KOOTHA PERUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dated 7th March, 2007 in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 821 of 1999 by which the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional District Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai in Spl.C.C. No. 1 of 1994. By the aforesaid judgment, the Special Judge convicted the Appellant for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short Rs. the Act) and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and convicted him for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:

(3.) When the complainant enquired about the progress of the petition, the Appellant informed him that the file will only come to him on 23rd August, 1993. He demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- as a bribe from the complainant for delivery of the tax extract which, according to him, was ready for delivery. On that date, the complainant did not have any money. In any event, he was not inclined to give any bribe to the Appellant. He, therefore, made a written complaint to the Inspector (PW8) Anti Corruption, Rajagopalapuram. The complaint is Ex.P5. A case was duly registered by PW8 as Crime No. 4 of 1993 under Section 7 of the Act. The First Information Report (Ex.P10) was duly signed by the complainant. Thereafter, another Inspector in Anti Corruption, Pudukottai recorded the statements of PW2 and PW3 on 24th August, 1993. Similarly the statements of P Ws.4, 5, 6 and 7 were also recorded. Information about the registration of the FIR was duly sent to the higher officials.