The prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and once these foundational facts are proved, there is a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in connection with judgment dated 28.02.2014 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2012 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore and set aside the same and acquit the appellant from the charges level against him.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2014 passed in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2012 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused was working as an Accountant in Palladam Sub-Treasury and the de-facto complainant A.Radha was working as a nurse in ESI Dispensary, Naranapuram, Palladam. On 16.6.2011, the pay drawing authority of Palladam ESI Dispensary submitted G.P.F loan bill, One Man Commission arrears bill and Surrender Leave Salary of the de-facto complainant in the Palladam Sub-Treasury for clearance through one Harigopalakrishnan, Assistant of ESI Dispensary, Head Quarters, Tiruppur. At that time, the accused instructed Harigopalakrishnan to inform the de-facto complainant to come and meet him in person in his office. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant met the accused in his office at Palladam on 20.6.2011 and the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1200/- as illegal gratification to pass the said bills. Again on 23.6.2011 at 11.00 hours the de-facto complainant met the accused and when the accused reiterated his demand, the de-facto complainant told that she is not having such amount with her. Thereafter, the accused told the complainant to come on 24.6.2011 during the office hours along with money and then only he will clear the arrears bills. Since the complainant did not want to give the said illegal gratification to a public servant, she approached P.W.10 the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore and made a oral complaint against the accused. As per the trap proceedings, on 24.6.2011 the de-facto complainant went to the office of the appellant along with official witness one K.Danabal/P.W.3, between 15.45 to 15.55 hours and she gave Rs.1200/- to the accused as illegal gratification and the same was accepted by the accused. Subsequently, the trap laying officers recovered the bribe amount from the accused through Ex.P10 seizure mahazar and P.W.10 arrested the accused and registered a case against the appellant.

3.On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No.7/2011/AC/CB against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ''PC Act'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and later it was altered into Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. After completing the investigation, P.W.10 laid a charge sheet before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The learned Special Judge taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.Case No.5 of 2012 and charges were framed against the appellant for the aforesaid offences.

4. In order to prove its case before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16, besides 3 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.3.

5.After examining the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused and he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced and no documentary evidence was produced.

6.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also consid