1. This criminal appeal against acquittal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode, in in Special C.C.No.25/2015 dated 20.12.2016.

2. The case of the Prosecution:-

Mr.Muthusamy, the respondent/accused was M3 Assistant at District Supply Office, Erode, during the relevant point of time. On 23.10.1996, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN L 7939 owned by one Tmt.Pushpa was seized by the Civil Supply CID Police for illicit transport of paddy. In the adjudication process, Tmt.Pushpa was directed to deposited Rs.15,000/- for temporary custody of the lorry pending appeal. Accordingly, Tmt.Pushpa deposited Rs.15,000/- on 02.11.96 as per the collectors order and got the vehicle released. Thereafter, the deposit was renewed on 26.08.2002 as instructed by the District Supply Officer. Later, the appeal preferred by Tmt.Pushpa was disposed by the Collector vide his proceedings Na.Ka.6839/99/k3/ dated 01.10.2004 imposing fine of Rs.1000/- for illicit transport of paddy.

3. On 13.10.2014, the Lorry owner Tmt.Pushpa and her husband Mr.S.K.Appusamy met Mr.Muthusamy who was serving as Assisstant in the District Supply Office. As per his instruction, they paid the fine amount in the Bank and along with the Bank challen gave a request letter for return of the money deposited on 02.11.1996 as condition for temporary release of the vehicle. Mr.Muthusamy directed them to come after 15 days. So on 01.11.2004 Appusamy went to District Supply Office met Muthusamy. At that time, Muthusamy informed him that Rs.15,000/- deposited was earned interest and the matured value is Rs.32,000/- and demanded Rs.5,000/-,as bribe. Next day Appusamy met Muthusamy. He informed that everything is ready and the District Revenue Officer has to sign the refund order and once bribe money is ready, he can immediately arrange for it. Muthusamy after negotiation, reduced the demand to Rs.4,000/-. Since, Appusamy and his wife Pushpa were not inclined to give bribe, lodged the present complaint before the District Vigilance & Anti Corruption Police on 05.11.2004 and same was registered and taken up for investigation.

4. Trap was laid by the Investigating Officer after carrying out the usual pre-trap proceedings. On 08.11.2004, the defacto complaint Kuppusamy his wife Pushpa, the accompanying witness Tmt.Sujatha went to District Supply Office, met the accused/appellant he gave them the refund order of the collector. Asked them to collect money from the Bank and meet him with bribe money. After collecting the money from the Bank again at 1.15 pm, they met Muthusamy and on his demand, the defacto complainant has tendered the tainted money as already instructed by the Trap Laying Officer. The accused has directed the defacto complainant to keep the money inside the table drawer. Thereafter, the Trap Laying Officer at 1.45 pm along with his team, on receipt of the pre-arranged signal held the accused and interrogated the accused. The left hand wash turned light pink while there was no visible colour change to the right hand wash. The tainted money of Rs.4,000/- was recovered from the table drawer.

5. To prove the above version, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses, marked 29 exibits and 4 material objects.

6. The trial Court, pointing out that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged earlier demand and also failed to prove the tainted money recovered from the table drawer of the accused was really obtained by the accused as pecuniary advantage for doing any act in discharge of his official duty, the non examination of Tmt.Pushpa who is the person involved in this case cause doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case therefore, acquitted the accused from the charges.

7. The State in the Appeal has raised the several grounds challenging the reasoning given by the trial court for the acquital.

8. Foremost, the learned special public prosecutor emphatically submitted that, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have cle