(1.) In this appeal by special leave, the State of Madras challenges the judgment and order dated January 8, 1968, of the High Court of Madras, reversing the conviction of the accused, respondent, by the Special Judge and in term acquitting him of the offences Under Section 161 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
(2.) The charge against the appellant was that he as Deputy Tehsildar, Perambalur, accepted a sum of Rs. 50/-as illegal gratification from P.W. 1 Chinnasamy Udayer on 6-4-1965 as a motive of reward for counter-signing fifty ownership certificates issued by the Karnams of Periavadagarai and Vembavoor villages.
(3.) The case for the prosecution in brief was as follows: The accused was at the material time the Deputy Tehsildar, Headquarters at Perambalur. As early as in 1962 P.W. 1 and about 100 other villagers of Perhavadakarai had presented application to the Electrical Supervisor, Krishnapuram for permission to install pump-sets in their wells. In or about 1963, P.W. 1 and 49 other villagers, who were amongst those who had already applied for permission to install pumpsets, executed agreements in favour of the Superintending Engineer, Tiruohiralpalli Electricity System, by which they agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of supply of electric energy. P.W. 1 and other villagers, who had executed the agreements were required by the Electricity Department to get certificate from the village officers, counter-signed either by the Tehsildar or the Deputy Tehsildar, regarding the ownership of wells by them For this purpose agreements were returned to those parties. P.W. 1 obtained and collected all the agreements so returned from his co-villagers and obtained, in the first instance the necessary certificate of ownership of wells from the local Karnam. On February 9, 1965 he also obtained the counter-signatures of the Revenue Inspector, Vengalam in those applications. P.W. 1 took the agreements together with the certificates obtained from the local Karnam to the accused for obtaining his counter-signatures in all the applications. The accused desired P.W. 1 to come some other day, week later P.W. 1 again contacted the accused at his house and handed over all agreements with a request to counter-sign them. The accused refused to counter-sign them saying that he could not do anything that day and threw away the papers which were on the table, P.W. 1 took back the agreements and went away.