ORDER :

1. The Miscellaneous Petition in Crl. M.P. No. 7908/2019 is filed by the State/The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, to condone the delay of 506 days in filing an appeal against the judgment passed in C.C. No. 08/2013 dated 14.10.2016 by the Court of the Special Judge for the Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

2. The Criminal Original Petition in Crl. O.P. No. 26436/2019 is filed by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, to grant leave to file an appeal before this Court against the judgment passed in C.C. No. 08/2013 dated 14.10.2016 by the Court of the Special Judge for the Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai and Crl. A. No. 26432/2019 is filed against the judgment passed in C.C. No. 08/2013 dated 14.10.2016 by the Court of the Special Judge for the Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

3. The brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the above miscellaneous petitions, are as follows:-

(a) The case of the defacto complainant, viz. Rajendran, is that he is the owner of Raj Travels Company, which plies bus services from Chennai to Trichy and the bus used to stop at Pallavaram, Tambaram and Guduvancherry to pick up passengers. On 19.10.2011, the accused, Thiru Selvamoorthy, Sub Inspector of Police (Traffic), by abusing his official power, stopped the bus and demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification/Mamool alleging that if the defacto complainant is not ready and willing to part with the said amount, a case would be registered against him for traffic violation. Again, on 21.10.2011 and on 24.10.2011, the accused contacted the complainant over phone and reiterated his demand of Rs. 1000/- and asked him to come with the money on the same day evening at 5.05 p.m. The complainant, not willing to give the said amount as illegal gratification, made a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai, based on which, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 9/AC/2011-CC-II for the alleged offence u/s. 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequent to the trap proceedings and after completion of the phenolphthalein test, the accused was caught red handed.

(b) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs. 1 to 9 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 14 and M. Os. 1 to 5.

(c) The accused stood charged and tried for the commission of the offences under sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 14.10.2016 in C.C. No. 8/2013, had acquitted the appellant rendering a finding that the prosecution has not proved its case of illegal demand and acceptance of bribe, beyond all reasonable doubt.

(d) Aggrieved against the said judgment of acquittal, the State had preferred the above appeal with a delay of 871 days.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of Crl. M.P. No. 7908/2019, the State/petitioner/appellant has stated that the judgment impugned herein, was passed by the Trial Court on 14.10.2016 and the application for obtaining the certified copy of the said judgment was made on 17.10.2016 and obtained the same on 25.10.2016. It is further stated that a requisition was made to the Deputy Legal Advisor, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai through the Director, V & AC for legal opinion and the same was obtained on 07.11.2016. It is also stated that the proposal for filing/preferring an appeal against acquittal was forwarded to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, who in turn, had forwarded the same to the Principal Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 on 27.12.2016.

5. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Home (Pol-IV A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai, had sent a communication dated 10