IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of proving knowledge of bribery for conviction under the PC Act and the importance of procedural fairness in charge alterations.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram in Special Case No.37 of 2014 dated 08.02.2019 and allow the appeal.

Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the learned Judge, Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram in Special Case No.37 of 2014 dated 08.02.2019, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

2. The brief facts which leads to the filing of the present appeal is as follows:

a) The appellant herein has been arrayed as A2, who was the driver of the first accused Tahsildar, Kallakurichi. PW2/de-facto complainant filed an application to the RDO, Kallakurichi to remove an encroachment in poramboke land in S.No.80/3 by one Muthusamy and the same was ordered. Non compliance of the order of the RDO made the de-facto complainant to approach this Court and this Court also passed an order favouring the de-facto complainant on 10.09.2009 for removing the said encroachment. Inspite of the Court order, there was inaction on the part of the officials. Hence, the de-facto complainant approached A1, who was the Tahsildar of Kallakurichi. For performing his duty, A1 demanded Rs.1,50,000/- but on negotiations, it was reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- initially and the balance to be paid on completion of work. On 13.11.2009, A1 reiterated the same to the defacto complainant and made him to pay Rs.25,000/- to A2 and A2 received the amount. Thus, A1 committed the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of PC Act r/w.109 IPC and A2 committed the offences punishable under Section 8 of PC Act r/w.109 IPC.

b) During examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., itself, A1 died and the charges against him got abated. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P31 & M.O.1 & M.O.2 were marked on the side of the prosecution and DW1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked on the side of the defence.

c) On analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant herein/A2 guilty of the offence under Section 12 of the PC Act in Spl.C.C.No.37 of 2014. Consequently, the trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to undergo 4 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month S.I.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/A2.

4. Heard Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation against the appellant herein/A2 was that he received the illegal gratification for A1 from the de-facto complainant and handed over the same to A1 and hence, the charge under Section 8 of PC Act was framed against him but however, the trial Court had erred in altering this section and framed the charge under section 12 of PC Act. He further stated that there was a contradiction in regard to the place of receiving the bribe amount as per the version of PW3, which has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. Moreover, the learned trial Judge has failed to note the vital point from the deposition of DW1, who has stated that the appellant had avoided to receive the amount but however the de-facto complainant forcibly trusted the same into his pocket so as to hand over the same to A1.

6. In furtherance, the learned Senior counsel contended that prosecution witnesses were not allowed to cross examine by the accused on the newly framed charge. He also contended that there was absolutely no evidence to substantiate that A2 was aware of the bribe amount and received the same, hence, the charge of abetment cannot be made out as against the appellant herein and also that the presumption under Section