JOSE DHANAPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in S.C No.2 of 2010 finding the accused guilty and sentencing him as follows :

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Vincent (PW2) was a permanent resident of Azhikkal Village falling within the limits of Ganapthipuram Town Panchayat. The accused Thiru.Jose Dhanapal/appellant herein was working as Bill Collector cum Junior Assistant in the said Town Panchayat Office. PW2/defacto complainant approached the accused for assessing his house to property tax. For doing the said official duty, the accused is said to have demanded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as illegal gratification. PW.2 lodged Ex.P2 complaint before the respondent. Based on the same, Ex.P17 FIR came to be registered as Crime No.7 of 2008 at 01.30 P.M on 22.10.2008 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trap was laid and was successful. Thereafter, final report was filed. The court below took cognizance of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences mentioned above. To establish the same, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 and MO.1 to MO.4. The accused examined one Jonesraj as DW.1 And marked a copy of the bond indicating pledge as Ex.D1. The learned Trial Judge held that the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused and sentenced him as mentioned above. Questioning the same, this criminal appeal has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and in the written submissions and pleaded that the court below grievously erred in passing the impugned Judgment. The learned counsel for the accused wanted this Court to set aside the impugned judgment, allow the appeal and acquit the appellant in toto. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the impugned judgement does not warrant any interference and pressed for dismissal of the appeal.