The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld as the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes was cogent and corroborated by procedural tests.

JUDGMENT

The Appellant who was the sole accused in Special Case No.14 of 2014 on the file of Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in Spl.C.No.14 of 2014, by judgment dated 04.08.2018, by the learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai.

2.The Appellant was the Block Health Supervisor and he is said to have demanded Rs.1,000/- as a bribe to issue the Sanitary Certificate by the Deputy Director of Health Service to P.W.2. On the basis of P.W.2's complaint, the FIR was registered and the Trap was organised on 12.10.2012 and the appellant reiterated the demand in the presence of the official witness/P.W.3 and received the same and handed over the “Sanitary Certificate” and he was entrapped by the Trap Laying Officer and the investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and final report was filed before the Learned Special Judge and trial was conducted and the same ended in conviction. Challenging the same, the Appellant filed this appeal questioning the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

3.The Brief facts of the case:-

P.W.2 was running a Special School in Koodal Nagar, Madurai, in a Rental Building. Subsequently, he constructed his own building in the Sikkandar Savadi and he made an application for issuance of the Sanitary Certificate. For the said purpose, the accused officer demanded Rs.1,500/ and subsequently reduced to Rs.1200/- and finally came down to Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter, P.W.2 called the accused officer on 12.10.2012 and the accused officer reiterated the said demand and hence, he made the complaint before the respondent police and the Trap Laying Officer/P.W. 12 received the complaint and verified the same and thereafter, he registered the case and called the official witness/P.W.3 and another witness and also received the amount from P.W.2 and demonstrated the phenolphthalein test. Thereafter, he instructed to hand over the money, if the accused demanded the bribe. P.W.3 was instructed to watch the proceedings taking place between P.W.2 and the appellant. Then the Entrustment mahazar was prepared and the signature of the official witness and the other witnesses were obtained and thereafter, the accused officer is said to have asked P.W.2 to come near Fatima College, Madurai. At that time, the accused officer met P.W.2 and reiterated the demand and received the amount. Thereafter, he handed over the certificate to him. Thereafter, P.W.2 gave the signal to P.W.12 and the team visited the occurrence place and conducted the phenolphthalein test and the hand wash was positive and in order to conduct further search in the pant packet, due to the inconvenience in the public place, he was taken to a nearby lodge situated in that area. In the lodge, the pant was received and the phenolphthalein test was conducted in the pant packet which wash also was positive. Thereafter, the Trap laying Officer concluded proceedings of recovery of the amount and also verified with the number mentioned in the Entrustment Magazar and thereafter, accused was arrested and produced before the Trial Court. Thereafter, P.W.12 handed over the investigation to P.W.13 and P.W.13 conducted the investigation. Thereafter, P.W.14 completed the investigation and filed the final report against the appellant under Section 7 r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

4.The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and after his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P