The prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and the accused must rebut the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C, against the judgment passed in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2014, dated 21.06.2017, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.)

1. It would be opt to begin the judgment with the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashitial and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013)4 SCC 642:

“It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered.”

2. The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2014, dated 21.06.2017, on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.

3. The case of the prosecution as evident from the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption is that the accused was working as Tahsildar, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, actuated by corrupt motive on 10.07.2013 at about 17.00 hours in his office, attempted to obtain gratification other than the legal remuneration of Rs.10,000/- for himself from the complainant Chinniah of Arasamalai, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District as a monthly mamool (bribe) to continue his sand quarrying and earth moving works from the Nerunjikudi river situated at Ponnamaravathi Taluk without any interference from the revenue side, that in the course of the continuation of transaction and in pursuance of the earlier demand reiterated his earlier demand and obtained Rs.10,000/- as bribe from the complainant between 11.50 hours and 12.00 hours on 12.07.2013 in his office and as such, the accused is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that in the course of the same transaction and in pursuance of the said demand, on 12.07.2013 between 11.50 hours and 12.00 hours and in Taluk office of Ponnamaravathi, the accused by abusing his official position, demanded and accepted Rs.10,000/- as bribe from the complainant for the above said purpose as pecuniary advantage for himself and thereby he has also committed an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, after the receipt of the charge sheet, has taken the case on file in Spl.C.C.No.3 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon perusing the records and on hearing both sides, 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, 1988 and the same were read over and explained to the accused and on being questioned, he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 22 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.22, exhibited 36 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.36 and marked four material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4.

6. 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 is an agriculturist, residing in Arasamali Village of Ponnamaravathi Taluk. His wife Alamelu is owning a Swaraj Model Tractor bearing registration No.TN-55-AE-6152. They have been using their tractor for their agricultural purposes. On 21.06.2013, when the complainant was taking sand from Nerunj