd;dplk; nfl;ftpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y//////////"18/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 201820. However, although the cross-examination was completed on the said date, permission was again granted to the accused to further cross-examine, and P.W.2 was recalled on 08.02.2016. On that day, he turned hostile. His evidence was as follows:-"///////Kjypy; ehd; mYtyfj;jpy; ngha; nfl;ljw;F vjphpiajhd; mDfntz;Lk; vd;W Twpdhh;fs; mtiu 3 jlit brd;W ghh;j;njd;/ ,Wjpapy; gj;jpuj;ij jpUg;gp ju vdf;F mjpfhuk; ,y;iy vd;W Twptpl;lhh;/ Jiz Ml;rpah;jhd; bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W Twpdhh;/ vd;Dila khkh kDnghl;L gj;jpuj;ij nfl;oUe;jhh;/ kD epuhfhpf;fg;gl;lJ/ mjdhy; vdf;Fk; vdJ khkhtpw;Fk; gpur;rid Vw;gl;lJ/ kPz;Lk; ehd; vjphpia nfl;ljw;F bfhLf;f KoahJ vd;W mDg;gp itj;jh;/ m';F ,Ue;j mYtyh;fs; ehd; Vd; tUfpnwd; vd;W nfl;ljw;F Rk;;kh nfl;lhy; gj;jpuk; fpilf;fhJ gzk; bfhLj;jhy;jhd; fpilf;Fk; vd;W Twpdhh;fs;/ mjdhy; ehd; vjphpf;F gzk; bfhLf;fDk; vd;W epidj;njd;/ 21e; njjp ehd; ngha; gzk; bfhLj;jjw;F ntz;lhk; gpwF th vd;W Twptpl;lhh;/ ehd; fpuhkj;jpy; ,Ue;J tUfpnwd;/ vdf;F xd;Wk; bjhpahJ/ ehd; gzj;ij kWgoa[k; vLj;J brd;nwd;/ mth; khoapy; ,y;iy/ 19/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018miukzp neuk; fHpj;J ghh;j;njd; mg;nghJ mth; ,Ue;jhh;/ gj;jpuj;ij nfl;ljw;F vd;d mof;fo bjhy;iy gd;du fPnH ngha; btapl; gd;D vd;W brhd;dhh;/ mth; gzk; ntz;lhk; vd;W Twpdhh;/ ehdhfnt mth; ghf;bfl;oy; gzj;ij itj;njd;/////////////"21. At this stage, he was re-examined and Ex.P-21, his Section 164 of Cr.P.C., statement was marked. Again, the accused cross-examined him, during which he stated that he gave the statement because only then, he was promised to get his document back. Thereafter, on 22.03.2017, the prosecution sought to re-examine him by treating him as hostile. His evidence is as follows:-"////////////me;j gj;jpuj;ij ehd; jpUg;gp nfl;gjw;fhf tpy;ypaDhh; Sub-Divisional Magistrate, South, nfhh;l;Lf;F brd;wpUe;njd;/ m';nf ehd; vjphpia re;jpj;njd;/ mthplk; gj;jpuj;ij jpUg;gp bfhLf;Fk;go nfl;nld;/ mth; vd;dplk; vt;tst[ gzk; nfl;lhh; vd;why; 6 khjj;jpw;F gpd;g[ jhd; gj;jpuj;ij jpUg;gp juKoa[k; vd;Wk; mjw;F Kd;g[ jpUg;gp juKoahJ vd;W Twpdhh;/ vjphp vd;dplk; U:/5000 gzk; nfl;lhh;/ gzk; nfl;l gpd;g[ rp/gp/I mjpfhhpfs; vd;dplk; 20/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018nghdpy; ngrpdhh;fs;/ rp/gp/I mjpfhhpfsplk; vjphp vd;dplk; U:/5000 gzk; nfl;lhh; vd;W brhd;ndd;////////////////"22. His further evidence was as follows:-"///////////////mjd;gpwF vdf;F vjphp nghd; bra;J ghh;f;fp'; gFjpf;F tur;brhd;dhh;/ ehDk; ghh;f;fp'; gFjpf;F brd;nwd;/ vjphpa[k; m';F te;jhh;/ m';F vjphp vd;dplk; gzk; nfl;lhuh vd;why; ,y;iy vjphp vd;dplk; gzk; nfl;lhh; vd;whYk; ehd; vjphpaplk; gzk; bfhLj;njd; vd;whYk; rhpay;y///////////////"23. Once again, cross-examination was done by the accused side and once again, P.W.2 made yet another somersault and stated as follows:-"vjphp vd;dplk; vg;nghJk; nehpilahf 5000 U:gha; gzk; juntz;Lk; vd;W nfl;ftpy;iy/ m';F mYtyfj;jpy; ,Ue;jth;fs; vd;dplk; brhd;djhy; jhd; ehd; mtUf;F gzk; bfhLf;fntz;Lk; vd;W epidj;njd;/ rp/gp/I mjpfhhpfs; 22/08/2013 md;W vd;dplk; tprhhpf;Fk; nghJ vjphp vd;dplk; gzk; nfl;ftpy;iy/ Mdhy; mYtyfj;jpy; ,Ue;jth;fs; jhd; vjphpaplk; U:/5000 bfhLj;jhy; gj;jpuk; fpilf;Fk; vd;W brhd;dhh;fs; vd;W Twpndd;/"21/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 201824. In order to prove the demand, the prosecution also sought to rely upon the evidence of P.W.3, even though he did not have any direct knowledge, but, as hearsay evidence and as a person who accompanied P.W.2 to give the petition, he also turned hostile. The other evidence, for the purpose of demand, is the evidence of P.W.5. When it is the categorical evidence of the Trap Laying Officer that P.W.5, the official witness was requested to accompany P.W.3 and overhear the conversation between P.W.2 and P.W.5. With reference to the second demand that is said to have made in the cycle stand at the time of the trap and handing over the money, the