The conviction of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act is upheld based on established evidence of bribery, reaffirming the necessity of fair procedure in trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District in Special Case No.5 of 2007, dated 26/04/2019.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The Accused was serving as Head Constable in Thuckalay Police Station from 13/06/2003 to 17/11/2005. The de-facto Complainant applied for Passport through District Collectorate, Nagercoil, on 19/10/2005. The said application was received by the Thuckalay Police Station for verification and handed over to Soosai Michael for report. On 15/11/2005 at about 10.00 am, he went to the house of the de-facto complainant and enquired his Aunt about him. As per his direction, de-facto complainant met the accused Soosai Michael at about 10.00 am on 16/11/2005. The accused demanded Rs.350/- as bribe. Not willing to bribe, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Based upon that complaint, trap was laid. Case in Crime No.9 of 2005 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, filed final report. It was taken on file by the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanniyakmari District, in Special CC No.5 of 2007 for the offence under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused persons:-

(1) On 15/11/2005 at about 11.00 am, when the de-facto complainant gave an application seeking verification for Passport, at that time, the accused demanded Rs.350/- as bribe amount to make arrangement for passport verification and thereby, the accused committed an offence punishable 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.350/- as pecuniary advantage for himself from the complainant and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) 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, 19 witnesses have been examined and 28 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 Thiruvithancode. He wanted to go abroad for job. On 19/10/2005, he applied for Passport with the Regional Passport Office, Nagarcoil. On 15/11/2005, one Soosai Michael, the accused herein came to the house and informed his Aunt that he must appear before the Thucukkalay Police Station, On the next day; he gave a slip mentioning his name as Soosai Michael HC No.535; He must bring the Ration Card with slip. It was informed to him by his Aunt at about 2.00 pm. On the next day, he went to the Police station and met the accused. He asked him to come on the next day with Ration Card with Rs.350/-. The accused told him that after getting the money only, he can verify the certificate. So, PW2 went to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department and informed the Inspector Ramasamy about the demand, gave a complaint. Along with the complaint, he handed over the slip given by the accused. Thereupon th