IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without establishing these elements.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused in Spl.Case No. 1 of 2012, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.02.2018 rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge at Ariyalur.

2. The sentence imposed upon the appellant is as under:

3. Prosecution's version:

3.1. The appellant/accused viz.,C.Narayanan was working V.A.O., Reddipalayam, Ariyalur District. C.Paramasivam is the resident of Muniyankurichi Village. Sengamanglam, wife of Muniyappan and Durai Raj's wife namely Lakshmi, made oral fight on 08.05.2004 at water pipe and subsequently there was an fisticuff between them. Consequently, Durairaj lodged complaint before Vikkramangalam Police Station in Cr.No. 181 of 2004 against C.Paramasivam's friends Muniyappan, Sengamangalam, Murugesan, Ulaganathan and Muthusamy, in which Murugesan, Ulaganathan, Muniyappan and Muthusamy were arrested and sent to Judicial custody on 21.05.2004. Sengamangalam requested C.Paramasivam to get bail for them. In order to get solvency certificates for each accused arrested therein, C.Paramasivam went to the office of the accused/V.A.O at 12.00 noon on 21.05.2004. The accused had demanded Rs.100/- per certificate, in total Rs.800/-. In spite of his request in making payment, the accused strictly said that without the payment, he would not issue the certificates. Even though, he was not willing to pay the bribe, he agreed to pay. C.Paramasivam lodged a complaint to the respondent Police on 26.05.2004 and FIR was registered in Cr.No. 3 of 2004.

3.2. Based on the complaint, a trap was laid and the accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe, he was arrested and thereafter, after completion of the investigation, the respondent had filed the Final Report against the accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge at Ariyalur.

3.3. On issuance of summons, the accused appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge and his counsel had filed memo of appearance. Copies were furnished to the accused, in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

3.4. After hearing both sides, charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused denied the charges and sought to be tried.

3.5. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.22 were examined and Exs.P1 to P22 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked.

3.6. Based on the incriminating materials, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded not guilty.

3.7. On the side of defence, D.W.1 to D.W.2 were examined, however, no documents were marked.

3.8. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of prosecution as well as the defence, found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay the fine as stated above. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

4.1. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court, Mr.S.Shanmuga Velayutham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, had raised following grounds:

(i) The trial Court had erred in convicting the appellant by not properly considering and appreciating the evidence on record.

(ii) The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7