JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment of Conviction and Sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act), Salem, dated 14.10.2016 in Special C.C.No.57 of 2014 and allow the Criminal Appeal.

This appeal arises out of the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem in Special C.C.No.57 of 2014, dated 14.10.2016, wherein the appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). After ful-fledged trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. Similarly, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The background facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:-

2.1. The defacto complainant Saravana Gurukkal (since deceased), PW5-Raja, PW6-Viswanathan, PW7-Nagarajan and PW8-Sundar were serving as Archakars/Gurukkals in Sri Raja Ganapathy Temple situated at Salem. The appellant/accused took over charge of the post of Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer of Sri Sugavaneshwarar Temple, Salem on 09.04.2009. Sri Raja Ganapathy Temple and Sri Kasi Vishwanatha Temple situated in Salem, which comes under the control and administration of the appellant. As soon as the appellant assumed charge as Executive Officer of Sri Sugavaneshwarar Temple, Salem, he summoned all Gurukkals of Sri Raja Ganapathy Temple to his office. Accordingly, PW5-Raja and PW6-Viswanathan went to the office of the appellant situated at Sri Sugavaneshwarar Temple and met the appellant. At that time, the appellant informed PW5 and PW6 that all Gurukkals employed at Sri Raja Ganapathy Temple should pay monthly mamool in respect of the offerings received by them from the worshipers in Kaanikkai Thottu at the time of performing poojas. PW5 and PW6 refused by saying that such a practice is not at vogue in Sri Raja Ganapathy Temple and informed the same to the defacto complainant Saravana Gurukkal.

2.2. On the very same day, in the evening, the defacto complainant Saravana Gurukkal along with PW8-Sundar met the appellant in his office. At that time also, the appellant reiterated the demand with them. The defacto complainant and PW8 refused the demand of the appellant by expressing that they themselves are in dire straits. Thereafter, on 30.06.2009, the appellant visited Sri Raja Ganapathy Temple to open the hundial. At that time, PW5 was in-charge of performing pooja in the temple. PW9, the uncle's son of PW5 came to the temple to offer worship. On seeing PW9 standing in the sanctum sanitorium, the appellant shouted at PW5 as to how PW9 can be allowed to perform pooja in the temple and issued memo, dated 02.09.2009 (Ex.P10) to PW5 seeking explanation. Thereafter, a reply (Ex.P11) was given by PW5 to the appellant.

2.3. Subsequently, on 22.08.2009, at about 5.30 p.m., on the prior permission of PW14-Jothi Palanisamy, the then Managing Trustee of Sri Raja Ganapathy Temple, PW10-Kannan and one Thirugnanasambantham went to Sri Raja Ganapathy Temple and tried to perform pooja in the presence of PW14 and other trustees. At that time, all Gurukkals objected and indulged in stay-in-protest. On instructions of PW14, PW10 and Thirugnanasambantham left the temple. Thereafter, on 08.09.2009, the defacto complainant informed PW5 to PW8 that the appellant contacted him through cell phone with instruction