The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborated and credible evidence in corruption cases, the significance of motive in assessing witness credibility, and the need for clear and reliable trap proceedings.

1. These Criminal Appeals are filed against the judgement dated 17.4.2008 made in Special Case No.3/2000 by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, in and by which, (a) A1 was convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.PC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (2) A2 was convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.PC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and (c) the sentence was ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:-

a. PW.2 is the resident of Kizhoor Village, Villupuram Taluk. A1 is the Village Administrative Officer of the said Village and A2 is the Village Assistant. The husband of PW.2 Sanyasi died on 8.6.1998. After cremation, PW.2 received information that Government provides relief fund and she went to the office of A1. A1 informed that Government provides Rs.500/- for cremation expenses and he signed in the application and asked her to submit it before the Village President. A1 gave it to the President and in turn, he gave a cheque for Rs.500/-. PW.2 used the above money for the funeral expenses. On 15.6.1998, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5 went to the Office of A1 and enquired him about the relief fund of Rs.9,500/- provided by the Government. A1 demanded Rs.2500/- as bribe for forwarding the application and asked her to meet him on the next day. On the same day, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5 went to the house of PW.8, her employer and informed about the demand of A1. PW.8 told them to meet A1 in order to get complete details. On 16.6.1998 they again went to the office of A1 and met him. A1 asked them to come on the next day. On the same day PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5 at about 8.00 p.m. went to the office of A1 and met him. Again A1 demanded the money and since PW.2 requested to reduce the amount and the demand was reduced to Rs.1500/-. A1 wrote an application and obtained the signature of PW.2 and he also signed in it. A1 also informed that after fulfilment of demand only, the application will be forwarded.

b. Again when on 19.6.1998, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5 went to the office of A1 and met him, A1 demanded the money. PW.2 went to the house of PW.8 her employer, narrated the incident and requested for Rs.1500/-. PW.8 gave Rs.1500/- (15 currency notes of Rs.100 denomination). On the same day, PW.2 decided to lodge a complaint. PW.2 narrated the complaint in her house and it was reduced into writing by PW.4. On 20.6.1998, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5 went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Villupuram at 8.00 a.m. and PW.2 lodged the written complaint Ex.P2 written by PW.4. Based on the complaint, PW.14, the Inspector of Police, VAC, Cuddalore, registered a case in Cr.No.3/1998 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

c. PW.14 prepared printed First Information Report Ex.P14 and summoned for official witnesses from the HR & CE Department, Cuddalore for trap proceedings. After the arrival of PW.3 and another witness, PW.14 demonstrated the trap proceedings and explained the significance of the phenolphthalein test and prepared entrustment mahazar Ex.P4. The trap party proceeded to the office of A1. PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 went to the office of A1 and A1 was not there. They found A1 sitting in the new building along with four others. The Prosecution witnesses went inside the new building. A1 asked PW.2 whether she has brought the money. PW.3 introduced h