ORDER :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by A1 in Special Case No. 1 of 2003, questioning the conviction and sentence passed by judgment dated 14.06.2011 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The First Information Report in Crime No. 2 of 2001 had been registered by the Inspector of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Vellore District on 06.09.2001, consequent to a complaint given by I. Annamalai that the appellant had demanded bribe amount of Rs. 3,000/- for conducting survey of the lands of the defacto complainant.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant wanted survey of his lands in S.F. No. 43/3 at Vadavilapakkam village to be done, and in this connection, he had approached the surveyor attached to Polur Taluk office, who directed the defacto complainant to the present appellant, who was working as Village Administrative Officer.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant had demanded a bribe amount of Rs. 3,000/- for conducting survey of the lands of the defacto complainant. This demand was allegedly made on 25.08.2001 and again reiterated on 05.09.2001. The defacto complainant had lodged a complaint with the respondent on 06.09.2001, pursuant to which, F.I.R. in Crime No. 2 of 2001 had been registered against the present appellant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 10.09.2001, the appellant had again demanded the bribe amount and had also received the amount and was caught red handed. It had been stated that the appellant tried to eat the currency notes and had also given them to A2, who tried to escape with the money, but was caught. It was under these circumstances that, after investigation, with respect to allegations in the First Information Report, a final report had been filed against the appellant/A1 and A2 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 201 of I.P.C.

6. After trial, both the accused were found guilty of the charges. This appellant was imposed with a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. With respect to the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. the appellant was imposed with six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, three months simple imprisonment. It was also stated that both the sentences would run concurrently. As against A2, a fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, three months of simple imprisonment was imposed, apart from directing him to be restrained in Court premises till the rising of the Court. Criminal Appeal has been filed only by A1. A2 has not filed any appeal.

7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. R. John Sathyan, learned Counsel for the appellant/A1 and Mr. E. Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

8. During the course of trial, to prove the charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and also under Section 201 of I.P.C. prosecution had examined PWs. 1 to 8 and had also marked Exs.P1 to P17. They also produced MOs.1 to 12, material objects. On the side of the accused, DWs. 1 and 2 had been examined. The defence did not mark any document.

9. It is the contention of Mr. R. John Sathyan, learned Counsel for the appellant/A1 that the prosecution had failed to establish demand of bribe and the learned Counsel, therefore, stated that on that very ground itself, this Court should interfere with both the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the sentence had been wrongly imposed as six months had been given for both the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, while, for offence under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act,