The main legal point established is that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act were proven through positive evidence.

G. Jayachandran, J.

The appellant herein is the sole accused convicted for offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi in Special Case No.4/2014.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant while serving as Office Assistant in Thoothukudi Municipality, on 16.07.2003, at 16.00 hours demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration as motive or reward from one Mr. Manikavel for the purpose of assigning door numbers and fixing house tax for the newly constructed house by his employer Mr. John Anbunathan. Since Mr. John Anbunathan was not ready to pay any bribe money for getting new door numbers and fixation of house tax, a complaint was lodged to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thoothukudi by Mr.Manickavel and Rs. 5,000/- was also given by John Anbunathan to trap the accused with instructions to lodge complaint. Accordingly, Mr. Rajendran, the Inspector of Police, to whom the complaint was given, registered the complaint and arranged for trap. On 17.07.2003, the accused was contacted at Anbu Medical shop as per his instructions by Manickavel and shadow witness Rengaraj. When the accused reiterated his earlier demand of bribe, Manickavel tendered tainted money to the accused. The Trap Team led by Inspector of Police Rajendran apprehended the accused, conducted phenolphthalein test. Both the hands of the accused found positive. Rs. 3,850/- was recovered from the accused along with the tainted currency of Rs. 5,000/-. The accused was unable to give satisfactory reasons for receiving the money from Manickavel. Therefore, he was arrested. After examining the witnesses and recording the statement, the sanction to prosecute the accused was sought from the Commissioner of Thoothukudi Municipality, who is the competent authority to remove the accused/Office Assistant. After obtaining sanction, final report has been laid by the prosecution.

3. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and marked 24 Exhibits and 12 material objects including the tainted money of Rs. 5,000/-.

4. The trial Court, on appreciating evidence held the accused guilty of both the charges and convicted him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as fine. In default, six months Rigorous Imprisonment for offences under Section 13(2) and 13(1) of PC Act. No separate sentence under section 7 of PC Act was imposed. The period of detention already undergone by the accused ordered to be set off.

5. The accused aggrieved by the judgment of conviction has preferred the appeal on the following grounds.

(a) The money received by the appellant is not an illegal gratification, but, it is the taxes payable by the de facto complainant towards water tax and property tax for the said property. As the appellant has properly explained the reason for receiving the money, the trial Court should have accepted the same and acquitted the accused. However, the Court below has erroneously convicted the appellant.

(b) The work of assigning door number is not within the power of the appellant. He is not in-charge of the area where the de facto complainant's property is situated. Without any requisition letter, door number cannot be assigned nor property tax can be assessed. In the absence of requisition letter, the case of the prosecution that for assigning door number and to fix property tax bribe was demanded and obtained by the appellant is not to believe. When, the prosecution has failed to prove neither demand nor acceptance, the Trial Court ought not to have presumed that the money alleged to have been recovered from the accused/appellant was towards illegal gratification.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state would submit that the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused to the Court by letting out positive evidence to prove