JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is arising out of acquittal of the accused passed by the Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, in Special C.C.No.7 of 2007, dated 22.01.2014, and convict the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

2.1.In this case, the defacto complainant, namely, Janakiraman, applied passport in the year 2005 and the same was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram to Kenikarai Police Station, where the respondent was Head Constable. For the purpose of enquiry and to ascertain the proof of the applicant, the respondent went to the shop of the defacto complainant (P.W.2), on 02.04.2005, enquired him and asked for the residential proof by way of Village Administrative Officer's certificate. He demanded a sum of Rs.300/- as bribe for the same.

2.2.The defacto complainant accepted to pay the amount by

04.04.2005. Thereafter, on 04.04.2005, again the respondent had gone to P.W.2's shop, demanded the bribe money as well as asked for the address proof. At that time, P.W.2 sought some time to make the payment. Again on 05.04.2005, the respondent went to P.W.2's shop and asked for the money at about 09.30.am., the defacto complainant (P.W.2) expressed his inability to pay the amount immediately, at that time the respondent scolded him and compelled him to make the payment on 06.04.2005.

2.3.Thereafter, on 06.04.2005, the defacto complainant (P.W.2)

approached the police official (P.W.15), namely, Gnanathesigan, who was working in Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Ramanathapuram, gave a compliant. P.W.15 registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2005 for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.4.Thereafter, P.W.15 summoned witnesses P.W.3, Veerasingam, who was employee of Panchayat Union, Paramakudi and one Ramakrishnan. Thereafter, pre-trap proceedings were conducted, explaining significance of Sodium Carbonate test to P.W.2, P.W.3 and Ramakrishnan.

2.5.P.W.2 along with P.W.3 had gone to the shop of P.W.2. At that time, the respondent came there and demanded money. P.W.2 handed over the trap money of Rs.300/-. The accused received the amount from P.W.2, counted the same with both hands, suddenly, he saw the police official, threw away the cash. P.W.15 reached there and one Head Constable was asked to stand guard there for safety of amount, which was thrown away by the accused. Thereafter, P.W.15 conducted the phenolphthalein test on the hands of the respondent/accused. P.W.15 prepared Sodium Carbonate Solution in two glasses and asked the respondent/accused to dip his fingers in the glasses. The respondent /accused dipped both hands, the water turned to light Pink colour. P.W.15 collected sodium carbonate solution in separate bottles, sealed them, the signature are marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.

2.6.Thereafter, they recovered the tainted money from the accused and the same was marked as M.O.1. In the presence of prosecution witnesses, the numbers found in recovered notes were compared with entrustment mahazar and verified. Both the witnesses confirmed that the numbers of the recovered notes and the numbers found in the entrustment mahazar were tallying. The investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police, namely, Mr.R.Muthuraman (P.W.

16).

2.7.On 02.04.2005, P.W.3, Ramakrishnan, Hyder Ali, Kesavan and others' statements were recorded. On 07.04.2005, the defacto complainant Janakiraman and P.W.6 Pasupathi were examined and further statements were recorded. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, since he was retired from service, he handed over the case diary to P.W.17. P.W.17, Ponnambalam, who is the subsequent investigating officer obtained sanction from P.W.1 and filed charge sheet in this case.

3.The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is that the lower Court had failed to appreciate the evidence of witnesses in its right perspective and had gone by the written and o