JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C, against the judgment dated 22.04.2016, in Special Case No.04/2014, by the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli.

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of the acquittal passed in Special Case No.04 of 2014, dated 22.04.2016, on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli.

2. The case of the prosecution, as evident from the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tirunelveli Detachment, is that the respondent/accused was working as A3 – Assistant in the Taluk office, Palayamkottai upto 24.04.2003 as a public servant, that on 22.04.2002 at about 11.00 hours, the accused demanded Rs.2,000/- from the defacto complainant Thiru.Sudhan Sundarapandian, who was doing money lending business in the name of “Aravind Finance”, as gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward to process the money lending licence renewal application of the defacto complainant, that in pursuance of the said demand, the accused reiterated the said demand on 24.04.2002 with the defacto complainant and he accepted and obtained the bribe money of Rs.2000/- in between 12.00hours and 12.15 hours from him, that since the accused received the said amount of Rs.2000/- as gratification other than the legal remuneration, as a motive or reward to process the money lending renewal application, he committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that in the course of the same transaction, the accused being public servant, by corrupt or illegal means and abusing his position as public servant obtained the said amount of Rs.2000/- for himself as pecuniary advantage from the defacto complainant and he has also committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli, after receipt of the final report, has taken the case on file in Special Case No.4 of 2014 on its file and furnished the copies of records under Section 207 Cr.P.C., to the accused on free of costs. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, being satisfied that there existed prima facie case against the accused, framed charges under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the same were read over and explained to the accused and on being questioned, he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 14 witnesses as Exs.P.1 to P.14, exhibited 20 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.20 and marked four material objects and M.O.1 to M.O.4.

5. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The defacto complainant – P.W.2 was doing money lending business in the name of “Aravind Finance” . The respondent was working as A.3 Clerk in Palayamkottai Taluk Office at the relevant point of time. P.W.2 had earlier obtained licence for doing money lending business from the Tahsildar for the period till 31.03.2022. In order to extend the licence, P.W.2 went to the Palayamkottai Taluk Office and approached the respondent on 02.04.2002. The respondent has directed P.W.2 to remit Rs.100/- towards licence and another sum of Rs.100/- towards penalty for late payment. P.W.2- thereafter met the accused on 05.04.2002 and produced the challans along with the renewal application. The accused, after receipt of the same, has directed P.W.2 to contact him again on 22.04.2002, as he was busy with some other works. As directed by the accused, P.W.2 went to the office of the accused on 22.04.2002 and the accused had taken him before P.W.4 – Tahsildar and obtained his initial in the application form. After recording the statement of P.W.2, the accused has demanded Rs.20