J U D G M E N T

These appeals have been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 14.09.2011 made in SC No.2 of 2001 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tirunelveli.

2.The case of the prosecution is that de facto complainant approached the respondent Police and lodged a complaint against A-1 alleging that A-1 demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for the expenditure incurred by him in respect of an enquiry conducted by him in respect of the money transaction between the de facto complainant and one Ayyappan, and based on the complaint FIR was registered.

3.Based on the FIR [Ex.P.2], a trap was planned by the Trap Laying Officer- PW.17 (in short as 'TLO'). Two independent witnesses, were summoned by the TLO and the TLO explained about the complaint given by PW.2, to the independent witnesses and conducted a pre trap demonstration proceedings. PW.2 brought Rs.1,000/- (Rs.500 x 1 and Rs.100X5) and the serial number of the currencies were noted down in the entrustment mahazar [ExP.9] prepared by TLO and later coated the currencies with phenolphthalein powder and gave them to PW.2. The TLO instructed PW.2 to go and meet A-1 and if he demanded the money, then only he should give the money to the appellant. PW.3 was also directed to accompany with PW.2 and TLO instructed them to show signal, after accepting the money. Accordingly, on 11.01.2000 about 06.45 pm, the TLO, along with his team and PW.2 to PW.4 to the place of occurrence. The de facto complainant along with PW.3 went to the Police station, there A-1 to A-3 were present. A-2, asked PW.2 whether he had brought the money, PW.2 replied yes and A-2 asked to give the money and accordingly, PW.2 handed over money to A-2 and out of Rs.1,000/-, A-2 gave Rs.500/- to one Issaki Pandiyan, stating to settle the due to the tea shop and gave the balance Rs.500/- to A-3.

4.Then PW.2 came out and gave the pre arranged signal to the TLO. On receiving the pre arranged signal from PW.2, the TLO along with PW.4 and his team entered into the Police Station and introduced himself to accused and conducted phenolphthalein test and https://hctsehrveic es.receousrtus.glotv.in /hpcsrerovivcees/d positive in respect of A-2 and A-3 and there was no colour change in the test conducted on A-1. Then the TLO recovered the tainted money through recovery mahazar and obtained signatures from the accused and independent witnesses. Then the TLO placed the matter before the Investigating Officer - PW.18. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation laid a charge sheet against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [herein after referred to as 'PC Act'] before the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tirunelveli.

5.On the side of the prosecution 18 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.18 were examined, 24 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 were marked and material objects as MO.1 and MO.2 were exhibited.

6.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused and the same was denied as false. On the side of the accused, one witness was examined as DW.1 and 2 documents were marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.

7.After completion of the trial and after hearing the arguments on either side, the Special Judge found that the prosecution has not proved the case against A-3 and acquitted A-3 from the charges that there is no material to show that A-3 had received the money knowing fully well that it was bribe money. The Special Judge, found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act and convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and imposed a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for having committed each offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(d)(1) of PC Act.

8.Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the