The prosecution must prove the demand of illegal gratification beyond doubt, and inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the prosecution's case can lead to doubt about the accused's guilt, resulting in the benefit of doubt going to the accused.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the judgment and order passed by the Learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem, in Spl.C.C.No.62 of 2014, dated 20.02.2018 by allowing this appeal.)

1. The appellant herein while serving as Commercial Inspector in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Suramangalam, Salem, on 04.09.2003 caught in the Trap laid by V&AC, Inspector with Rs.1000/- given by Mr.Maheswaran and therefore prosecuted. The trial Court held him guilty for demand and receipt of Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification from Mr.Maheswaran. The appellant was sentenced to undergo One Year R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default 3 months S.I for the offence under Section 7 of P.C Act and to undergo Two Years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000/- in default 6 months S.I for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P.C Act. The period of substantive sentence ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution as unfurled through its 11 witnesses and 38 documents is as under:-

Thiru.Maheswaran, a Police Constable sought for electricity service connection for his house which was under construction. He got temporary connection during the month of February 2002. He gave an application on 18/09/2002 for permanent service connection and applied for shifting the meter Board. Few days later, Maheswaran went to TNEB Office at Suramanagalam and met the Assistant Engineer (hereinafter referred as A.E) and enquired about his application. As directed by A.E, he met the accused, who was the Commercial Inspector of Suramanagalam. The accused/appellant demanded Rs.750/- and on receiving it gave a receipt for only Rs.250/- and told that he will give receipt for the balance Rs.500/- after inspecting the site. The accused then visited the site and after inspecting the building, he told that meter board can be shifted and permanent service can be given only after shifting the main LT line which is running close to the house. Therefore, on 21/07/2003 Mahaeswaran gave an application to A.E for shifting the LT line. When he met the accused again on 28/07/2003 at the TNEB Office, Suramanagalam the accused collected Rs.500/- and gave a receipt and informed Maheswaran (P.W.2) that, for shifting the line the estimated cost will come around Rs.8000/- however, if he give bribe of Rs.2000/-, the estimated cost can be reduced upto Rs.4000/-. After negotiation, the accused reduced his bribe money to Rs.1000/- and also warned Maheswaran that, if he inform anybody about his demand of bribe, he will increase the estimation costs.

3.On 18/08/2003 when Maheswaran (P.W.2) went again to the EB Office, Suramanagalam and enquired the accused about the status of his application, the accused told him that, the estimation is not made ready and he will prepare the estimated shifting cost below Rs.4000/- and sent it, only if the bribe money is paid, the estimation cost will be received in the office. Accordingly, on 02/09/2003, P.W.2 was served with the estimation demand notice for the estimation cost and was directed to pay the shifting cost of Rs.3480/- within 7 days from the receipt of the Demand notice. The notice was received by the wife of Maheswaran. On the same day i.e., 02/09/2003 at about 11.00 a.m Maheshwaran went to A.E Office with the money and met the accused. The accused refused to receive the money unless his demand of bribe Rs.1000/- is paid. Maheswaran not willing to give any money other than the estimated cost, went to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Office at Salem and gave a written complaint in Tamil reporting about illegal demand of Rs.1000/- other than the legal remuneration, by the accused. This complaint was received at 4.30 p.m by the Inspector of Police, V&AC, Salem. FIR was registered under Section 7 of P.C Act and taken up for investigation in Crime No:11/AC/2003/SL. The copy of the printed FIR in Eng