The prosecution must prove the demand, payment, and recovery of tainted money in corruption cases, and the defense's explanation must be scrutinized by the test of preponderance of probability.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.5.2008 made in Special CC.No.6/2003 by the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Chengalput, thereby (a) convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and (b) convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and (c) ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:

a. The 1st Appellant/A1 worked as the Special Sub Inspector of Police from 17.12.1998 to 18.11.2002 and the 2nd Appellant/A2 worked as the Head Constable from 14.10.2001 to 13.11.2002 in the Thoraipakkam Police Station. P.W.2 Ramarao is the defacto Complainant and the owner of Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-02-H-8914. The said lorry met with an accident near Karaipakkam, causing injury to a Pedestrian John Rose Moorthy P.W.5. In connection with the said accident, the driver of the said lorry Parasuraman P.W.6 and also the said Lorry were detained in Thoraipakkam Police Station. On 17.11.2002 at 5.00 p.m. P.W.2 met the 1st Appellant in the said Police Station and requested him to release the driver and the lorry, for which, A1 demanded an amount of Rs.1500/-as illegal gratification from P.W.2.for releasing the lorry driver and for sending the lorry for inspection by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and P.W.2 expressed his inability to meet the said demand and left the Police Station.

b. On 18.11.2002 at 11.45 a.m. again when P.W.2 met A1, A1 insisted him to give Rs.1500/- as illegal gratification. Since P.W.2 was not willing to give the said bribe amount to A1, he lodged a complaint on 18.11.2002 at 3.00 p.m. to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, City-II Detachment, Adyar, Chennai-20 and the said complaint was forwarded to P.W.13, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, City-II Detachment, Adyar, Chennai-20 for investigation.

c. On receipt of the complaint Ex.P2, P.W.13 registered a case in Cr.No.16/AC/2002/CC-II against the 1st Appellant/A1 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and prepared Ex.P9 First Information Report and arranged for trap proceedings. Two official witnesses, namely, P.W.3 Chandrasekaran, Assistant and P.W.4 Selvamani, Assistant, Department of Technical Education, Chennai-25 were summoned and they were introduced to P.W.2. P.W.2 gave Rs.1500/-, three currency notes (M.O.1 series) of Rs.500/- denomination to P.W.13. Thereafter, P.W.13 demonstrated the phenolphthalein test and also explained the significance of the phenolphthalein test to P.W.2 and the other two official witnesses. P.W.13 asked P.W.2 to hand over the tainted amount to the 1st Appellant/A1, if he made a demand of the same and also told them that if the accused accepted the money, he should come out of the office and give a prearranged signal, by removing and cleaning his specs. The said proceedings were recorded in entrustment mahazar Ex.P3.

d. On 13.11.2002 between 6.00 p.m. and 6.20 p.m. P.W.2 along with the trap party and the official witness P.W.3 went to the office of the accused. P.W.2 met A1 inside the office and A1 reiterated the demand from P.W.2 and directed P.W.2 to give the amount of Rs.1500/- to A2 and P.W.2 gave the tainted money to A2, who kept the same in his left side shirt pocket, P.W.2 came out and gave the prearranged signal. On seeing the prearranged signal, P.W.13 and P.W.4 went inside the office of the accused. P.W.2 identified the appellants P.W.13. Then P.W.3 arranged for Phenolphthalein test and conducted Phe