BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05.12.2018 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.A.(MD)No.246 of 2010 P.Karuppasamy ...Appellant/Accused Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Corruption, Tuticorin.

[Crime No.02 of 2006] ...Respondent/complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment dated 09.07.2010 made in Spl.CNo.9 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.

For Appellant : MrMayil Vahana Rajendran For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 09.07.2010 made in Spl.CNo.9 of 2007 by the Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2006 the defacto complainant approached the respondent Police and gave a complaint against the appellant that on 21.08.2006, at about 11.30 am, when the defacto complainant had approached the respondent seeking patta transfer in respect of his property, the appellant demanded Rs.500/- and the defacto complainant since was not willing to pay the bribe amount, made a complaint and based on the complaint, a case was registered.

3.Based on the FIR, trap was planned by the Trap Laying Officer (herein after shall be referred to as 'TLO'). Two independent witnesses, namely one Perumal (PW.3) and Sebastian who are known as shadow witnesses were summoned by the TLO and subsequently, PW.2, and the independent witnesses were present at the Office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thoothukudi on 22.08.2006 and the complainant was also present as directed by the TLO. The TLO explained about the complaint given by PW.2, to the independent witnesses and conducted a pre trap demonstration proceedings. PW.2 brought Rs.500/- (Rs.100 x 5) and the serial number of the currencies were noted down in the entrustment mahazar (ExP.7) prepared by TLO and later coated the currencies with phenolphthalein powder and gave them to PW.2. The TLO instructed PW.2 to approach the appellant and if the appellant demands the money, then only he should give the money to the appellant. PW.3 was also directed to accompany PW.2 and instructed them to show signal, after accepting the money by the appellant. Accordingly, on 22.08.2006, at about 10.30 am, the TLO, PW.2, shadow witness PW3 and Police Officials, went to the place of occurrence in their official vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 07 G 2509. Around 12.20 pm, the appellant came to his office. PW.2, along with PW.3 went to the office of the appellant and met him, on seeing PW.2, the appellant asked whether he had brought the money and asked him to give the money and after his demand, PW. 2 gave Rs.500/- (Rs.100 X 5) to the appellant, the appellant received the money and kept it in his shirt pocket at left side and assured to get signature from Tahsildar in the patta.

4.Then PW.2 came out of his office and gave the pre arranged signal to the TLO. On receiving the pre arranged signal from PW.2, the TLO along with PW.4, who is the independent witness entered into the office of the appellant and introduced himself to the appellant and conducted phenolphthalein test and the result proved positive. Then the TLO recovered the tainted money through recovery mahazar and obtained signatures from the appellant and shadow witnesses. Then the TLO placed the matter before the Investigating Officer - PW.11. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation laid a charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [herein after referred to as 'PC Act'] before the, Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution 12 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 were examined, 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 were marked