The court upheld the conviction of a public servant for bribery, confirming that absence of motive for false implication supports the integrity of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed in Special CC No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai, dated 24/12/2018.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The accused was working as Field Officer, Firka Surveyor In-charge in Pudhunagar Firka, Kanddarvakottai Taluk, Pudukottai District. One Banumathi who is the PW4 herein, purchased a property in Survey No.78/9, to an extent of 0.02 Ares in Punalkulam Village, Kandravakottai Taluk, Pudukottai District. She preferred an application in the year of 2012 to earmark the boundaries of her property, for which, the de-facto complainant who is the husband of Banumathi also approached the accused several times. On 23/07/ 2013 at 11.00 am, he demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as bribe. As the de-facto Complainant was not willing to bribe, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Based on the complaint, Trap was laid. Case in Crime No.3 of 2023 was registered for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was arrested in the trap. After completing the formalities of the investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Pudukkottai, in Special CC No.6 of 2014 for the offence under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completing Sec. 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, the following charges were framed against the accused persons:-

(1) On 23/07/2013 at about 11.00 am, when the de-facto complainant gave a petition seeking to survey the land, the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe amount to make arrangement to survey the land and thereby, the accused committed the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2) In pursuance of the same transaction, the accused by using his position as a public servant obtained Rs.5,000/- as pecuniary advantage for himself from the complainant and thereby the accused committed the offence under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

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, 21 witnesses have been examined and 32 documents were marked. Apart from that, MO1 to MO4 were also marked. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

5. The case of the prosecution, as narrated through the prosecution witnesses:-

PW2 is living in Thethuvasaipatti village. His wife namely Banumathi purchased the property in 2012 in Punalkulam village. On 25/10/2012 to measure the property, he remitted the charges. In the month of November, he enquired about the stage of the application with the accused. He asked him to come after some months. Again he contacted on 15/07/2013. At that time, he has stated that some expenditure must be incurred by him. Again on 23/07/2013, when he approached the accused, he demanded Rs.5,000/- so, he lodged a complaint with the respondent police on the same day under Ex.P2.

6. The complaint was received by PW19-Ramanathan, the Inspector of Police, on that day at about 04.00 pm, registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2023 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After obtaining proper permission from the higher authorities, he made preliminary enquiry with r