The prosecution must prove the demand of bribe, its acceptance, and the recovery of tainted money beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused can discharge the burden by offering a plausible explanation and proving preponderance of probability in favor of his case.

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 23.12.2003 made in C.C. No. 21 of 2000 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Erode, thereby convicting and sentencing the Appellant/Accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment, for each offence and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that PW.2 Deivasigamani, PW.3 Kuppusami and PW.4 Murugesan, who are the residents of Kangeyam Taluk, in 1997 have decided to start a Power Loom Factory. For the said purpose, they submitted applications to the Collector Officer at Erode for loan. PW.7 Superintendent forwarded the said applications to the Kangeyam Tahsildar Officer on 7.7.1997. PW.2 to PW.4 submitted their applications to the Appellant who was in charge of the loan section in the said Office. The Appellant directed PW.2 to PW.4 to get a certificate from PW.9 Revenue Inspector, Vellakovil. PW.9 after getting reports from PW.8 and PW.10 forwarded the files Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 to the Appellant and again the files were sent to PW.9 for making some corrections. On 28.8.1997, the accused got back the file from PW.9 through PW.2 to PW.4. On that day, the accused demanded Rs. 500/- each from PW.2 to PW.4, for which they refused. Again on 9.9.1997 PW.2 to PW.4 met the accused and the accused reduced the bribe amount to Rs. 250/- and directed them to give the bribe amount on 10.9.1997 at 5.00 p.m. Since PW.2 to PW.4 were not willing to pay the bribe amount, they made a complaint to PW.11, the Inspector, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Erode on 10.9.1997. On receipt of the complaint, PW.11 registered the First Information Report and arranged for trap proceedings. On 11.9.1997, the trap was held. As per the trap arrangement, PW.2 to PW.5 went to the office of the accused. When the accused demanded amount, PW.2 gave the currency notes containing Rs. 750/- and the accused was caught red handed and put on trial and charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the Appellant/accused.

3. The case was taken on file in C.C. No. 21 of 2000 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Erode and necessary charges were framed. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.12 and also marked Exs.P1 to P27 and Mos.1 to 7. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr. PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

4. Mr. C.R. Malavannan, the learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence. It is contended that the Prosecution has not proved the alleged demand of bribe said to have been made by the accused prior to the trap as well as at the time of trap. The learned counsel would point out that in so far as the demand prior to the trap is concerned, even according to the Prosecution, though PW.2 to PW.4 have met the Appellant for four times, but no bribe was demanded on such occasions. The alleged demand was made for the first time on 28.8.1997. The learned counsel further pointed out that there was no follow up action by the witnesses after they were asked to come in the third week of August 1997.