The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the accused's entitlement to offer a reasonable and probable explanation to rebut the presumption raised under the Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of dated 30.11.2015 in S.C.No.5 of 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate at Cuddalore.)

1.Convicted sole accused in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2011 is the appellant herein.

2. This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate at Cuddalore in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2011.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) On 03.11.2010 at about 10.00 hrs at the Primary Health Centre, Kazhuthur, Tittagudi Taluk, Cuddalore District, the accused demanded the complainant-Govindasamy to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing her official act of giving the Cheque for Rs.6000/- under Dr.Muthulakshmi Reddy Maternity Benefit Scheme to his daughter-in-law Sathya. When the de-facto complainant expressed his inability to give Rs.1000/-, the accused reduced and demanded Rs.800/- as illegal gratification from the said de-facto complainant. On 09.11.2010 at about 15.00 hrs, when the de-facto complainant contacted the accused through phone, the accused reiterated her earlier demand for herself, and thereby the complainant informed the accused that he will come to collect the cheque on 11.11.2010 after making a phone call.

(ii) Pursuant to the aforesaid demand, on 11.11.2010 between 10.45 hrs and 10.55 hrs at Health Sub Centre, Pasar Village, the accused reiterated the said demand of Rs.800/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from V.Govindasamy in the presence of official witness S.Elangovan and obtained the same from him and hence the accused appears to have committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(iii) In the course of same transaction and at the same time and place, the accused being public servant, by corrupt and illegal means and abusing her official position obtained the above said sum of Rs.800/- as pecuniary advantage for herself from the said V.Govindasamy, under the circumstances stated above and hence the accused appears to have committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(iv) Accordingly, charges were framed under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, against the accused. The prosecution had examined PW1 to PW10 and Ex.P1 to P23 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 have been marked. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined as D1 and D2 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 were marked.

(v) On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and also taking note of the defence projected in the 313 proceedings shown through DW1 and DW2, the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Cuddalore, has held that charges are proved and convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the appeal.       4. Learned counsel Mr.Sankarasubbu, appearing on behalf of the sole accused would contend that the alleged demand of illegal gratification made by the appellant on 03.11.2010 and 09.11.2010 was not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution had not produced the phone call details alleged to have been made by the PW9 to the appellant. There is a contradiction in the statements of the witnesses PW2 and PW3 regarding the demand of bribe.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) drew my attention to the evidence of PW3 that at the time of the trap proceedings, there was a demand by the accused and immediately after the trap proceedings, seizure mahazar has been prepared and chemical examination was also conducted. Thereafter, the accused was taken to her house and an house-search was conducted. Relying upon the evidence of PW3 that at the time of handing