IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.A.No.849 of 2016 State represented by, The Public Prosecutor High court, Madras-600 104.

(Vigilance and Anti Corruption, The Nilgiris Detachment), (Crime No.02/2004/AC/NI) ... Appellant/Complainant Vs.

B.Nanjundan, Assistant, Joint Registrar Office, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District. ... Respondent/accused PRAYER:The Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed in Spl.C.C.No.6/2015, dated 20.04.2016 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam and convict the respondent/accused as charged in accordance with law.

For Appellant : Mr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Criminal side)

For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Sridharan Assisted by Ms.Jayasri Baskar

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the judgment dated

20.04.2016 made in Special C.C.No.6 of 2015 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, acquitting the respondent/ accused for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.1. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent/accused viz.,Nanjundan, was working as an Assistant in the Joint-I Sub Registrar Office, Coonoor Road, Udhagamandalam and he is a Public Servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The defacto complainant's father viz.,Babu had purchased a house site from one Nagarajan in Survey No.85/3 E2 of Sholur Village for a sum of Rs.90,000/- and the document was registered on 28.05.2005 in the office of the Joint -I Sub Registrar, Coonoor Road, Udhagamandalam as document No.533 and on 25.06.2004 at 4.00p.m., and when the defacto complainant had asked for return of the registered documents, the respondent/accused had demanded a sum of Rs.800/- as bribe and later, at the request of the defacto complainant, the amount was reduced to Rs.300/-. Further, on 02.07.2004 at about 12.45 p.m., while the respondent/accused was on duty, he received the amount of Rs.300/- as gratification other than legal remuneration, thereby, he had committed the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.2. On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant papers were furnished to the respondent/accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

2.3. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet before the District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Special Judge, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District. On behalf of the prosecution, 18 witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 18, while marking Exs.P1 to P20 and also M.Os.1 to 7.

2.4. After completion of the examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, the respondent/accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating materials, and the accused has come out with the version of denial and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. However, no witness has been examined on the side of the defence.

2.5. Based upon the above materials, both oral and documentary, the trial Court proceeded with the trial and found that the respondent/accused is not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, acquitted him of all charges. Challenging the same, the State has filed this Criminal Appeal.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that the prosecution, by examining the witnesses and marking documents and material objects, proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. He would further submit that, the prosecution has proved the foundational facts by examining P.Ws.2 to 4 and their evidence is also cogent and also the evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the other witnesses, however, the trial Court, on erroneous appreciation of facts on law and also conside