following is the evidence of P.W.5:-"/////////gpwF rj;jpaK:h;j;jpapd; Mizgo FG cWg;gpdh;fs; midtUk; nkw;go mYtyfj;jpw;Fs; brd;W jdpj;jdpah gphpe;J ,Ue;njhk;/ rpwpJneuk; fHpj;J uh$uj;jpdk; mYtyf khoapy; ,Ue;J bkUd; fyh; rl;ila[k;. nrd;ly; fyh; ngd;Lk; nghl;L bfhz;L fpnH te;J n$hjp ,Ue;j irf;fps; epWj;Jk; ,lj;jpw;F brd;whh;/ brd;W n$hjpa[k; uh$uj;jpdKk; ngrpdhh;fs;/ mg;nghJ uh$uj;jpdk; jdJ 22/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018tyJ ifia ePl;odhh;/ n$hjp jdJ ,lJ rl;il igapy; ,Ue;j U:gha; nehl;Lfis vLj;J uh$uj;jpdj;jplk; bfhLj;jhh;/ mij uh$uj;jpdk; th';fp jdJ ,lJ rl;il igapy; itj;jhh;/ clnd Vw;fdnt brhy;yp ,Ue;j go n$hjp jdJ iff;Fl;ilahy; Kfj;ij Jilj;jhh;/////////////////////"Thus, it can be seen that he also did not overhear the second demand that is alleged to have been made in the cycle stand just before the acceptance of money. The prosecution also did not produce even the call records, even though it is his specific case that, even on the day of trap, two calls were made by the accused person to P.W.2 at 4.00 or 5.00 P.M. and 4.26 P.M. Thus, the prosecution has to rely upon the sole testimony of P.W.2 in order to prove the demand.25. As found by the Trial Court, this Court can see that the accused side has attempted to summon P.W.2 for the second time, and only in the further cross-examination, he turned hostile. Such attempts by the defence cannot be countenanced by the Court. Therefore, even eschewing his 23/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018prevaricating statements made after he became hostile after the second cross-examination, the Court is only concerned with the earliest statement made by P.W.2. In the earliest statement in the complaint itself, P.W.2 has not stated about the earlier demand that was made and he even went ready with Rs.4,000/- on 21.08.2013 and he handed over the same and the same was not accepted by P.W.2. When those things have categorically come out in the Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement, there is absolutely no explanation why the prosecution still went ahead of different version as if the demand was first made only on 21.08.2013.26. In this regard, I take into account the entire attempt of P.W.2. It can be seen that lawfully, the condition was made while accepting the surety that the document will be handed only after six months. When the accused had made promises and demanded further amount, it is the own version of P.W.2 that they tried to give a petition before the appropriate authority namely, the Sub-Collector, who is entitled to modify the condition or return 24/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018the document, who even on the receipt of the petition, had rejected on the same day i.e., 21.08.2013. This fact is suppressed by P.W.2, even in the earliest version, that is, the complaint, Ex.P-11, and even in the chief examination. His repeated somersaults in the cross-examination, re-examination, and further cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, who treated him as hostile, as well as the further cross-examination by the accused, would only make things worse, rendering him a completely unreliable and untrustworthy witness.27. In this context, the official witness was entrusted with the task of overhearing the conversations between the decoy witness and the accused. When P.W.5 was specifically instructed by the Trap Laying Officer to overhear the conversation, he appears to have stopped at a distance when P.W.2 went to the cycle stand, and his evidence was extracted above. He did not overhear any conversation. What makes the entire exercise further disturbing is that the original arrangement was that the decoy witness to pay 25/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018a bribe amount after demand which as to be witnessed by the official witness and then leave the scene, and signal the Trap Laying Officer, who thereafter with his team, was supposed to follow proper procedure and confirm the acceptance of tainted money. The Trap