The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of the complainant's testimony creates reasonable doubt.

J U D G M E N T

The order of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant herein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court, Cuddalore in Spl.C.No.14 of 2010 dated 15.11.2018 for the commission of the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for the sake of convenience-PC Act), is put under challenge in the present appeal.

2. The gist of the case is as follows:

a) The complainant approached the appellant herein for transfer of patta in his name, for which it is alleged that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification for performing his duty. On negotiation, the demand amount was reduced to Rs.1000/-. Since the de-facto complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Inspector of Police, V & AC, Cuddalore on 11.01.2010. On receipt of the same, FIR was registered. On 11.01.2010 at about 7.10 p.m., as per the instructions of the Trap Laying Officer/TLO, the de-facto complainant along with official witness/PW2 went to the residence of the accused and gave him Rs.1000/- as demanded which was received by the accused and thereby the appellant committed the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act. A final report was filed and the case has been taken on file in Spl.C.No.14 of 2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Cuddalore.

b) The trial Court, on considering the materials placed on record framed the charges and tried the accused. The accused denied the charges levelled against him. To prove the charges levelled against the accused, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW12 have been examined, Exs.P1 to P18 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked and on the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D7 were marked.

c) On completion of trial, the trial Court on analyzation of the oral and documentary evidences, found the accused guilty of the offences stated above and sentenced him to undergo 5 years S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further one year S.I. under Section 7 of PC Act and to undergo 7 years S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay a fine to undergo further one year S.I. under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first charge alleged to be levelled against the appellant herein is that on 08.01.2010 at 10.30 a.m., the appellant herein/accused demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- as bribe to measure the land of the de-facto complainant/deceased (died on 11.03.2015) and to effect name transfer in the patta and subsequently on negotiation, the accused reduced the demand to Rs.1000/- and therefore, the accused is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act. Further, the second charge alleged is that on 11.01.2010, the accused called the de-facto complainant to his residence to give Rs.1000/- and the same was received by him. In view of the same, the accused abused his position as a public servant and therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted for an offence under Sections 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act.

6. Further, he submitted that the complaint was given on 08.01.2010 by the de-facto complainant/deceased, who had visited the office of the accused and submitted the documents to effect name transfer in patta. But the accused herein demanded Rs.2000/- but subsequently reduced it to Rs.1000/- for performing his duty. The complainant was not willing to give the demanded amount. It is pertinent to note that the complainant was alive till 2015 but unfortunately, he was not examined. Even though the prosecution had got six long years since the year 2010 but deliberately has not examined the de-facto complainant. The