J U D G M E N T

The appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thoothukudi in SplC.C.No.10 of 2007. By order dated 07.11.2014, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and the above said sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

[i] The defacto complainant, namely, Sivaji [PW2]

is a resident of Keela Nalumoolaikinaru approached the Village Administrative Officer, namely, M.Selvakumar [Appellant], to do the needful in transferring the name in the patta and for issuing new patta in respect of the lands purchased by his aunt one Kuruvammal. The accused officer asked the defacto complainant to get the signature of his aunt in a plain paper. Accordingly, the defacto complainant got the signature of his aunt in a plain paper and handed over the same to the accused officer on 13.11.2006 at 11.00am and the accused officer received the same and replied that he would do necessary arrangements.

[ii]Again the defacto complainant met the accused officer on 29.11.2006 at 5.00pm and enquired about the patta. The accused officer demanded Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification to make necessary arrangements to give the name transferred patta. When the defacto complainant expressed his inability to give Rs.1000/-, the accused officer insisted him that only if he pays Rs.700/-, he would make necessary arrangements for issuance of patta. Then the defacto complainant informed his aunt Kuruvammal about the demand, she replied that she has no money, asked the defacto complainant to give the money and she would give him the money later. Since the defacto complaint [ExP2] was not willing to give bribe, he lodged a complaint [ExP2] before the respondent Police on

30.11.2006 at 11.30am.

(iii) Based on the complaint [ExP2] a case in Crime No.08 of 2006 was registered against the accused officer for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Inspector of Police [PW4]/ Trap Laying Officer [TLO] and the FIR is marked as ExP.18. Then he recorded the statement of the defacto complainant. Based on his request one Radhakrishnan [PW3], Typist from the Office of Superintending Engineer, TNEB, Thoothukudi and one Muthukumarasamy, Junior Assistant from the Office of the Chief Educational Officer appeared before him at 2.00pm for the trap proceedings to stand as shadow witnesses. TLO introduced the shadow witnesses to PW2 and explained about the complaint given by PW2, to the official witnesses, handed over a copy of the complaint and FIR and asked them verify the same with PW2. Then the TLO conducted a demonstration about the phenolphthalein test and about the trap. Thereafter, the TLO obtained Rs.700/-[MO1 series Rs.100 X 7] intended to be given to the accused officer and the serial number of the currencies were noted in the entrustment mahazar [ExP6]. PW2 and the Police party attested the same. Later the Police party smeared the phenolphthalein powder on the currencies and gave them to PW2. The TLO instructed PW2 to meet the accused officer and if the accused officer demands the money, then only he should give the money to the accused officer. PW3 was also directed to accompany PW2 and the TLO instructed them to show signal, after the accused officer received the money.

(iv)Accordingly, on 30.11.