The judgment establishes the proof of demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2007 passed in Spl. Case No. 2 of 2002 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Trichy are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal.

2. The appellant herein was found guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding monthly bribe of Rs.1,000/- from one Peiryasamy, son of Muniyandi, under threat, if bribe money of Rs.1,000/- per month is not paid, he will foist a false case against him under the Tamil Nadu Prevention Act.

3. The facts of the case unfurled in the following manner.

(i) Periyasamy was once an illicit arrack brewer. He was also arrested and convicted in the year 1996 for the said offence. Later he got reformed and leading a peaceful life as an agriculturist. However, in the beginning of the year 1999, a false case was foisted against him by Somarasampettai Police Station, Trichy District, and later he was acquitted. He has lodged a complaint to the higher authorities about the high-handedness of the prohibition wing police for foisting case against him. While so, on 04.12.2000, Head Constable Chandrasekaran, attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thiruverumber Unit called him, while he was walking along Somarasampettai Market. Told him that he shall continue to brew illicit arrack, for which he has to pay Rs.1,000/- every month, failing which, he threatened to foist cases against him. Though, he denied that he is not ready to brew illicit arrack, the accused emphasized monthly bribe and told him that he should pay the many by Saturday and also to continue to pay Rs.1,000/- every month else, he has to face criminal case.

(ii) Periyasamy was not inclined to give bribe, so he met the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Trichy, on 09.12.2000 at about 12.00 hours and lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint, the respondent has arranged for trap, after conducting phenolphthalein test demonstration in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Sukumaran (P.W.3) and Kumararaja (not examined). Before proceeding to the house of the accused, the de facto complainant called him over phone. The accused informed him that he will not be available at his home on that day. Therefore, he told him to come the next day, after confirming his presence. Accordingly, the events of that day were reduced into writing by way of entrustment mahazer, Ex.P.4. The subsequent decision to conclude the proceedings of the day, after confirming the non-availability of the accused, was also recorded as Ex.P.5.

(iii) On 10.12.2000, at about 05.00 p.m., the de facto complainant called the accused over phone and the accused told him to come by 09.00 p.m. with money. Accordingly, the de facto complainant accompanied by Sukumaran (P.W.3) went to the house of the accused by 09.30 p.m. The trap team lead by Viswanathan (P.W.7) followed them. The accused opened the door on hearing the calling bell, invited the de facto complainant, offered seat to the de facto complainant (P.W.2) and the shadow witness (P.W.3) to sit on the bench. Demanded and received Rs.1,000/- and kept it in his shirt pocket. On receipt of the prearranged signal, the trap team entered the house of the accused. On seeing the police, the accused has thrown the money out, which fell near the bush. After conducting phenolphthalein test on the hands of the accused, the trap laying officer, collected samples of the hand wash, which are marked as M.O.2 and M.O.3. Thereafter, on enquiry, the accused showed the place, where he threw the currency. It was recovered and the numbers found in the currency were compared with the numbers recorded in the entrustment mahazer and found tallied. The said currency (10x100) is marked as M.O.1.

(iv) Before the Trial Court, to prove the charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and marked 22 exhibits and 5 material objects. On the side of the defence, one witness, by name