Credible evidence and corroboration are essential to prove demand and acceptance of bribe; mere recovery of cash does not establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

The appellant who is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2014, on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , Sivagangai, has filed this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed on him, by the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2018.

2. P.W.2 is the Defacto-complainant/Kalimuthu Konar. P.W.2 has lot of agricultural properties in various survey numbers comprised in Patta No. 339, 340 of the revenue village Sowmiyanarayanapuram in his name and his wife also had properties in the Survey number comprised in Patta No. 891. His wife meenakshi died prior to the occurrence in the year 2009. After her demise, he has been cultivating both the lands. On 24.12.2009 morning 8:30 am he went to the house of the appellant to submit the crop insurance form in the Kollangudi Co- operative society for both the lands in his name and in his wife's name, and to obtain his signature in the prescribed form and produced the “chitta” and “Adangal” said to have been obtained from the Village Administrative Officer. The appellant refused to sign the form in his wife name on the ground that the village administrative officer did not subscribe the lands situated in the name of his wife in the Adangal and Chitta. He noted the survey number of his property comprised in Patta No. 339,340 in the crop insurance form and demanded Rs. 200/- to return the same. P.W.2 told that he had not brought any money and hence the appellant asked to bring Rs. 200/- in the evening. P.W.2 was not willing to give bribe, and therefore, he approached the respondent Vigilance Police and made a complaint to P.W.16 (Trap laying officer). P.W.16 upon verification of the alleagation made in the complaint, registered the case in Crime No. 12 of 2009 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Thereafter, he called two official witnesses, namely, Kannadasan and Sundaram from two different government departments. After their arrival, P.W16 demonstrated the significance of the phenolphthalein test with the bribe amount brought by P.W.2 and instructed P.W.2 to hand over the bribe amount smeared with phenolphthalein powder to the appellant on his demand and directed Kannadasan to accompany him and watch the transaction taking place between P.W.2 and the appellant. With this, P.W.16 prepared entrustment mahazar and further directed P.W. 2 to give signal if the appellant received the bribe amount. P.W.2 and Kannadasan met the appellant in his house in the evening around 4'o clock and the appellant reiterated the demand and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 200/- and placed the said amount on the table and handover Ex. P5 crop insurance form with particulars of his land. Therafter, P.W2 gave signal to P.W16 and P.W.16 entered into the house of the appellant and conducted the test in the hands of the appellant and