The judgment underscores the importance of proving the acceptance of illegal gratification and the guilty intent of the accused in establishing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also highlights the significance of considering the factual circumstances and the plausibility of the defense raised by the accused in determining guilt.

1. The appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed in Judgment, dated 31.01.2003, made in Special Case No.1 of 2000, on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur. The appellant herein was arrayed as A-2 in the said special case and convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months imprisonment for an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo a further period of three months R.I for the offence, aggrieved by which the appeal has been preferred.

2. It is not in dispute that the copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused, charges were framed, as per procedure, under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 43 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. On the side of the accused, no one was examined, but documents Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. The trial court found that the guilt against the appellant / A2 and the co-accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant / A2 and the other accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/A2, while working as Head Constable in Thogaimalai Police station, on 25.01.1999 at about 4.18 p.m., along with co-accused/A1 Inspector of Police and A3 Station writer had received bribe, a sum of Rs.5,000/-from P.W.3 on the instruction given by the co-accused/A1. It is seen that the case was registered against the appellant and the co-accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. On the side of the prosecution 11 witnesses were examined and 43 documents were marked and by the impugned judgment, dated 31.01.2003, the court below found that the appellant / A2 was guilty, accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- as stated above with default sentence.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the charges framed against the appellant/A2 was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. According to the appellant he is an innocent person, however he was found guilty, based on certain unforeseen circumstances. It is not in dispute that the appeals preferred by A1 and A3 were dismissed for default, though the appeal preferred by the appellant/A2 was also dismissed, subsequently on petition, the same was restored to file. It is a trap case planned by the respondent herein, based on a complaint given by the defacto-complainant P.W.3, against the co-accused / A1.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Ex.P.3, dated 31.12.1998, and submitted that as per the prosecution case, P.W.3 had given a complaint to take action against one Laxmanan S/o.Mathavan Naicker and 9 others, on the ground that they were causing damage to his crops by cattle and also attempting to attack him. Subsequently, P.W.3 met the co-accused / A1, who was the Inspector of Police and sought action against his rivals, for which the co-accused / A1 demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/-from P.W.3, then P.W.3 went to the office of the respondent herein and gave a written complaint against the co-accused / A1. As per Ex.P.4, the defacto-complainant, Paara Naicker, P.W.3 gave a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti corruption, Trichy, stating that the Inspector of Police / A1 had asked him to pay Rs.5,000/- as bribe for taking action against the aforesa