JUDGMENT :

G.Ilangovan, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, in Spl. Case No.24 of 2011 and acquit the appellant.

2.The case of the prosecution is that PW2 and PW4 are brothers. They purchased one house from TNHB on instalment basis. The accused is an employee of TNHB. On 07/03/2007, PW2 met the accused and got the house allotment order. Thereafter, on 08/06/2007, PW4 met the accused in his office and asked for sale deed. He informed PW2 about his visit to TNHB office. PW4 told PW2 that the accused asked him to bring stamp papers for Rs.3,300/-, type expenses Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- as bribe. Not willing to bribe, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent police. Based upon the complaint, a case in Crime No.4 of 2007 was registered for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . The accused was arrested in the trap. After completing the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken on file by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai, in Special Case No.24 of 2011 for the offences under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused:-

(i) The accused is an employee of TNHB has demanded Rs.500/- for getting the sale deed for the house allotment to the complainant and thereby, he has committed an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act; and

(ii)In the course of the same transaction, the accused by illegal means and by abusing his position as a public servant obtained himself of the said amount of Rs.500/- as pecuniary advantage from the complainant and thereby, he has committed an offence under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3.To that charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the trial process, on the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses have been examined and 21 documents marked. On the side of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

5.PW2 Ramkumar was living in Sellur Iruthayarajapuram along with his brother Rajendran. On 29/01/2007, the house in L.No.302 was allotted to him by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. He received the letter to produce the relevant documents to the Department. On 05/03/2007 along with his brother, he went to the office of the accused and handed over the documents. On 07/03/2007, the accused handed over the allotment letter and informed that the sale deed will be executed later. After three months, his brother contacted the accused. At that time, he demanded Rs.500/- as bribe amount, apart from Rs.3,300/- for stamp paper and Rs.200/- towards typing expenses. On 11/06/2009 at about 05.00 pm, along with his brother, he went to the office of the accused. At that time, the accused enquired whether he brought Rs.500/-. They replied that they have not brought the money. They were taken to the Superintendent by name Vaijayanthi Mala. She also told them to give the money as per the demand made by Balakrishnan . On 12/06/2007 at about 10.00 am, they went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department and lodged the complaint under Ex.P2.

6.The complaint was received by the Inspector of Police, Rajkumar, who was examined as PW10 and registered the case in Crime No.4 of 2007 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, submitted the original documents to the concerned Court and copies to the higher authorities. At his request, on 12/06/2007 at about 02.00 pm, one Seenivasan and Syed Ismail appeared before him. At that time, he introduced the official witnesses to PW2 and informed them about the test to be undertaken. He directed PW2 to produce five hundred rupee notes Rs.500/- that he had brought. Sodium Carbonate Solu