Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires concrete evidence linking the accused's possession of money to an intent to bribe specific public officials, not mere suspicion.

JUDGMENT :

(G. ILANGOVAN, J.)

All the criminal appeals are filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court for trying the Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 26/06/2018 in CC Nos.36 to and 38 of 2014.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

On 19/09/2008 between 12.30 to 04.30 pm, the accused R.Sudhakaran (Rs.1,440/-), accused R.Chellapandian (Rs.11,430/-) and the accused M.Murugeswaran (Rs.2,700/-) were found in possession at the office premises of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District with an intention to bribe the officials of the above office using their personal influence. Based upon the complaint, investigation was undertaken and final report was filed before the Special Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur, which took cognizance in Special CC Nos.36 to 38 of 2014 and framed the following charges against the accused persons:-

(1) The first charge is that the appellant On 19/09/2008 between 12.30 to 04.30 pm, the accused R.Sudhakaran (Rs.1,440/-), accused R.Chellapandian (Rs.11,430/-) and the accused M.Murugeswaran (Rs.2,700/-) were found in possession at the office premises of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District and thereby, they have committed an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and

(2) In pursuance of the above said occurrence, all the accused were found in possession of the bribe amount at the office premises of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District with an intention to bribe the officials of the above office using their personal influence and thereby, they have committed an offence punishable under section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. After framing the above said charges, the appellants were questioned and they denied the charges.

4. For proving the above said charges, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 20 documents. On the side of the accused namely, the appellant herein, one Subash was examined as D.W.1 and 1 document was marked and 5 Material Objects were exhibited by the prosecution.

5. The facts, as narrated through the examination of the witnesses, are as follows:-

Thiru.Mahendran was working as Deputy Superintendant of Police attached to Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department, Virudhunagar in 2008. On 19/08/2008 at about 12.30 noon, he along with a team of police people on getting the information, conducted inspection and raid in Sivakasi RTO Office. The surprise raid took place till 04.30 on that date. They prepared surprise raid report. At the time of the raid, they enquired the accused R.Chellapandian (Crl.A(MD)No.302 of 2018), M.Murugeswaran (Crl.A(MD)No.309 of 2018 and R.Sudhakaran (Crl.A(MD)No.294 of 2018) who were found in possession of money. They did not give any proper explanation for possessing the money and they told that they got money for bribing the officials. The accused R.Chellapandian was conducting a driving training school called Sree Muthumariamman' in Satchiapuram and he further stated that to get the driving licence for one Vijayakumar, was in possession of Rs.11,430/-. He further disclosed that he collected money from various persons for bribing the officials. The statement was reduced into writing. In the statement, the witnesses and the accused si