The judgment underscores the requirement of proof beyond doubt in corruption cases and highlights the importance of considering material contradictions in the evidence. It also emphasizes the need for a thorough preliminary inquiry before proceeding with trap proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment and conviction passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, dated 27.11.2013 in Special C.C.No.01/2007 for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default S.I. for one months for an offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default S.I. for six months for an offence under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The substantive sentences imposed on the appellant are ordered to run concurrently.)

1. The appellant Mr.Jayaram, a public servant, as Village Administrative Officer, Kamandoddi Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District found guilty of demand and acceptance of Rs.1500/- as illegal gratification from one Annamalai for recommending patta transfer and survey his land and building.

2. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.11.2015 in Spl.C.C.No.01 of 2007 convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 6 months R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default one month S.I for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to undergo one year R.I and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default 6 months S.I for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act. The substantive sentences for both offences were ordered to run concurrently.

3.The case of the prosecution:-

Tr.R.Annamalai S/o.Ramasamy of Kamanthotti Village purchased land and building in S.F.No.223/1A2A of Kamanthotti Village under two sale deeds. For transfer of patta and sub-division, he made an application to the Revenue Divisional Office, Hosur. His application through the Tahsildar Hosur, for remarks and report was forwarded to the accused/appellant, who was then the VAO. The accused called Tr.R.Annamalai and directed him to remit prescribed fees at Sub-Treasury, Hosur. Annamalai remitted Rs.80/- on 22.04.2005 at Sub- Treasury and thereafter, gave a letter on 25.05.2005 to Tahsildar to act on his request for patta transfer. 15 days thereafter, when Annamalai met the accused to enquire about his application, the accused demanded Rs.1500/- as bribe. Again after 15 days, Tr.R.Annamalai met the accused, at that time the accused reiterated his demand. On 05.10.2005 evening, when Annamalai met the accused, he assured to process his application, if he brings Rs.1500/- on the next day. Tr.R.Annamalai was not interested to give bribe. Hence, on 06.10.2005 reported to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Krishnagiri. His statement was recorded and on the strength of his statement, F.I.R was registered in Crime No.13/AC/2005 under Section 7 of P.C Act, 1988 on 06.10.2005 at 06.45 hours. Subsequent to the registration of the complaint, Investigating Officer made arrangement to trap the accused. He sought the assistance of Murugan, Assistant working in Office of Divisional Engineer, State Highways, Krishnagiri and A.K.Raja, Junior Drafting Officer, TWAD Board, Krishnagiri. In their presence, the significance of phenolphthalein test was demonstrated. The bribe money was smeared with phenolphthalein and entrusted to the complainant with an instruction that, he should take the money and give it to the accused, if he demands. The entrustment mahazar was prepared at the office of V&AC between 10.30 a.m to 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, the trap team proceeded to the VAO Office at Kamanthotti Village.

4.The complainant/Tr.R.Annamalai and shadow witness Murugan entered the Office of the accused at 12.45 hours. The accused, on seeing Tr.R.Annamalai, asked others waiting near his table to go out and when he was alone enquired whether the complainant has brought the money he demanded. When the complainant took out the money, the accused received it and kept it und