The prosecution must establish the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money and contradictions among witnesses insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

(Prayer : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., read with Section 2 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the judgment of conviction made in C.C.No.145 of 2011(Old C.C.No.03/2011) dated 09.02.2017 on the file of Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.)

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.145 of 2011, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.02.2017 rendered by the Special Judge for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

2. The appellant/accused stands convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 7 , 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed with sentence as under:-

3. The crux of the case is as under:-

i) The appellant/accused viz.,L.Sagayaraj was working as Field Surveyor in the office of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, from 22.10.2007 to 21.10.2008 and thereby he is a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

ii) Whileso, a complaint, Ex.P2 came to be lodged by the de facto complainant Natarajan, PW2 contending as under:-

The de facto complainant is a Builder by profession. He undertook construction of houses in the land purchased by his wife and some of their relatives. In this connection, he had applied for patta name transfer by approaching one Shriram, Chief Draughtsman in the office of the Assistant Director (Land Survey) on 8.9.2008, who, in turn, had introduced the de facto complainant to the accused stating that the accused would do the inspection and thereafter, he would proceed with the name transfer in the patta. The said surveyor viz., the appellant/accused had obtained the phone number of the de facto complainant. Thereafter, on 16.10.2008, the appellant/accused had called over phone and informed the de facto complainant that he was proceeding for site inspection. Accordingly, the appellant/accused had visited the site for inspection and thereupon, he demanded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as illegal gratification for recommending the name transfer in the patta. On expression of inability by the de facto complainant, the appellant had reduced it to Rs.1,00,000/- and insisted for such amount or otherwise, patta name transfer could not be granted. Subsequently on 17.10.2008, the appellant had called the de facto complainant over phone and once again insisted for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance for which the de facto complainant had informed that he was proceeding on pilgrimage and he would return on 21.10.2008. The appellant/accused had asked the de facto complainant to inform him on his return. Accordingly, when the de facto complainant had contacted the appellant over phone on 21.10.2008 and at that time, the appellant had informed him that the file was ready and asked him to contact over phone in the afternoon and to come with money to the spot where he fixes. Since the de facto complainant is not inclined to give the bribe demanded by the appellant, he had approached the Vigilance and Anti Corruption office and lodged