The need to establish demand and acceptance for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the requirement to consider the defense's explanation and motive for false implication.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of dated 02.12.2015 in Special C.C.No.7 of 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate at Namakkal.)

1. Convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

2. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction imposed on him by sentencing him to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 imposed in the judgment dated 02.12.2015 made in Special C.C.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.

3. The respondent police filed a final report before the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal alleging that

(i) D.Balaganapaty, the appellant herein who worked as Village Administrative Officer, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District is a public servant.

(ii) One V.Palanivel S/o.Karunji @ Varudhan, residing at Akkalampatty Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District is cultivating his share of lands as per the family partition deed effected on 28.01.1992 between himself and his father and brothers and his father died on 06.06.1996. The beneficiaries will be selected by the concerned village panchayats to enjoy the subsidy in the “Ganga Kalyan Yojana” Scheme and one R.Mohan, President, Akkalampatty Village Panchayat told to the said Palanivel about the said scheme and asked him to bring the extracts of chitta and adangal to get the subsidy in that scheme for digging a borewell in his lands.

(iii) The said Palanivel met Akkalampatty Village Administrative Officer/the accused herein on 17.12.1997 at his office at Velagoundampatty and requested for Patta transfer and issue of extracts of chitta and adangal to enable him to avail subsidy in digging a bore well and the said Village Administrative Officer/accused demanded Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification for getting a separate patta in his name and for furnishing concerned extract.

(iv) The said Palanivel presented a petition on 17.12.97 to Tahsildar at Tiruchengode Taluk office requesting transfer of patta on his name and for issue of extracts of chitta and adangal.

(v) A.Kulandai Velu, the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, who received the petition from the said Palanivel, made on endorsement, in the petition to Revenue Inspector, Manikkampalayam for enquiry and report and also gave the petition to Palanivel with instruction to meet Revenue Inspector. Accordingly, he met the Revenue Inspector, S.Ravi at V.A.O's office at Velagoundampatty and handed over the application and since V.A.O/accused was not available at that time, the said S.Ravi, R.I instructed Palanivel to convey the message to VAO and asking VAO to meet him with village accounts.

(vi) On 19.12.97 at about 6A.M the said Palanivel met VAO/accused at his house, and VAO told to Palanivel that he received the application from Revenue Inspector and again demanded Rs.1,000/- from the said Palanivel for forwarding his application. When Palanivel expressed his difficulties , the VAO/accused reduced his demand to Rs.600/-.

(vii) Again on 06.01.98 at about 9A.M when the said Palanivel met the VAO/accused at Velagoundampatty accidentally, the accused reiterated his earlier demand. Later on 7.1.98 when Palanivel met the accused at 10A.M at VAO's office in Velagoundampatty, the VAO/accused again reiterated his earlier demand and when he explained his difficulties the said VAO/accused suggested to pay the amount in two instalments at the rate of Rs.300/- each.

(viii) Palanivel was not willing to pay the amount to the said VAO/accused as bribe and hen