The appeal was allowed due to insufficient evidence supporting the conviction, highlighting inconsistencies and potential manipulation by the prosecution.

JUDGMENT

The appellants 1 to 3 are wife, daughter and son of the deceased E.Jayapalan. On 22/01/2004, for demand and receipt of Rs.1000/- from one Mr.T.Ramesh as illegal gratification for surveying his land, Jayapalan the Firka Surveyor of Olakkur Firka, Taluk Office, Tindivanam was arrested and tried for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. He was found guilty and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default, 3 months S.I for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo 1 year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default 3 months S.I for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, in Special C.C.No.06/2013 by the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Villupuram.

2. The trial Court pronounced its judgement on 29/02/2016 and the sentence was suspended for a period of one month. During that period, Jayabalan was died. Hence, his legal heirs sought leave of this Court to prefer the appeal and same was granted by this Court on 09/06/2016 in Crl.O.P.No.4639 of 2016. Thus, C.A.No.427 of 2016 preferred by the Legal heirs of the deceased is for consideration. 3. Background facts of the case in Brief:-

P.W-2 Mr.Ramesh is the defato complainant. On 15/11/2001 under a registered sale deed Ex.P-2, he purchased 10½ cents of vacant site from Baktavatsala Reddiar and his son Venkatesan. To get the patta of the land transferred in his name, Ramesh gave request letter dated 02/01/2004 (Ex.P-15) to the Tahsildar, Tindivanam Taluk. He was asked to pay Rs.40/- in the Treasury toward fees. Accordingly, Ramesh paid Rs.40/- in the Sub treasury and enclosed the receipt (Ex.P-12) along with the application and other documents, gave it to the Surveyor (Accused) as instructed by the Tahsildar. On reading the application, the accused told P.W-2, that before transfer of patta, the land has to be measured soon he will visit the land and measure it. However, A-1 did not came for spot inspection till 20/01/2004. Hence, P.W-2 went to the Tahsildar Office on 21/01/2004 and met the accused and enquired when he will come for inspection and survey the land. At that time, the accused demanded Rs.1200/- for survey the land. After bargain, he reduced his demand to Rs.1000/- and told P.W-2 to bring the money next day. P.W-2 came out from the Surveyor room and enquired the name of the surveyor. He came to know his name is Jayabalan. Since P.W-2 had no intention to give bribe had went to V&AC Office at Cuddalore and informed about the demand of illegal gratification.

4. The oral complaint of Ramesh, at 18.00 hrs on 21/01/2004 was reduced into writing (Ex.P-3) and F.I.R (Ex.P-18) got registered in Crime No.02/2004 by Mr.Rajendran, Inspector of Police, DV&AC, Cuddalore. The complaint was taken up for investigation and trap was arranged on 22/01/2004. At request of the Trap Laying Officer, two official witnesses Mr.Thenkumaran (P.W-3) and Nataraju (not examined) were requested to be present at Vigilance Office at 8.00 a.m. In their presence, after demonstrating the significance of phenolphthalein – sodium carbonate test, the bribe money of Rs.1000/- (M.O.1) smeared with phenolphthalein was entrusted to PW-2. The currency numbers were noted and same has been recorded in the entrustment mahazar (Ex.P-4). The trap team along with P.W-2 left Cuddalore at 10.00 hrs on 22/01/2004 and reached Tindivanam at about 11.30 am. P.W-2 Ramesh and P.W.3 Thenkumaran went to the Survey section. On enquiry with the staff they came to know that, the accused is not in the office, he would be in his private room at Door No.1B, M