JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 04.10.2016 made in Spl.C.No.32 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai.

2. P.W2, by name P.Kannan lodged a complaint with the respondent herein stating that the appellant herein for the purpose of transferring a patta and for measuring the property, which belongs to P.W2, demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.4,000/- as bribe amount. So, on the basis of the complaint given by P.W2, pre-trap arrangement was made, in pursuance of which trap was also made and the accused, who is the appellant herein, was arrested, when he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.4,000/- from P.W2 as bribe.

3. On 17.02.2014 at about 11.15 am., the accused received the aforesaid amount as bribe. So, the investigation was undertaken on the basis of the complaint given by P.W2 and after completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed before the concerned Court, which was also taken cognizance in Spl.Case No.32 of 2014 by the learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. After appearance of the accused and after completing the formalities of furnishing the copies, the following charges were framed against the accused.

CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED:-

i) On 14.02.2014 at about 03.00 pm., the appellant/accused demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from P.W2 as bribe for measuring the property and for transfer of patta. The amount was reduced after bargaining to Rs.4,000/-. In pursuance of the aforesaid demand, on 17.02.2014 at about 11.15 am., the accused accepted a sum of Rs.4,000/- as bribe from P.W2 and thereby, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Act.

ii) Being a public servant, the appellant/accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.4,000/- as bribe and thereby, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. So, on the side of the prosecution, for the purpose of proving the guilt of the accused, totally 13 witnesses have been examined and 18 documents were marked apart from 5 material objects. On the side of the defense, no witness and no document were examined and marked.

6. At the conclusion of the trial process, the trial Court found that the charges framed against the appellant have been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted him to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine and in default of paying the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for each of the offence under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As against the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NARRATED THROUHG THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

7. P.W2, namely, P.Kannan, the de-facto complainant, is the resident of Karambakudi. He purchased the property in Kavandanpatti village on 17.04.2008. For change of patta, he made an application on 21.11.2013. On enquiry, he was informed that sub-division must be made by measuring the property. So, he was advised to contact the Surveyor. After 10 days, P.W2 approached one Paulraj, who was working as Head Surveyor during that time.

8. On his direction, P.W2 contacted the accused and also handed over the relevant documents and at that time, the accused again asked P.W2 to contact the aforesaid Paulraj. Thereafter, Paulraj demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as bribe amount and after bargain, it was reduced to Rs.4,000/-. He told the complainant to hand over the money either to Paulraj or to some other person. Thereafter, P.W2 consulted and discussed with his brother about the issue and they decided to lodge a complaint,