The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions in evidence may not undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem in Spl.C.C.No.41 of 2014, in Crime No.06/AC/2004 dated 26.05.2015 in the interest of equity and justice.)

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the Special Judge, Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem, in Spl.C.C.No.41 of 2014, in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

The defacto complainant is a weaver. He got three phase electric service connection for his weaving occupation. The service connection number is 1871. The meter got struck off in the year 2004 and stopped working. He met the appellant/accused with a written request to change the meter. He met him two or three times for changing the meter and was informed that the meter was not available. In 2004, when he met him in this connection, appellant demanded a sum of Rs.500/- to him and Rs.300/- to Foreman as bribe for changing the meter. He told him that he cannot pay the amount now and met him two days later. Again the appellant reiterated his demand. Therefore, as he was not wiling to give the bribe, gave complaint to the respondent. The complaint was registered and a trap was organized. On the date of the trap proceedings, PWs 2 and 3 went inside the office and met the appellant. The appellant demanded the bribe amount and PW2 gave the amount and that was accepted by the appellant. PW14, on verifying from PW2 that the appellant accepted the bribe amount demanded, entered the office, conducted the Sodium Carbonate – Phenolphthalein test and the test yielded positive result on the fingers and shirt pocket of the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution filed a final report against the appellant for demand and acceptance of Rs.500/- as a reward to replace the faulty meter in the house of the defacto complainant as gratification other than the legal remuneration and as a pecuniary advantage for himself by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his official position as a public servant and thus he is liable to be punished for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. On the basis of the final report, the trial Court framed the following charges:

(i) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for illegally demanding Rs.500/- on 23.06.2004 and 25.06.2004 for changing the faulty meter.

(ii) under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for accepting a sum of Rs.500/- at about 4.00 P.M. to 4.10 P.M. on 25.06.2004 as illegal gratification for the aforesaid purpose.

4. The prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 16 witnesses, produced Exs.P1 to P20 documents and MO1 to MO7, to prove the charges against the appellant. No evidence was produced on the side of the appellant.

5. The trial Court on going through the oral and documentary evidence found the appellant guilty under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

6. Challenging and questioning the abovesaid judgment, this Criminal Appeal is filed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submit