The main legal point established in the judgment is the corroboration of evidence regarding the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe money, and the inadequacy of the accused's explanation, leading to the conviction under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

1. The appellant is the sole accused in Special Case No.4 of 2002 on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

(i) Based on the complaint given by one Ramkumar, son of Velaiah Nadar alleging that the demand of Rs.200/- made by the accused Village Administrative Officer to issue certificate confirming that Chitraivel and Velaiah Nadar are one and the same person so as to enable the de facto complainant Ramkumar to get loan in Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC) for purchase of an auto-rickshaw, case was registered by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.

(ii) In the trap laid by the respondent police, the appellant was caught receiving Rs.200/- as illegal gratification on 14.07.2000 at 02.40 p.m. The de facto complainant, shadow witness and the chemical analysis report proved the fact of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money of Rs.200/-. The explanation offered by the accused that a sum of Rs.200/- is tendered by the de facto complainant towards payment of kist due payable by the de facto complainant, was found inadequate to rebut the presumption. Hence, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'] and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act. No separate sentence is imposed for offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act.

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the Court below failed to note that the sanction to prosecute, accorded by P.W.1 is without application of mind and without considering the chemical examination report. The Court below failed to note that Mariappan (P.W.4), who alleged to have accompanied P.W.2 at the time of payment of bribe, had turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The delay in lodging the complaint and sending FIR copy to the Court with delay caused doubt in the case of the prosecution, which is fatal. The seizure mahazar which alleged to have been prepared immediately after recovery of tainted money, does not contain the signature of the accused. The explanation offered by the accused for the receipt of the money, is more probable than the case of the prosecution. The evidence of D.W.1, who was present at the time of occurrence and is supported the version of the defence, is quite natural and reliable. However, the Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence of D.W.1. When the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 does not corroborate with each other, whereas the evidence of P.W.4 is natural and probable, the weight of evidence should have been in favour of the accused. Hence, the appellant is liable to be acquitted.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the case of the prosecution is that when P.W.2 sought for loan in TIIC for purchase of auto-rickshaw, one Balakrishnan from TIIC enquired the applicant (P.W.2) on 21.06.2000 and instructed him to get certificate from the Tahsildar through VAO that Chitravel Nadar and Velaiah Nadar are one and the same person. Therefore, on 23.06.2000, P.W.2 met VAO Gopal, the appellant herein. At that time, application to Tahsildar with an undertaking, copy of the Family Card and two copies of title deed were submitted to VAO. After three days on 26.06.2000, P.W.2 met the accused. The accused informed him that there is kist due and therefore, P.W.2 paid Rs.342/- towards the kist and received receipt Ex.P.6. On 27.06.2000, he went to Village Chavadi. He was directed to submit application and other documents to Deputy Tahsildar, Tiruchendur. At Deputy Tahsildar's office, Tiruchendur, they asked for house tax rece