IMPORTANT POINT
For establishing commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of gratification is a sine qua non.

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J.

FACTS

1. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. High Court, by the impugned judgment, has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

2. The appellant was holding the post of Sub-Registrar at Kannivadi, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu. The complainant M. Sundaramoorthy (PW-2), had purchased land measuring 16.05 cents. Accordingly, on 12th July 2004, sale deed was presented before the appellant who was the Sub-Registrar in the concerned office. The complainant and his vendors were present. According to the case made out by the complainant in his complaint, apart from getting the sale deed typed on a stamp paper of Rs.880/-, he paid a sum of Rs.190/- towards the registration charges of the sale deed. A receipt for the said amount was issued by the appellant. On 16th July 2004, when the complainant visited the appellant’s office, he was informed to bring FMB Sketch from the concerned Government office. According to the complainant, on 31st July 2004, the said sketch was produced by him. After the sketch was produced, the appellant informed him that he would have to make a site visit. Accordingly, the complainant arranged for transport for the appellant to enable him to make a site visit. After noticing trees on the land, the appellant instructed the complainant to get a TOPO Sketch from the concerned office to show that the land subject matter of sale was cultivable. Thereafter, the complainant obtained requisite documents and handed over the same to the appellant on 6th August 2004 at 11.30 am. According to the complainant, at that time, the appellant demanded gratification of Rs.500/- for handing over the registered sale deed. As the complainant was not willing to give gratification, on 11th August 2004, he filed a complaint with the Inspector of Police of the Anti-Corruption Unit.

3. Based on the complaint, a trap was laid on 12th August 2004, which was unsuccessful. According to the prosecution case, the trap was again laid on 13th August 2004. It was successful, and in the presence of the shadow witness Michael (PW-3), the appellant was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe.

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. PW1 N.Dhanam Jeyan was examined to prove the sanction order. As stated earlier, PW-2 M.Sundaramoorthy is the complainant and PW-3 Michael is the shadow witness. No other witness is relevant for proving the alleged demand made by the appellant. The complainant (PW-2) did not support the prosecution and was declared as hostile. The appellant examined two defence witnesses, S. Kathiresan and Kalaiselvi to bring on the record audit report of the office in which the appellant was working and a circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, which required the Sub-Registrar to visit a land subject matter of sale deed for ascertaining its valuation.

SUBMISSIONS

5. The learned senior counsel Mr S.Nagamuthu, appearing for the appellant, submitted that there was no charge framed as regards the demands made on 6th August 2004 and 13th August 2004. Inviting our attention to the first charge framed by the Special Court, he urged that the charge is about the alleged demand made on 12th July 2004 when the sale deed was registered. He submitted that even according to the prosecution case, there was no demand made on 12th July 2004 at the time of the registration of the sale deed. He submitted that because of this material defect in the charge and omission to frame a proper charge regarding demand allegedly made on 6th August 2004 and 13th August 2004, grave prejudice has been caused to the appellant, who could not defend himself properly.

6. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that, in any event, the complainant had not su