In a corruption case, the prosecution must prove that the money was received as illegal gratification; if the accused provides a plausible, evidence-backed explanation for the receipt of money as part of official duty, and the trap proceedings are found unreliable, the conviction cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgement of the Special Court for V & AC Cases (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Chengalpattu in Spl.Case No.13/2010, convicting the appellant for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was sentenced to three years simple imprisonment (2 counts) and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (2 counts), in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment, and the sentences imposed are directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts are as below:

a) P.W.2, the de-facto complainant was working as a Secretary in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society, Chennai (hereinafter 'IDPL Society' in short). On 27.11.2007, he resigned and joined as the Secretary of Kancheepuram Central Cooperative Bank (henceforth KCCB) and was working at its branch office at Madipakkam .

b) P.W.2 was stated to be entitled to receive around Rs.5.0 lakhs towards his terminal benefits from IDPL Society. This amount was not disbursed to him. Therefore, P.W.2 made Ext.P4, application dated 09.12.2007 for payment of his terminal benefits, followed by Ext.P5, dated 12.01.2008, for obtaining two different categories of terminal benefits. He then followed it up with Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 reminders, both dated 23.03.2008 and 29.10.2008 respectively.

c) The appellant was working as the Special Officer in IDPL Society.

d) Be that as it may about a week before P.W.2 gave his Ext.P7 reminder, on 21.10.2008, he was alleged to have met the appellant for disbursing his terminal benefits, and at that time the appellant was said to have demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe for disbursing the sum due to P.W.2. This according to the prosecution is the first demand.

e) It is after the above said meeting of P.W.2 with the appellant, on 29.10.2008, the former had given his Ext.P7 reminder. On the very next day (30.10.2008) IDPL issued Ext.P11 cheque for Rs.1,11,693/- to P.W.2, towards part payment of his terminal benefits. The cheque was singed by the appellant (special officer) as well as by P.W.11, who was the successor secretary to P.W.2 at the IDPL Society.

f) At 3.00 p.m., on 06.11.2008, and also at 3.00 p.m., on 07.11. 2008, the appellant was alleged to have made cellphonic calls to P.W.2 to his cell phone No.9444723902 to remind him of the bribe money of Rs.50,000/- that he had to pay. Indeed, in the second mentioned call on 07.11.2008, the appellant was alleged to have informed P.W.2 to pay the money to P.W.11.

g) Unwilling to pay the bribe money, on 07.11.2008 P.W.2 approached the respondent with his Ext.P2 complaint, receiving which P.W.12, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) registered Ext.P19 FIR at around 4.00 p.m., on that date.

h) And P.W.12 began his pre-trap procedures and entrusted Rs.50,000/- (Rs.1,000/- x 50), all smeared with phenolphthalein powder to P.W.2 vide Ext.P3, entrustment magazar. And P.W.2 stayed over that night along with P.W.3 and one Ravichandran, both of whom are the shadow witnesses, in the office of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.

i) On 08.11.2008, the trap-team, which included P.W.3 left the office of V & AC and reached the branch office of KCCB at Madipakkam at 8.15 a.m. in two vehicles. According to P.W.2, the TLO had dropped P.W.2 and P.W.3 some 50 feet from the office of KCCB. As planned on the previous day, P.W.2 was ready with the planted cash along with P.W.3, and the former took position inside his office. P.W.11, (who to remind, the successor officer of P.W.2 at IDPL) arrived at the office of KCCB. It was around 8.45 a.m.. As planned, when P.W.11 met P.W.2, the latter gave the planted cu