Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and infirmities in trap proceedings can affect the prosecution's case, and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused in the absence of proof of demand or recovery.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused passed by the Hon'ble Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in C.C.No.83/2011 [Old C.C.No.10/2006] dated 20.04.2012 and to convict the respondent/accused for the offences framed against him, pass sentence against him in accordance with law.)

1. The State is the appellant herein, challenging the order of acquittal made in C.C.No.83 of 2011 [old C.C.No.10 of 2006).

2. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 20.04.2012 passed in C.C.No.83/2011 (Old C.C.No.10/2006) on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai and prayed to set aside the judgment of acquittal and convict the respondent/accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case of the prosecution is that:

(i) the respondent/accused Pandurangan worked as Revenue Supervisor in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, J.J.Nagar (West), Chennai from 27.03.2001 to 12.01.2005 and as such he is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(ii) The respondent/accused has demanded Rs.700/- as bribe from one M.Singaram (P.W.2), the defacto-complainant to make name change for the Electricity Board service connection in the name of one G.Loganathan who is the son of complainant's brother.

(iii) In pursuance of the aforesaid demand made by the accused, on 12.01.2005 between 12.50 hours and 13.05 hours in the O/o. the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, J.J.Nagar (West), Chennai, when P.W.2-Singaram accompanied by an official witness P.W.3-Ramadoss met the accused, he reiterated his demand of Rs.700/- and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.700/- from the defacto-complainant as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for making name change in the Electricity Board service connection, and thereby the accused had committed an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(iv) Based on the above, a case was registered against the respondent/accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.2/Singaram in Cr.No.01/AC/2005/CC-II.

(v) The respondent police, after registration of the above case, completed the investigation and charge sheet was laid against the respondent/accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same was submitted before the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai and the above said Court had taken the same on file in C.C.No.83/2011 [Old C.C.No.10/2006]

(vi) The Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai after due trial was pleased to acquit the respondent/accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(2), r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by its judgment passed in C.C.No.83/2011 [Old C.C.No.10/2006], dated 20.04.2012.

(vii) Hence the appeal.

3. Records reveals that the appellant had filed a final report in Crime No.1/AC/205/CC2 alleging that:

(i) On 28.12.2004 Singaram, S/o.Thiru Muthulingam residing at No.325/1, Kathiravan Colony, Chennai - 40 met the accused in his office and presented an application along with necessary documents to the accused for processing and to effect name change for the electric service connection in the name of one Mr.Loganathan, his brother's son with respect to a flat in Tristal Residency Flat No.A/11, 6th Main Road, Mogappar Eri Scheme, Chennai purchased from Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The accused perused the application, documents and returned the same after making some oral remarks and demanded Rs.700/- from Mr.Singaram for processing the papers