The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.138 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai, by judgment dated 29.02.2012.

Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/A2 passed by the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in C.C.No.138 of 2011 [Old C.C.No.30/2007] dated 29.02.2012 and convict the respondent/A2 for the offences framed against him and pass sentence against him.)

Common Judgment

1. Convicted Accused No.1 in C.C.No.138 of 2011 [Old C.C.No.30 of 2007], on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai, is the appellant in Crl.A.No.176 of 2012 and as against the order of acquittal against Accused No.2, the State has preferred an appeal against the said order in Crl.A.No.427 of 2013.

2. By consent, both appeals are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this Common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief history of the case is as follows:

(i) A case was registered against the accused under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Venugopal in Crime No. 19/AC/2005/CC-II. At the conclusion of the investigation a charge sheet was laid against both the accused mentioned above under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same was taken on file in old C.C.No.30/07 (New C.C 138/11)

(ii) The case of the prosecution is that the A1 has demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe from one Venugopal (PW-2) Complainant for the release of an auto and not to register a case against one Linganathan (Relative of the complainant). The bribe amount was later reduced to Rs.5,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward when the complainant expressed his inability to give Rs.10,000/- as bribe.

(iii) In pursuance of the aforesaid demand made by the A1 on 23.12.2005 between 14.45 hours and 15.20 hours, at the J-3 Guindy Police Station, when Venugopal accompanied by an official witness S.Saranga Thirumal met the A1, he reiterated his demand of Rs.5,000/- and directed A2 to receive the bribe amount and as per the direction of A1, A2 accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/ from the defacto complainant as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for not registering the case against the Auto driver and to release the Auto, and thereby the accused have committed an offence under section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(iv) The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses viz., PW1 to PW10 to prove the case and exhibited 13 documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and marked no material objects. As stated supra, after full fledged trial, the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act has convicted the A1 and acquitted the A2 and hence, these appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the A1 would contend that

(a) There is no demand and the same was not proved by the prosecution.

(b) When there is no demand at all made by the A1, at the time of the transaction and the acceptance being from the acquitted accused i.e., A2, the conviction of the A1 cannot be sustained.

(c) PW2-defacto complainant in the chief examination has not whispered about any demand and hence in the absence of any demand and acceptance by A2-(acquitted accused), A1 cannot be convicted and hence, prayed for acquittal.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the State made submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court in respect of conviction of A1.

6. In respect of the acquittal of A2, the learned Government Advocate would co