Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of both demand and acceptance of bribe, validated through procedural safeguards such as phenolphthalein testing.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1. Both the Criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence made in Spl.C.C.No.17 of 2014, dated 09.03.2017, on the file of the Special Court for trail of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai.

2. The case of the prosecution is:

(a) The first accused was working as a Village Administrative Officer for Kirungakottai Group Village, Manamadurai Taluk and the second accused was a Village Assistant holding the additional charge for Kirungakottai Village and are public servants as contemplated under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complainant – Maduraiveeran is a native of Thuthikulam Village and is residing along with his wife Pappal in the house situated in S.No. 250/2015, which was originally owned by Pappal's mother. After the death of Pappal's mother, Pappal's brothers and sisters executed a document dated 20.03.1990 giving the said house property along with an adjacent land to the said Pappal. In order to transfer the patta in the name of his wife Pappal, the complainant approached the first accused, two months prior to the date of complaint on 30.09.2005 and handed over the document dated 20.03.1990 and also patta in Patta No.89 stands in the name of his mother-in-law – Vellaichi. The first accused upon receipt of the above documents, demanded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as gratification other than the legal remuneration for taking necessary steps to transfer of patta. The complainant expressed his difficulties to pay the amount demanded, but the first accused declared that he won't do anything, unless the amount is paid. Ten days thereafter, the complainant again approached the first accused, who in turn asked about the demanded amount and since the complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount and requested to reduce the amount, the first accused reduced the amount and directed the complainant to pay Rs.1,500/-.

(b) On 23.09.2005, the complainant after coming to know that Kirungakottai Village Administrative Office was shifted to the office of the Revenue Inspector at Muthanendal, went to that place and met the first accused and requested to expedite the process for transferring the patta and at that time, the first accused reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.1,500/-. Pandi, who belongs to the complainant's village of Thuthikulam, was present in the office of the first accused. The complainant informed the first accused that he had not brought the amount and requested to reduce the amount further. The said Pandi informed the first accused that the complainant belongs to his place and considering his poverty, the amount may be reduced. Thereafter, the first accused directed the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.800/- and bring the amount on Friday. The first accused drafted a petition and gave it to the complainant to get the signature of his wife.

(c) The complainant not willing to pay the amount, approached the respondent and on the basis of the complaint, a case was registered. As per the directions of the Inspector of Police attached to the respondent, he went to the office of the first accused at about 3.25p.m., on 30.09.2005 and gave the amount demanded. The first accused received the amount and gave it to the second accused, who was available in the said office, who in turn counted the amount and kept in his pocket. In the presence of official witness, phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the hands of the accused 1 and 2, which proved positive and the tainted amount of Rs.800/- was recovered from the second accused on