IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, along with the validity of the sanction order, are crucial in proving corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Additionally, the accused must rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act to avoid conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

Prayer: The Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence made in Special C.C. No. 16 of 2012 dated 11.02.2020 on the file of Special Judge, Special Court for trial of Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2020 has been filed by A1 and Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2020 has been filed by A2 against the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Coimbatore, in Special C.C. No. 16 of 2012 dated 11.02.2020.

2. The trial Court, finding the appellants/accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, convicted the appellant/accused and the sentence imposed on them is as follows:

3.1. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the evidence on record is that the first accused viz. N. Vanithaprabha was working as Junior Assistant and the second accused viz. V. Rajeswari was working as Assistant Rationing Officer in the office of the Assistant Rationing Office (Civil Supplies) Circle-II, Coimbatore, and both are Public Servants as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

3.2. The de facto complainant, namely P. Kasalapandi, PW-2, son of Paulraj and employed as a Goldsmith, had approached the State Bank of India, Karuppanna Gounder Street Branch, Coimbatore, to open a new account in his name. The bank officials had directed him to correct his name in his family card. Consequently, he had visited the office of Civil Supplies, Coimbatore South-II, where A1 was working as a Junior Assistant. PW-2 inquired A1 about the procedure for correcting his name in the family card.

3.3. Following A1’s advice, PW-2 submitted an application on 26.10.2010 for correction of his name in the family card and the application was signed by his father. A1, on receipt the application, introduced PW-2 to A2. A2 examined the application and handed it back to PW-2, instructing him to approach A1. Subsequently, when PW-2 requested A1 to proceed with the name correction, she demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 700/- for processing the application and returned the application to him.

3.4. When PW-2 again approached A1 on 02.11.2010 and asked her to accept the application, she had inquired as to whether he had brought Rs. 700/-. PW-2 replied that he did not have the money, but A1 reiterated her demand, stating that she would accept the application only along with the sum of Rs. 700/-. A1 had further informed PW-2 that the Tahsildar was unavailable in the office as he had gone to attend a meeting and told her that if he brings the specified amount on the afternoon of 08.11.2010, she would make arrangements for carrying out the correction.

3.5. As PW-2 was unwilling to pay the bribe amount, he filed Ex.P4 complaint with PW-10, Inspector of Police at Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore, on 08.11.2010 at 12:30 hours.

3.6. Upon receiving the complaint, PW-10 promptly registered the First Information Report (Ex.P14) on 08.11.2010 in Crime No. 21/2010/AC/CB under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at 13:00 hours and immediately sent letters of request to the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Coimbatore, and the Divisional Fire Officer, Fire and Rescue Service Department, Coimbatore, for deputing official witnesses to assist him in the trap and as per the request of PW-10, One Ranganathan, Junior Assistant, Hindu