IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish the elements of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of demand.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Puducherry in Special C.C.No.1 of 2009, A2-Karunakaran @ Karuna has filed Criminal Appeal No.265 of 2015 and A1-A.Aroulmani @ Arun has filed Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2015.

2. A1-Aroulmani was serving as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Pondicherry at the relevant time and thereby, he is Public Servant. He is alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy with A2-G.Karunakaran @ Karuna and demanded and obtained a sum of Rs.3000/- from the de facto complainant K.Arokianathan towards illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for the issue of I.E. Code to M/s.Ravi Agency, owned by him and thereby he had obtained pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position by illegal means and thereby both the accused rendered themselves liable to be punished u/s 120-B IPC r/w Section 7 and u/s 13(2 r/w 13(1)(d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in respect of A1 is as under:-

4. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in respect of A2 is as under:-

5. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

(i) One N. Lavakumar, PW9, while he was serving as Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti Corruption Bureau) Chennai from 2006 to 2011, had received instructions from the Superintendent of Police on 22.1.2009 at about 4.45 pm to enquire one Arokianathan of Puducherry, who had reported to the Superintendent of Police over phone that one Arun, A1 working in the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade had made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs.3000/- for processing the application seeking I.E. Code submitted for the firm called Ravi Agency being in the name of his wife, had formed a team consisting of the Inspector of Police Prabakaran, Subramanian and Police Constables Balachandrapillai and Balasubramani and rushed to Puducherry on 23.1.2009 at 4.00 am.

(ii) On reaching Puducherry, at about 8.30 am, the said Arokianathan, PW3 was called by the team over phone to meet them at the Railway Guest House, where the team was staying. At about 9.30 am, PW3, alongwith his wife Thaiyalnayagi, reached that place and submitted a complaint, Ex.P6 in writing to the following effect:-

A Firm called 'Ravi Agency' dealing with Toys in wholesale and retail was commenced in the name of A. Thaiyalnayagi, wife of PW3 about four months prior to the complaint by obtaining business licence from Villianur Commune Panchayat. An application was submitted in the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Puducherry on 1.12.2008 seeking I.E. Code for import and export of goods. Pointing out some defects in the application, a letter was received from the said office on 13.12.2008 and rectifying the same, it was resubmitted on 29.12.2008 and by that time, A1 had informed PW3 that the registration certificate would be sent by post. Since there was no communication as assured by A1, PW3 had went to the said office and enquired with A1 on 21.1.2009 for which A1 had not given proper reply. Expressing the grievance, PW3 insisted for issuance of I.E. code, A1 had asked to meet him on the next day and thereby PW3 had approached A1 on 22.1.2009 in his office and insisted for issuance of I.E. Code at