The prosecution must prove demands and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant by the Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Cases/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Perambalur in Spl.Case No.02/2006 dated 21.09.2016 in Crime No.07/2004 and acquit him from all charges.)

1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

2. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption cases, Perambalur, the appellant has filed the above appeal.

3. By an order dated 21.09.2016, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption cases, Perambalur has convicted the accused under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 3 months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 3 months

4. The accused-Sivakumar is working as a Firka Surveyor at Taluk Office, Perambalur is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. The short facts as could be seen from the evidence are as under:

(a) The accused, Firka Surveyour, Taluk Office, Perambalur was convicted under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced for one year R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-was imposed for each count.

(b) P.W.2, the son of P.W.5 gave a petition Ex.P3 at Taluk office, Perambalur on 22.07.2004 on behalf of his father for surveying the house site and Ex.P2 is the chalan for payment of Rs.80/-

(c) P.W.2 met P.W.10, Draftsman 3 days later and he enquired about the petition. P.W.10 searched for the petition and told that it was not available and asked him to apply for a fresh one. On 06.08.2004, P.W.2 gave a fresh petition, Ex.P5.

(d) On 09.08.2004, P.W.2 went to Taluk Office, met P.W.10. He was asked to contact P.W.13, Deputy Surveyor and get the measurement done by him. P.W.13 told him that he should bring money for Flag Day collection and asked him to come for next day. Again he met P.W.10, who told him that the petition has been forwarded to the accused and asked him to contact the accused. When P.W.2 contacted the accused, he demanded money for measuring the house site. P.W.2 pleaded his inability to pay money. The accused demanded Rs.1500/- and refused to reduce the amount.

(e) Again on 14.08.2004, P.W.2 met the accused and accused reduced the amount to Rs.1000/- and told that he cannot measure the site for lesser amount. P.W.2 was not inclined to pay the money.

(f) On 17.08.2004, P.W.2 went to the V&A.C office at Trichy and lodged a report Ex.P6 to P.W.15, Inspector, who registered a case at 10.15 a.m., Ex.P23 is the printed F.I.R, wherein it is mentioned that the information was received at 8.30 a.m.

(g) P.W.15 arranged for a trap and received Rs.1000/- M.O.1 series from P.W.2. He requested the service of P.W.3 and another and after their arrival explained the procedure and also demonstrated phenolphthalein test. He prepared an Entrustment Mahazar, Ex.P8. He told P.W.2 to pay the money as and when demanded by the accused and if the accused received the amount, give a signal by removing his watch from his left hand and tie it on the right hand.

(h) All of them proceeded to go for Taluk Office at 11.30 a.m., and they reached the Taluk Office at 1.00 p.m. They were informed that the accused will come at 3.30 p.m., P.W.2 told P.W.15 met the accused along with P.W.3. P.W.2 asked whether the land can be measured on this day for which the accused told it will not be po