J U D G M E N T

The Criminal appeal has been filed seeking 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 and the criminal original petition has been filed to grant leave to continue the criminal appeal by impleading the LRs of the deceased Munisamy as petitioners in CrlA(MD)No.215 of 2011.

2.The case of the prosecution is that when the de facto complainant had approached the appellant seeking licence for starting finance company, the appellant demanded Rs.3,000/- and the de facto 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 Bose and Koori (PW.4), who are known as shadow witnesses were summoned by the TLO and subsequently, PW.2, and the shadow witnesses were present at the Office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Ramanathapuram on 05.09.2002 and the complainant was also present as directed by the TLO. The TLO explained about the complaint given by PW.2, to the shadow witnesses and conducted a pre demonstration proceedings. PW.2 brought Rs.3000/- (Rs.100 x 30) and the serial number of the currencies were noted in the entrustment mahazar (ExP.7) was 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.4 was also directed to accompany PW.2 and instructed them to show signal, after paying the money to the appellant. Accordingly, on 05.09.2002, the TLO, PW.2, shadow witnesses and Police Officials, went to the place of occurrence. Around 11.55 pm, the PW.2 and PW.4 went inside the residence of the appellant and the appellant invited them and when PW.2 enquired about the licence the appellant asked whether he had brought Rs.3,000/- as demanded by him earlier, PW.2, replied yes and when the appellant asked the money PW.2 gave Rs.3,000/- to the appellant, the appellant received the money and kept it on his table.

4.Then PW.2 came out of his house and gave the pre arranged signal to the TLO. On receiving the pre arranged signal from PW.2, the TLO along with the shadow witness entered into the residence of the appellant and introduced himself to the appellant and conducted phenolphthalein test, which 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, Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.

5.On the side of the prosecution 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 were examined, 28 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28 were marked and 3 material objects as MO.1 to MO.11 were exhibited.

6.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant and the same was denied as false. On the side of the neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.

7.After completion of the trial and after hearing the arguments on either side, the Assistant Sessions Judge, found the appellant / accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in de fault to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for having committed offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act.

8.Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence,