JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.05.2017, imposed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, in C.C.No.112 of 2011 (Old C.C.No.2/2009), for the offence under Sections 7 and

13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The appellant/accused viz., A.Settu, who was working as a Sub-

Inspector of Police (Crime and Law & Order), V5 Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai, is a Public Servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant/accused is alleged to have demanded and accepted the bribe for closing the criminal case pending against the de facto complainant and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant is as follows:-

3. Prosecution's version :

3.1. A complaint dated 17.03.2008, Ex.P3 came to be lodged by the de facto complainant, PW2, before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai, in which he had stated that he was working as a Driver in Parveen Travels and was driving bus in a Hyundai Car company on contract basis. On 24.01.2008, at 6.20 pm, while he was driving the bus from Padikuppam to Anna Nagar West through Thirumangalam Signal, he entered into quarrel with one PW5/Muthumariappan, who was driving the Qualis Car and during such quarrel, they assaulted each other and left the place. After 10 days, one Basker, the Manager of the Parveen Travels had informed him that the appellant/accused had asked PW2 to meet him at Thirumangalam Police Station in respect of the quarrel that took place on 24.01.2008. Thereby,

PW2 along with his family friend S.Ramalingam/PW3, who was the retired police, had gone to the Thirumangalam Police Station. When PW3 had enquired the appellant/accused, the accused had informed him about the registration of the case against PW2 for theft of gold jewels. Thereby, PW2 had obtained anticipatory bail on 25.02.2008 and surrendered before Thirumangalam Police Station on 07.03.2008 and he was released on bail. Later, as per the anticipatory bail order, PW2 was complying with the condition by signing at Thirumangalam Police Station from 08.03.2008 at 10.00 a.m. On 12.03.2008, when PW2 had gone to the Thirumangalam Police Station to comply with the condition, a policeman has asked him to meet the appellant/accused on the same day at 5.00 pm. Thereupon, PW2 met the appellant/accused at 5.00 p.m, during which, the appellant/accused had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for closing the case pending against PW2. When PW2 had expressed his inability, the appellant/accused had directed PW2 to pay the amount in two instalments and asked him to pay Rs.5000/- on 17.03.2008 at his house and pay the balance within two days. Since the de facto complainant/PW2 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he had preferred a complaint and prayed that suitable action may be taken against the appellant/accused.

3.2. On receipt of the complaint, the Deputy Superintendent of

Police had forwarded the same to the Inspector of Police/Trap Laying Officer (PW8). Thereby, PW8 had enquired about the antecedents of the appellant/accused and registered the First Information Report (Ex.P9) in Crime No.3/AC/2008/CC-II for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Then, on receipt of the requisition letter sent by PW8 for deputing official witnesses, one Gopinath, PW4 and one Chidambaram (not examined), who were working in the office of Prohibition and Excise Department, reached the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at 12.00noon. Thereupon, the official witnesses were introduced to PW2 and viceversa. Thereafter, PW8 had handed over the copy of the complaint and FIR to the official witnesses and asked them to peruse the same and get acquainted with the