The judgment establishes that the demand of illegal gratification is a crucial element for the constitution of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also emphasizes the need for the prosecution to establish foundational facts before raising a presumption under the Act.

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Judge) Cuddalore, Cuddalore District in Special Case No.5 of 2000 dated 07.11.2005. The appellant who is the sole accused, has been convicted under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment; under Section 13(2) r/w.13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The accused was working as an Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police Station. The charge against the accused is that on 16.04.1997 in the evening, demanded Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification from P.W.2 Selvaraj and P.W.3 Rahamathunnissa to take action in Cr.No.204 of 1997 registered under Section 363 and 366 IPC in relation to kidnapping of Hayathunnissa, daughter of Rahamathunnissa. On 17.04.1997 at 9.00 a.m., when they met him and expressed their inability to pay the amount for want of funds, he reduced it to Rs.500/-and insisted them to give the said amount on the same day before evening and in pursuance of the said demand, received Rs.500/-between 6.15 p.m. to 6.25 p.m. on the same day and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.7 & 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The prosecution in order to bring out the charge against the accused examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 Ex.P1 to P23 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were produced.

4. The prosecution version is given below:-

i)The report in this case is said to have been given by P.W.2 to P.W.9 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & anti-corruption, Cuddalore on 17.04.1997 at 3.30 p.m. and a case was registered in Cr.No.1 of 1997 for the offence u/s.7 of the Act. Ex.P2 is the report and Ex.P18 is the FIR.

ii) According to P.W.2 & P.W.3 and as disclosed from the FIR that the daughter of P.W.3 was missing from 07.04.1997 and with the help of P.W.2, friend of her husband who was in abroad, on 11.04.1997 P.W.3 went and enquired with the Inspector of Police who sent two different teams in search of the girl and in the night, the police received information that the victim girl was with one Devanathan and his friend one Ravi in Ravi's relatives house and she was secured on 14.04.1997 and was brought to the Police Station on 14.04.1997 at 10.00 a.m. The accused received a complaint from P.W.3 and registered a case and sent the victim and the said Devanathan for medical examination but as the history of the case was not sent to the Court, they were not sent for medical examination and on 16.04.1997, they were sent for medical examination and thereafter, the victim girl was handed over to her mother P.W.3 and she took her to the house. On the same day in the evening, when P.W.2 & P.W.3 met the accused, he demanded Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification for taking proper action in the said case and when P.W.3 expressed her inability to pay the demanded amount for want of funds, they were asked to come on the next day and again on 17.04.1997 at 9.00 a.m., when P.W.2 & P.W.3 went and met the accused and reiterated their inability to pay the amount, the accused reduced the amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.500/-and insisted P.W.3 to give the amount through P.W.2 on the same day in the evening. But P.W.2 & P.W.3 were not inclined to give the bribe amount to the accused and P.W.3 drew an amount Rs.7,000/- from her account from Vadalur Bank and P.W.2 & P.W.3 preferred the present complaint Ex.P2 to P.W.9/the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

iii) P.W.9 /the Deputy Superintendent of Police on receipt of the complaint and after registering the case as stated above, decided to conduct trap as accepted by P.W.2, received R