Acceptance of bribes and the legitimacy of prosecution evidence under the Prevention of Corruption Act were affirmed, with modifications to sentencing based on the appellant's health and age.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28/06/2018 passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai, in Special Case No.64 of 2011.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-

When the accused was working as Village Administrative Officer between 01/12/2006 and 13/02/2009 at Pothumbu Village Administrative Office, on 03/02/2009 demanded Rs.2,000/- from the de-facto complainant as illegal gratification and it was reduced the same as Rs.1,000/- for recommending for transfer the house site patta in his name and received the same on 13/02/2009. Based on the complaint, Trap was laid, and a case in Crime No.2 of 2009 was registered for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was arrested and after completing the formalities of the investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file by the Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai, in Special Case No. 64 of 2011 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, framed the charges for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988.

3. The following charges were framed against the accused persons:-

(1) On 23/04/2010 at about 11.00 am, when the de-facto complainant gave a petition that, the accused demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe amount to make arrangement for patta transferring and thereby, the accused committed an 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.1m000/- as pecuniary advantage for himself from the complainant and thereby the accused committed an offence under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

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

5. During the trial process, on the side of the prosecution, 14 witnesses have been examined and 20 documents were marked. Apart from that, MO1 to MO6 were also marked. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

6. PW2 is the de-facto complainant living in Pothumbu village, Madurai district. His father was having property in that village. After the death of the father, his mother and brother executed a release deed in his favour. So for the purpose of transferring patta, he approached the accused on 03/02/2009. The application was written by the accused, signed and stated that Rs.3,000/- expenses may be incurred. He expressed his inability. But he demanded at least Rs.1,000/-. Later he went to the outstation for work. His friend Murali enquired about his request with the