The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, which was upheld through credible evidence in this case.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special CC No.13 of 2014, dated 28/02/2018 by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-

On 22/10/2003, the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- from the de-facto complainant to prepare the bill for the Family Security Fund with regard to the deceased Ramathilagam. On 27/10/2003, the accused reiterated the demand. When the de- facto complainant disclosed his inability to give Rs.5,000/-, the accused asked him to give Rs.3,000/- on 28/10/2003 and remaining Rs.2,000/- within a week. As he was not willing to bribe, he lodged a complaint against the accused before the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Wing, Sivagangai. Based upon that complaint, trap was laid. Case in Crime No.3 of 2003 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. It was taken on file by the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai, in Special CC No.13 of 2014 for the offences 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:-

(1) The accused Ganesan was working as Superintendent in Child Development Project Office, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District from 01/05/2003 to 28/10/2003; Tmt.Ramathilagam was working as Helper in Anganvadi at Kaliyanendhal village and she died on 04/05/2003 nominating Sumathi; As her nominee to get the Family Security Fund; she gave a petition to get the Family Security Fund of Ramathilagam in Child Development Project Office, Manamadurai, Sivagangai; Her brother approached the accused on 22/10/2003 at 11.30 am and requested to take steps on the petition; at that time, the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration; in pursuance of the said demand on 29/10/2003 at about 03.30 pm, the accused reiterated his demand for taking steps on the petition of Smt.Sumathi and thereby, the accused committed an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and

(2) In the course of same transaction, on 28/10/2003 at about 03.00 pm, the accused being a public servant, received Rs.3,000/- and thereby he 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, 19 witnesses have been examined and 44 documents marked. Apart from that, MO1 to MO10 marked. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

5. PW2 was living in Ulakudi, Virudhunagar district. His mother by name Ramathilagam was working as Noon Meal Organiser in Kaliyanenthal village. She died and for getting death benefit, he made a request with the Tiruchuli Taluk office. His brother by name Sivasubramaian was objected to that request. But later, they made compromise. After collecting relevant certificates, they presented a petition before the Child Development Project Officer, Manamadurai, on 16/08/2003, where the accused was working as Superintendent. Even after repeated contact, there was no proper response from the accused. Finally, on 27/10/2003 at 12.00 pm, when the de-facto complainant contacted the accused, he demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe. He expressed his inability. But the accused insisted that they may get Rs.1,00,000/- as death benefit. So, they can give Rs.5,000/-. Again, he expressed his inability to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/-. But the accused demanded in two installments, first installment of Rs.3,000/- and the second installment of Rs.2,000/-. Later, he lodged a complaint on 28/10/2003 with the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department. The complaint was mark