The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and receipt of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court emphasized that mere recovery of tainted notes is insufficient to establish the offence without proof of demand and receipt.

R. Tharani, J.

Heard Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K. Sumbu Linga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal was filed to set aside the order passed in Special case No.9 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchirapalli dated 07.06.2007.

3. The appellant was convicted under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Deputy Inspector of Survey in Taluk Office, Trichy and the allegation against the appellant is that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) from P.W.2 Annamalai on 24.07.1994 at about 11.15 a.m., for measuring a property which was a subject to dispute before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli. The complainant gave a complaint and a trap was laid and that the appellant received Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) as illegal gratification and that after following all the legal procedures charge sheet was filed.

5. The case against the appellant is that one Annamalai (P.W.2) who is one of the plaintiffs in the above suit approached the appellant on 23.07.1999 at his office and requested him to survey the land for which the appellant has alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as illegal gratification to measure the land and then he reduced the same to Rs. 1,500/-. It is stated that the appellant has directed the said Annamalai to pay the same on 24.07.1999 around 11.00 a.m., near the Police beat of Thiruvarambur Railway Station Road.

6. P.W.2 gave complaint. Trap was laid. P.W.2 handed over the powder smeared notes, in the presence of P.W.3 and by P.W.4 shadow witness and that the accused received the same. The Investigating Officer has recovered the tainted notes from the accused and conducted phenolphthalein test. The currency notes and the shirt pocket of the accused were sent for chemical examination and the report reveals the presence of phenolphthalein powder. After enquiry, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the prosecution failed to prove demand receipt and recovery and it is stated that the trial Court failed to consider the material flaws in the case of the prosecution and has wrongly convicted the accused.

8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the reason for demand itself is not proved by the prosecution. It is stated that the appellant received Ex.P7 notice from the learned District Munsif, Trichy in connection with O.S.No.658 of 1999 and I.A.No.546 of 1999 to survey the disputed land in S.No.698, Murugan Koil Road, Thuvakudimalai South and assist the Advocate Commissioner on 24.07.1999 at 11.00 a.m. The appellant has to obey the Court order and that there cannot be a chance for the appellant to ask for an illegal gratification.

9. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that in all trap cases, it is invariable stated that the accused demanded some amount and then reduced the amount. The accused appellant was supposed to survey the disputed land and that there is no chance for the appellant and the witness to meet at any other place. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the demand was made only by the office of Assistant not by the appellant herein. It is stated that the trial Court has faile