Laying Officer should first enquire from the decoy and the official witnesses, and only after hearing from the official witness, is the team supposed to apprehend the accused red-handed. However, in this case, the official witness, who was supposed to provide a personal account of the conversation between the accused and the decoy witness, appears to have distanced himself, while the Trap Laying team, who should have kept themselves out of the scene, behaved otherwise. According to the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer, they appeared to watch the entire proceedings from close quarters, and upon seeing the accused keeping the money in his pocket the immediately swung into action and the evidence is as follows:-"At about 4.35 P.M. one person in a meroon colour shirt and sandal pant who was later identified as Rajarathinam came near Mr.Jothi and was talking for a while. They both proceeded towards the rear side of the building. This was 26/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018being watched by myself and other team members. After reaching the rear side Sri. Rajarathinam was found extending his right hand towards Sri.Jothi. Sri.Jothi took out the tainted currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and handed over to Sri.Rajarathinam. Sri.Rajarathinam received it with his right hand and kept inside his left side shirt pocket. They were found conversing for a few seconds and thereafter Sri.Jothi gave the pre-arranged signal of wiping his face with his hands. Immediately myself along with other team members reached near Sri.Rajarathinam and introduced ourselves and disclosed our identity. I also ascertained the identity of Sri.Rajarathinam. Then I questioned Sri.Rajarathinam as to whether he received Rs.5000/- from Sri.Jothi." (Emphasis supplied)Thus, the evidence is very clear that the Trap Laying Officer did not even enquire the decoy witness or the official witness and it is deposed by him that they themselves were looking at the episode from close quarters and immediately when P.W.2 gave the signal, straightaway, they went near Rajarathinam and introduced themselves and proceeded further. Thus, the prosecution's case, from the initial demand to the completion of the trap proceedings, is not trustworthy and lacks confidence-inspiring credibility, being highly doubtful at every step.27/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 201828. Although the conduct of the appellant in going to the cycle stand of his office, meeting P.W.1, being seen by P.W.5 and the Trap Laying Officer, and keeping tainted money in his pocket is relevant and creates grave suspicion that the might have accepted as bribe amount only because the case of the prosecution remains inconsistent regarding the demand, creates doubt in the prosecution's case as to whether it was a case of some vengeful action on the part of P.W.2 who is completely untrustworthy or whether it was a case of demand and acceptance of the bribe. The official witness who was set up to watch and overhear the conversation closely did not do so. Therefore, there is no trustworthy testimony on record. As a result, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the appellant/accused.29. In view thereof, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by learned Special Judge for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Puducherry by judgment dated 30.01.2018, made in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2013 is hereby set aside. The fine 28/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018amount if any paid by the accused is ordered to be refunded.28.07.2025Neutral Citation: yesgrsTo1. The Special Judge (Under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Puducherry.2. The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.29/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 2018D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.grsCrl.A.No.82 of 201830/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.82 of 201828.07.202531/31