J U D G M E N T

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the State seeking to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused passed in Special Case No.03 of 2014, dated 20.09.2016 by the Special Court for trial of the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli and convict the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.The case in brief:-

PW2-S.Palanisamy is the resident of Kandiaperi, Village, Tirunelveli District and doing house site brokerage business. The accused was working as Revenue Inspector during the relevant period of time. PW2 was owning the house site at Poolankudiruppu in Kunathoor Village and for the purpose of put up a construction, he intended to obtain loan from the Central Co-operative Bank. As per the instructions of the Manager of the said Bank, he has to obtain income certificate from the concerned Revenue Department. So on 21.01.2002, he went to the Taluk Office, Tirunelveli and submitted a petition before the Deputy Tashildhar. That petition was forwarded to the concerned Revenue Inspector. The concerned Revenue Inspector was not available in the seat at that time. So on the next day, I.e., on 22.01.2002, he again visited the office of the Revenue Inspector at about 10.00 am. At that time, he informed that he would make recommendation, if he pays Rs.1,000/-. Then he informed the Revenue Inspector that he will come on the next day with money. After that, he directly went to the Tirunelveli Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department and at about 8.00 pm, he informed the Inspector of Police, attached to Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department and it was reduced into writing. ExP5 is the complaint. He was directed to come on the next day. On the next day, at about 9.00 am, he again went to the Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department. At that time, two Government Officials were also present. The complaint given by him was read over to him and he was also admitted to be correct. He also handed over Rs.1,000/- to the Inspector and it was dipped into the glass and some powder was mixed in it. The sodium carbonate powder was smeared in the currency note, that was brought to PW2. One Kandasamy was also present in that place. He was also directed to put the currency note in his right pocket and he was also informed to hand over the same to the Revenue Inspector, when the same is demanded by him. A mahazar was prepared and he was also put his signature. The Inspector and two other witnesses have also signed in it. The mahazar was marked as Ex.P6. Then, he went to the Taluk office. At that time, they were informed that the Revenue Inspector was not available and he would come at 5.00 pm. Again they visited the Taluk office on the next day at 5.00 pm. At about 5.45 pm, the Revenue Inspector returned to the office and he made enquiry with regard to the income certificate. At that time, the witness Venkatachalam was also present. The Revenue Inspector asked whether he has brought Rs.1,000/-. It was handed over to the Revenue Inspector. After receiving the money, he put the same on the left pant pocket. At that time, PW2 made a signal as instructed by the Inspector of Police attached to V & AC Department and the police team came to the place and after identifying the Revenue Inspector, PW2 left the place. The money that was given as bribe is MO1. The petition given by PW2 seeking income certificate is Ex.P7.

3.PW3-Venkatachalam is the shadow witness. He also corroborated the evidence of PW2. On the material particulars, PW15, who was working as Inspector of Police in the Vigilance &

Anti Corruption Department, registered the case, on the basis of the complaint given by the complainant, in Crime No.1 of 2015 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Ex.P24 is the FIR. He requested the two witnesses from the Government Department and the original FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. He