The proof of demand is essential to establish the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute the offence unless the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Spl.Case No.13 of 2013, on the file of the Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti corruption cases, Villupuram, Villupuram District and set aside the conviction and judgment dated 31.03.2015.)

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed to call for the records in Spl.Case No.13 of 2013, on the file of the Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti corruption cases, Villupuram, Villupuram District and set aside the conviction and judgment dated 31.03.2015.

2. The final report is filed against the appellant A.Velmurugan and co-accused A.Perumal alleging that appellant A.Velmurugan is the first accused in this case and was working as Village Administrative Officer in V.Puthur Village. The second accused was the Village Assistant serving under the first accused and both of them are public servants as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 28.12.2001, and on subsequent dates, lastly on 02.01.2002, appellant demanded from the defacto complainant Ramamurthy a sum of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration and after negotiation, reduced the amount to Rs.600/- as a motive or reward for furnishing the extracts of Chitta, Adangal and Field map of defacto complainant's land, for the purpose of getting bank loan for laying water pipe line. Using his position as a public servant, he demanded the aforesaid amount, accepted or obtained an advance of Rs.100/-. In the course of the same transaction, on the basis of the complaint by Ramamurthy, a trap was arranged on 03.01.2002, at about 9.45 a.m., Ramamurthy accompanied by the official witness Moorthy, called on the appellant in his office room in V.Puthur. Second accused intentionally aided appellant in reiterating the demand for illegal gratification and then appellant accepted the balance bribe amount of Rs.500/- from Ramamurthy and entrusted the money to the second accused. Therefore, appellant committed the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The second accused committed offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 IPC. Accordingly, charges were framed against the accused. The accused denied the charges and demanded trial.

3. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 witnesses, produced Exs.P1 to P22 and MO1 to MO8 in support of its case. Appellant has not produced any evidence.

4. The case of the prosecution as seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows:

PW2 and his brother own 4 acres of land in V.Puthur village. Water has to be taken from S.No.26 to S.No.26/AF. He arranged to get loan for laying pipeline through Manampoondi agricultural office. Agricultural officer informed him that Chitta and adangal extracts are necessary for applying loan. He gave a petition to the Tahsildar, Thirukovilur on 28.12.2001, seeking the extracts of these documents. His application is Ex.P2. The Tahsildar directed him to meet the Village Administrative Officer of V.Puthur Village for getting the documents. On the same date, he met the appellant at V.Puthur village administrative office. Appellant asked him as to how much subsidy he would get. PW2 told him that he would get subsidy of Rs.7,000/-. Then appellant asked him to give Rs.1,000/- from the subsidy amount of Rs.7,000/-. PW2 told him that he cannot give Rs.1000/-. Appellant asked him to come next day. Next day, i.e. On 29.12.2001, PW2 met the appellant in his office at 9 a.m. and requested him the documents. Appellant told him that only if PW2 pays him money, he would attend to his request. Finally, he demanded Rs.600/-. PW2 had only Rs.100/- with him and gave it to the appellant and told him that he would give Rs.500/- when collecting the documents. He again met him on 02.01.2002. Appellant told him that he would give documents on 03.01.2002 and as