The judgment reaffirms that errors in charge framing do not vitiate a trial unless they cause prejudice, and emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the implausibility of defenses in bribery cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 r/w Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the judgment dated 31.03.2016 made in Spl.C.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Villupuram convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI for both the offences and to pay a total fine of Rs.3,000/- and the sentences to run concurrently.)

1. Periyasamy, the appellant herein, while serving as Village Administrative Officer of Kachirapalayam Village, Kallakurchi Taluk, Villupuram District, was caught red handed in the trap proceedings held on 19/07/2007 for accepting bribe of Rs.300/- from the Defacto complainant, Mr.K.R.Kumar, who approached the appellant to get community certificate and income certificate for his wife to get loan from THADCO. In Spl.C.C.No:2/2008, charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against him and the Special Court for Corruption Cases at Villupuram found him guilty of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.300/- from the defacto complainant to issue community certificate and income certificate. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31/03/2016, the Criminal Appeal is preferred.

2. The case of the prosecution as spoken by the witnesses:-

On 18/07/2007, the defacto complainant Kumar (PW-2) gave a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the Inspector at Villupuram alleging that to get loan under the THADCO, Women Self Help Finance Scheme in the name of his wife Ambika, he and his wife went to the Taluk Office at Kallakuruchi, on 06/07/2007 to get community certificate and income certificate. He submitted the application along with necessary documents and two challans for payment of fees Rs.10/- each, for the two certificates. The staff in the Taluk Office received his applications and affixed the office seal and gave back the applications to get the signature of the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector. He went to Kachirapalyam, met the Village Administrative Officer (appellant herein) and gave his applications and the documents. After verifying the photo copies of the documents with the original documents, the appellant returned the original documents, retained the applications and the photo copies of the enclosures and told the defacto complainant to come after 10 days and he will keep the certificates ready. Thereafter, on 18/07/2007 at 10.30 a.m, he met the appellant and asked for his certificates. The appellant demanded Rs.300/-. When he enquired, whether that money is for any fees to be paid, the appellant shot back and said that, he is going to get loan and the subsidiary for several thousands, can he not afford to give Rs.300/-? Do he expect to get the certificates for free? When the defacto complainant said that he is poor and cannot afford to pay bribe, the appellant retorted not to plead so and to get certificates he must come with money by afternoon. Not inclined to give bribe, the complaint was given to take action against the appellant working as the Village Administrative Officer, at Kachirapallyam.

3. The complaint in writing was taken up for investigation, on registering the case in Crime No.2/2007 under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at 16.30 hours on 18/07/2007. The Inspector of Police arranged for two government officials to be witnesses for the trap proceedings. On 19/07/2007, at about 9.00 a.m at the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption office at Villupuram, the pre-trap proceedings was conducted in the presence of witnesses and entrustment mahazar was drawn narrating the demonstration with phenolphthalein–sodium carbonate test and entrustment of marked 100 rupees currencies 3 in numbers, smeared with phenolphtha