Thiru.M.Narayanasamy, the appellant herein, while serving as Head Constable at Karaikal (PS) was prosecuted for receiving Rs.3000/- from one Mohamed Refay as illegal gratification on 27.09.2012. Being a public servant he was tried before the Court of Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Karaikal in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell:

A Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing Reg.No.PY-02-F-6160 owned by Thiru.Madhan Babu[PW-3], driven by Thiru.Mohamed Refay [PW-2] met him with a road accident causing injury to a 8 years old boy on 21.09.2012. Thiru.R.Thiruvengadam [PW-16] the uncle of the victim boy came to the Karaikal Police Station on 25.09.2012 and lodged a complaint about the accident. Thiru.M.Mohamed Refay[PW-2], who caused the accident, Thiru.Selva Ganesh, who was pillion rider at the time of accident and Thiru.Madhan Babu [PW-3], the owner of the motorcycle were called to the Karaikal Police Station for enquiry. The appellant tried to negotiate and settle the issue. While the appellant told PW-2 that he will settle the matter for Rs.4,500/-, the victim family initially demanded Rs.10,000/- and later reduced to Rs.7,000/-. However, the owner of the vehicle Thiru.Madhan Babu was willing only to meet out the actual medical expenses. Since the negotiation did not fructify, complaint Ex.P4 was taken on file under Crime No.131 of 2012 under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and First Information Report (Ex.P26) was registered. On 26.09.2012 when PW-2 went to the police station, the appellant demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe to release the vehicle. Hence, PW-2 gave a complaint (Ex.P26) to CBI Inspector. Based on his complaint, the accused was trapped on 21.09.2012 for receiving bribe of Rs.3,000/- from PW-2. The tainted money M.O.1 series was recovered from his table drawer.

3. The trial Court on examining 21 witnesses, 73 exhibits and 3 material objects for prosecution held the accused guilty of both the charges and sentenced him to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the judgment of the trial Court is erroneous. The evidence of the prosecution is not cogent and relevant to hold the accused guilty. The evidence of PW-2[Mr.M.Mohamed Refay] does not attract the ingredients of the offence mentioned in the charges.

5. The leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the receipt of Rs.3,000/- from PW-3[Thiru.Madhan Babu] was for paying compensation to the victim boy. The said receipt and recovery cannot be considered as an illegal gratification. On 27.09.2012 Thiru.Mohamed Refay (PW-2) and others came to the police station to pay compensation to the victim boy. The accused/appellant received the money on behalf of the victim and it was not illegal gratification for release of the vehicle. In the cross examination, Thiru.Madhan Babu[PW-3] had candidly admitted that he decided to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the victim boy, since he was his relative. Thiru.Thiruvengatam [PW-16] who is the maternal uncle of the victim boy, has admitted that on 27.09.2012 he was asked to come to the police station to receive the compensation. When he came to the police station at 7.00p.m, there was huge crowd in the station premises. He was told that CBI enquiry is going on, therefore, he returned back.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit that the complaint is a motivated one without any truth in it. The m