The judgment underscores that in corruption cases, the prosecution must provide clear and convincing evidence of both demand and acceptance of bribes to secure a conviction.

Challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur and Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2014 dated 12.09.2019, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. The short facts of the case is as follows:

2.1. There was a dispute between Subramaniam/PW3/de- facto complainant's brother-in-law and one Muthukrishnan over the sale of some property. Due to which, Subramaniam was assaulted by Muthukrishnan and his men. In regard to the same, Subramaniam gave a complaint in Avinashipalayam Police Station. To enquire about the status of the complaint given by Subramaniam, the defacto complainant met the respondent/accused, who instructed him that a case and counter case has been registered against each other in Avinashipalyam Police Station. The respondent accused instructed the defacto complainant that in order to prevent any action against Subramaniam, he demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the conduct of the respondent, the defacto complainant approached the trap laying officer and instructions thereby, he acted upon to the respondent. On 14.08.2008, the defacto complainant went to the respondent house along with PW2 and gave the tainted amount to the respondent, who received the same but on suspicion with the presence of PW2, he returned it to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the case came to be registered against the accused/respondent for demand and acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”].

2.2. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 15 witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW15, 23 documents as Exs.P1 to P23 along with 5 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked, whereas on the side of the defence, Sivakumar was examined as DW1 and Ex.D1 was marked. The trial Court after analysing the oral and documentary evidences, has found that the accused/ respondent was not guilty as alleged by the prosecution and acquitted the respondent herein.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

4. Heard Mr.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate for the appellant and Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the de-facto complainant/PW1 was doing real estate business. There was a dispute between Subramaniam/PW3, who is de-facto complainant's brother-in-law and one Muthukrishnan over the sale of some property. Due to which, the said Muthukrishnan and his men assaulted PW3 at his house on 08.08.2008. When de-facto complainant contacted PW3 over mobile phone, he told him that he was in Avinashipalayam Police Station. PW3 gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Avinashipalayam Police Station. In order to enquire the same, the de-facto complainant went to Avinashipalayam Police station and met the respondent/ Inspector of Police on 09.08.2008 at about 10.00 hrs. The respondent/accused told the de-facto complainant, that as "Muthukrishnan is injured on account of PW3 assaulting him and is undergoing treatment in Tiruppur Government Hospital and he had also lodged a complaint and he had filed a case against both of them". The respondent/accused told that if the defacto complainant took care of him, he would render the case as null and void. The de-facto complainant went to Avinashipalayam Police Station on 11.08.2008 at 10.00 hrs and enquired, the respondent/accused was not available at that time and hence, left from police station and again he came to the police station at around 18.00 hrs but he could not able to meet the respondent as the station was very crowded. He further submitted that on 12.08.2008 at about 21.00 hrs, the de-facto complainant met the respondent/accused at the Police Station a