(Criminal Appeal preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 1995, dated 30.6.1999 acquitting the accused.)

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the acquittal of the respondents/accused who were charged under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

(a) On 14.6.2003, P.W.3, the complainant, for the purpose of enlisting him as a contractor wanted to get a solvency certificate for Rs.10,00,000/= and submitted an application with necessary enclosures in the Taluk Office, Ponneri. The Headquarters Deputy Tashildar who received the application made an endorsement to meet the Revenue Inspector of Minjur and hand over the application to the complainant. On the same day the complainant with the application approached A.1, K.Subramanian, Revenue Inspector of Minjur and handed over the application to him. But, A.1 returned the same to the complainant saying that Chitta Adangal Certificate should be obtained from the Village Administrative Officer and also informed him that some amount should be given to him for recommending for the issue of the Solvency Certificate. The complainant informed him that he was not in a position to give any amount and on that A.1 told him that he would consider that aspect afterwards.

(b) The complainant after meeting the VAO on 14.6.1993 and 21.6.1993 with necessary Certificate obtained from the VAO met A.1 at the Taluk Office, Ponneri on 21.6.1993 with his friend Subramanya Mudaliar and at that time A.1 demanded Rs.5,000/= from the complainant by saying that he has to give Rs.2,000/= to the Tashildar out of that amount. When the complainant pleaded before him about his inability, A.1 prepared a statement in the application and returned the same to the complainant saying that he has to come and meet him again if he want to get the Solvency Certificate. With that application the complainant met the Tashildar, R.Pandurangan with his friend Subramanya Mudaliar on the same day. The Tahsildar after perusing the application form informed the complainant that he should spend some amount for getting the Solvency Certificate and directed him to meet A.2 S.Subburayan, who is an Assistant who would explain in detail. On that, the complainant and his friend with the application met A.2 S.Subburayan. A.2 on perusing the application informed them that A.1 has to sign in three places and to get the signatures by paying some amount to him the complainant should give him a sum at the rate of 2% for the amount mentioned in the Solvency Certificate. The complainant again pleaded his inability to offer that amount. On that, A.2 directed him to get the signatures from A.1 and he would speak about the amount to be paid later.

(c) On 22.6.1993 the complainant met A.1 and wanted his signatures as directed by A.2. A.1 finally demanded Rs.1000/= to be paid to him on 23.6.1993 if at all he wanted to get the signatures and returned the application file to the complainant without putting his signatures. With the application the complainant met A.2 Subbruyan on the same day at Ponneri. A.2 informed the complainant that for getting the solvency certificate he has to give Rs.10,000/= to the Tashildar and without that amount the certificate could not be issued. After persuasion A.2 finally asked him to bring Rs.3,000/= on 23.6.1993 and with the signatures of A.1 but without the file being arranged for the issue of the Certificate A.2 returned the application to the complainant with the enclosures.

(d) Thereafter the complainant made a written complaint on 23.6.1993 at 10.45 a.m., before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, V & AC., Chennai City-II Detachment and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.5/AC/93/M.CII under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.3 Pandurangan, Tahsi