The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence of the police in corruption cases, emphasizing the need to scrutinize witness testimony and evaluate the circumstances of the case to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

1. This criminal appeal filed under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.12.2008 in special case No. 4/2005 on the file of learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused/respondent Mr. G. Jananarthanam, while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police at Kandachipurama Police Station, Villupuram District, during November 2003, booked a prohibition case against Mr. Seetharaman @ Seetha and Mr. Chinnathambi. As per the First Information Report, on 25.11.2003 at about 01.30 hours, Mr. Seetharaman @ Seetha and Mr. Chinnathambi were transporting 120 litres of illicit liquour in a Two wheeler - TVS XL bearing registration No. TN 25 B 7403. When they were intercepted by the respondent who was on patrolling duty, the duo abandoned the Two wheeler and the contraband and fled away from the scene of occurrence. In this regard, a case was registered under Cr.No.447/03 and the same was pending investigation and the Police were in search of the absconding accused. While so, the respondent on 26.05.2003, visited the house of Mrs. Saroja and enquired about the whereabouts of her son Mr. Seetharaman @ Seetha. When he was informed that Mr. Seetharaman @ Seetha is at Bangalore, he has directed Mrs. Saroja to produce her son, within a week, if not, he will foist a false case against her. So, after a week, on 01.06.2004, Mrs. Saroja went to the residence of the respondent and told him that her son is at Banagalore and requested not to insist on his presence but, to close the file without further action. For which, the respondent has demanded Rs.3,000/- from her. Since, Mrs. Saroja was not inclined to give bribe, she has approached the appelant and reported about the demand of illegal gratification.

3. The appellant Police immediately arranged for a trap. On 02.06.2004, two independent witnesses were called, currency were smeared with phenolphthalein and Mrs. Saroja was instructed to give the tainted money to the respondent, on demand.

4. Accordingly, Mrs. Saroja went to the respondent house along with one Ms. Athilakshmi, an Assistant in Education Department on 02.06.2004 at about 6.45 hrs. The respondent opened his house at 7.30 am. On seeing Mrs. Saroja, he asked, 'Whether she has brought the money, he demanded ? In response, she gave the tainted money to the respondent which was witnessed by Ms. Athilakshmi. After handing over the money both of them left the house of the respondent. Mrs. Saroja gave the pre-agreed signal to the Police and thereafter, the appellant Police went into the house of the respondent. Introduced themselves, asked the respondent/accused to dip his hands in the plain water. Which turned purple indicating the presence of phenolpthalein. On further introgation, based on the information given by the respondent, they recovered the tainted money kept in the self above refrigerator in the dining hall. Since, the respondent being a public servant and being prosecuted for offence under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction under Section 19 was obtained to prosecute from the competent authority and final report has been filed.

5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses; marked 20 documents and 3 meterial objects . On behalf of the accused/respondent two witnesses were examined and one document was exhibited.

6. The defacto complainant Saroja (PW-2), her son Mr.Seetharaman @ Seetha (PW-4) and one Mr. Pon. Kumar (PW-6) were declared hostile by the prosecution. The demand of money spoken by the accompanying witness Ms.Athilakshmi (PW-3) not corrobarated by any other evidence. Hence, on appreicating the evidence, the trial court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt that the accused by corrupt or illegal means, obtained any pecuniary advantage. Hence, aquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the State has prefe