The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused [A1 & A2] passed in C.C.No.114/2011 (Old C.C.No.15/2008) dated 31.10.2013 by the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai and convict the respondents/accused [A1 & A2] for the offences framed against them.)

1. The State is the appellant.

2. Against the order of acquittal passed in CC No.114 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, the State has preferred the appeal.

3. On behalf of the respondents, notice served and advocate has entered appearance.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i) K.Venugopal, aged 57 S/o.T.Kannan, is the defacto complainant [PW2]. K.Madhavan-A1, is the Sub-Inspector of Survey and R.Shanmugam-A2, is the Field Assistant, both working in the office of the Tahsildar, Purasaiwakkam-Perambur Taluk Office, Chennai.

(ii) The defacto complainant presented an application in the name of his son Arun kumar at Purasaiwakkam-Perambur Taluk Office on 03.04.2007 for name transfer of patta in favor of Arunkumar. A1 inspected the site and closed the application by stating that the extent of the Plot was less than the actual extent mentioned in the revenue records and further instructed Arunkumar to submit a fresh application. Accordingly, the same was submitted on 26.07.2007.

(iii) On 14.11.2007, when the defacto complainant met A1 and requested the patta, A1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- for processing the application to issue patta and instructed the defacto complainant to give the said bribe amount to his assistant A2.

(iv) On 23.11.2007 at about 16.00 hrs, when defacto complainant went to A1's office to meet him, A1 demanded the bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- and as he was not willing to give bribe to get patta, he preferred a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, which was registered in V & AC, Chennai, C.C.1 Crime No.10/2007, under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and taken up for investigation.

(v) A trap was organized by adopting all the procedures and formalities. The respondents/accused 1 and 2 were caught red handed, while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- from the defacto complainant-PW2. The phenolphthalein test was conducted over the right and left hand fingers of A2 who received the bribe amount and sent for judicial custody.

(vi) On completion of investigation, the respondents/accused 1 and 2 were charged for offences under Sections 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai and the same was taken on file on 03.12.2008 and made over to IV Additional Court, Chennai in C.C.No.15 of 2008.

(vii) In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents and marked 5 material objects.

(viii) After full fledged trial, the Special Court for the cases under Prevention and Corruption Act, Chennai, vide judgment dated 31.10.2013, acquitted both the accused.

5. Challenging the above said order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

6. The case of the prosecution in brief is that in connection with issuance of patta in the name of his son, PW2 has met A1 on several occasions and on three occasions, demand has been made. The first demand was on 05.11.2007 and the second demand was on 14.11.2007 when PW2 met the A1, a demand of Rs.2,500/- with a direction to pay to A2. On the third occasion, the said demand was reiterated on 23.11.2007 by A2 on behalf of A1 and complaint was on 27.11.2007 and the trap was on the same day. Before the trap proceedings, the A1 has again demanded the same amount.

7. Noticing that it is improbable for the accused to make a demand in the presence of other staff members and prosecution has not chosen to examine the other staff