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, Tirunelveli in Spl.C.No.17 of 2014. By order dated 08.10.2015, 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 three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo five months simple 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 three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment to undergo five 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, D.S.Sundaram [PW2] had worked as a Senior Inspector (Dairying) in Co-Operative Department attached to the office of the Deputy Registrar, Virudhunagar and he retired on 30.06.2002. He was having a sum of Rs.1,93,244/- in his GPF Account. While so, by order dated 17.07.2002, the Accountant General (A & E), Chennai has authorised the Deputy Registrar (dairying), Tirunelveli to withdraw the final settlement amount after preparing and presenting the bill at Hazur Sub Treasury, Tirunelveli. Therefore, the defacto complainant approached the appellant, namely P.N.Santhanam, Deputy Registrar (Dairying), Tirunelveli at his office on 13.08.2002 at about 2.00pm and made enquires with regard to his bill for GPF final settlement. But, the accused officer initially demanded Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant as illegal gratification for signing the bill. On the request of the defacto complainant, the accused officer reduced the demand to Rs.3,000/- from Rs.5,000/- and the accused officer instructed the defacto complainant to give the bribe amount to him on 23.08.2002 between 10.00 am and 11.00am at the Co-Operative Society situated at Sidhupoondhurai, if it is not possible, asked him to give the money at 2.00pm at the office of the Deputy Registrar (Dairying), Tirunelveli, the appellant was in charge of the said office.

(ii) Since the defacto complaint [PW2] was not willing to give bribe, he lodged a complaint [ExP2] before the respondent Police on 22.08.2007.

(iii) Based on the complaint [ExP2] a case in Crime No.07 of 2002 was registered against the accused officer for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Inspector of Police [PW10]/ Trap Laying Officer [TLO] and the FIR is marked as ExP.22. Then he recorded the statement of the defacto complainant Based on his request one Panneer Selvam [PW3], Assistant Engineer, TNEB and one Kalyanaraman, Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Tirunelveli appeared before him at 08.30am on 23.08.2002 to stand as shadow witnesses for the trap proceedings. The TLO introduced the shadow witnesses to PW2, explained about the complaint given by PW2 and handed over a copy of the complaint and FIR, 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.3,000/-[MO1 series Rs.500 X 2 and Rs.100 X 20] intended to be given to the accused officer and the serial number of the currencies were noted in entrustment mahazar [ExP4] and PW2 and the Police party attested the same and 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 23.08.2002, PW2 along