Inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence, coupled with the failure to prove demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, weakened the prosecution's case and led to the setting aside of the trial Court's judgment.

1. These appeals are against the Judgment and conviction rendered by the Trial Court, by which the appellants A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 120 (B) IPC r/w Section 7 and r/w Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) and r/w Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt. A1 and A2 are found guilty for the substantive offences punishable under Section 7 and under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt. A3 is found guilty for the substantive offences punishable under Section 7 and 12 of IPC Act 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1- Deivasuga was working as Shed Examiner in O yard Import LCL, Chennai container terminal limited, Chennai Port Trust, A2-Shri Manish Kanthi Banik, was working as Shed Appraiser customs in O yard Import LCL, Chennai container terminal limited, Chennai Port Trust which A3-Chokalingam a Private Individual, unauthorisedly employed by customs officials who had entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain illegal gratification from one H.M.Abdul Razak, employee of M/s.Hawwa Exims and in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy A1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant and instructed him to give the amount to A3. Since the employer of H.M.Abdul Razak namely Zakir Hussain was not inclined to give any bribe, complaint was given alleging the demand of illegal gratification by A1 and A2. Accordingly a trap was laid on 13.07.2007, when Abdul Razak met A1 and A2 at their office along with one Mohideen, they instructed A1 to give the money to A3, a Private Individual who was present nearby. Accordingly, the tainted money Rs.3,000/- was given to A3. Thereafter the trap laying officer had recovered the money from A3, compared it with the numbers found in the entrustment mahazer and after completion of the other formalities and being satisfied that A3 received illegal gratification on behalf of A1 and A2, had proceeded further with investigation and filed final report against the three appellants.

3. The trial Court on perusal of the records submitted by the prosecution had framed charges under Section 120 (B) IPC r/w 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act against A1 to A3. As far as, A1 and A2 are concerned substantive charge for offences under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) were framed. Regarding A3 a Private Individual, for abating the public servant to obtain illegal gratification other than illegal remuneration, charge for offences under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act was framed.

4. The prosecution, to prove the charges has examined 20 witnesses and had marked 44 exhibits and 9 material objects. On the side of the defence, 9 exhibits were marked besides examining one E.Jayakumar as Court witness. The Trial Court on appreciation of these witnesses found the accused guilty of all charges and sentenced A1 to A3 to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default three months simple imprisonment for offences under Section 120 (B) IPC r/w 7 and r/w 13 (2) 13 (1) (d) and r/w Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. A1 and A2 were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default three months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. A3 was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for offences under Section 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The period of substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period already undergone by the accused were ordered to be set off.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, apart from raising several grounds, doubting the appreciation of evidence and the reasoning given by the