The absence of a demand does not negate the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act if evidence of receipt is present.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioner/accused in Spl.CC No.12 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive trial of Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Tirunelveli has filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the above proceedings pending as against him.

2. The respondent police has filed a final report as against this petitioner for the offence punishable under section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, (as amended in Act 16 of 2018) that this petitioner has demanded and received a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the de-facto complainant one Mahalakshmi, for discharge of his official duty. The petitioner is a Firka Surveyor working at Thisayanvilai Taluk office, Tirunelveli District. One Mahalakshmi, a resident of Palayamkottai has purchased a property to an extent of four cents in Survey No.637, by way of a registered document in the month of September 2020 and applied for subdivision and Patta.The petitioner/the Firka Surveyor said to have demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the defacto complainant. On the complaint of the defacto complainant, a trap was arranged and he was arrested when he received the amount from the defacto complainant. A case in Crime No.6 of 2022 has been registered as against this petitioner by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption on 24.06.2022.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no demand from this petitioner and this petitioner has recommended the sub division and patta for the defacto complainant on 22.06.2022. The learned counsel, by relying upon the the statement of the Taluk Surveyor submits that the Taluk Surveyor has also stated that this petitioner has completed his work by forwarding the application along with the subdivision to the Taluk Survey officer and in turn, the Taluk Survey Officer has forwarded the same to the Tahsildar. According to the learned counsel, the Tahsildar has uploaded the patta on 22.06.2022, whereas, the case of the prosecution is that there was a demand on 22.06.2022 and on 23.06.2022 and consequently the defacto complainant said to have parted with the cover containing a sum of Rs.6,000/- and this petitioner has received that amount. According to the learned counsel, there was a Jamabandi on the date of occurrence on 23.06.2022 and this petitioner was very much available in the office at Jamabandi. While so, there is no necessity for this petitioner to receive the amount in the office and that apart the other officers, who are working along with this petitioner have also supported the case of the petitioner that he was sitting in the office on that particular day. Even assuming that this petitioner has received a cover in Jamabandi, people used to submit covers and therefore, the same has been projected as if that this petitioner has received the amount. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, there is no iota of material as against this petitioner for demand of money and also there is no receipt of money. Therefore, the final report needs to be quashed.

3.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, in Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi,  2016 (1) MWN (Cr.) 255 (SC) and the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,  2014 (2) MWN (Cr.) 376 (SC) and submits that when there is no demand, mere receipt of money would not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that it is a clear case of trap. The petitioner, who is working as a Firka Surveyor at Thisayanvilai Taluk, Tirunelveli Taluk has received a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the defacto complainant, namely, Mahalakshmi on 24.06.2022 in backside of the