cross examination also, P.W.3 repeated the same and stated that apart from asking P.W.2 as to why he has come late, the accused did not ask anything else and there was no discussion amongst them. Thus the evidence of official witness to trap proceedings viz., P.W.3 does not mention anything about the demand of illegal gratification by the accused on the occurrence day. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the claim of the prosecution that on 23.06.2004, the complainant P.W.2 went to the office of the accused and met him, itself was false and in support of that he relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 himself. In his evidence, P.W.2 stated that he did not go to Taluk Office on 22.06.2004 but went there on 23.06.2004 around 11 a.m., and met the accused. However, during his cross examination, P.W.2 stated that he left his home at 9.30 a.m., on 23.06.2004 and reached the Taluk Office at 11 a.m. According to him, there is only bus service from his village in the morning at 7.30 a.m.,and thereafter the next bus service is at 5 pm., only. He also stated that he do not know by which bus he came to Tiruttani Taluk Office on 23.06.2004. Further P.W.2 also stated that on the next day morning, he left home in cycle by 7.00 a.m., and went to Arcot kuppam and after leaving the bicycle in the usual place, left for Kancheepuram by bus from there. However, P.W.2 stated that he cannot disclose as to in whose place, he left the bicycle. Thus P.W.2 statement is categorical that he left his cycle only at 9.30 a.m., and reached Tiruttani by 11.30 a.m and admittedly only one bus service is available in the morning time from his village i.e., at 7.30 a.m. Hence, doubt arises as to whether really he could have gone to the office of the accused on 23.06.2004 at 11 a.m., as claimed by him. In such circumstances, doubt arises as to whether really any demand for illegal gratification was made by the accused on that day as alleged in Ex.P.2 complaint.
