JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria for the respondent-State.

2. This criminal appeal by the appellant-convict is directed against judgment and order dated 4th August, 2010 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2003, whereby the High Court confirmed judgment and order delivered by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”) Madurai in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2003 dated 5th November, 2003, convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 7 , Section 13 (2) read section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default clause in respect of the offence under Section 7 , to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default clause for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the said Act.

3. The appellant had been serving as an Inspector of Central Excise. The complainant (PW-2) who was a supervisor at Parani Match Factory at Sengamalapatti of Sivakasi Taluka, made an application for grant of fresh central excise registration certificate for its factory. The application was to be dealt within the Thiruthangal-II Range which was under the jurisdiction of the appellant- accused. It was the case of the prosecution that on 16.09.2002 the appellant demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 300/-. The complainant did not pay the bribe amount although was pressurised and threatened. For want of payment of said amount by the complainant, delayed release of the certificate. It led to lodging of the complaint on 21.09.2002.

3.1 The Competent Authority-Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (PW-1), Thiruthangal-II Range granted sanction to prosecute the appellant on 26.03.2003. The charge-sheet came to be filed on 07.05.2003. At the end of the trial, Special Judge, CBI convicted and sentenced the appellant as above, which was upheld by the High Court.

3.2 While recording the conviction and sentence against the appellant, the trial court as well as the High Court concurrently held that the essential elements of demand and payment were proved against the appellant to constitute and establish the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. From the depositions of the complainant (PW-2), accused (PW-3), and the Officer (PW-4) as well as from documentary evidence [Ex.P-2 and P-4], the offence was established. The brother of the complainant (PW-3) saw the accused accepting Rs. 300/- under the file. It was recorded that the information regarding the demand made by the accused was conveyed to the CBI office at Chennai.

3.3 The aspect of result of sodium carbonate phenolphthalein test was also noticed and it was a clear finding recorded that when the sodium carbonate test was conducted on the right and left hands of the appellant-accused, the result was positive. When the accused was asked to dip her hands, it turned into pink colour. The defence case of non-probability of accused having demanded the money was not accepted in light of the outweighing evidence in that regard. The High Court endorsed to the view taken by the trial court.

4. In course of hearing today, learned advocate for the appellant stated before the Court upon instructions from the appellant that he gives up the challenge to the conviction recorded against the appellant and that confines the appeal in respect of the sentence part only. He requested the court for reduction of the sentence to further submit that the period o