STATE Vs. P.MURUGESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of the acquittal passed in Special Case No.04 of 2014, dtd. 22/4/2016, on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as evident from the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tirunelveli Detachment, is that the respondent/accused was working as A3 - Assistant in the Taluk office, Palayamkottai upto 24/4/2003 as a public servant, that on 22/4/2002 at about 11.00 hours, the accused demanded Rs.2,000.00 from the defacto complainant Thiru.Sudhan Sundarapandian, who was doing money lending business in the name of "Aravind Finance", as gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward to process the money lending licence renewal application of the defacto complainant, that in pursuance of the said demand, the accused reiterated the said demand on 24/4/2002 with the defacto complainant and he accepted and obtained the bribe money of Rs.2000.00 in between 12.00hours and 12.15 hours from him, that since the accused received the said amount of Rs.2000.00 as gratification other than the legal remuneration, as a motive or reward to process the money lending renewal application, he committed an offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that in the course of the same transaction, the accused being public servant, by corrupt or illegal means and abusing his position as public servant obtained the said amount of Rs.2000.00 for himself as pecuniary advantage from the defacto complainant and he has also committed the offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) The Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli, after receipt of the final report, has taken the case on file in Special Case No.4 of 2014 on its file and furnished the copies of records under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., to the accused on free of costs. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, being satisfied that there existed prima facie case against the accused, framed charges under Sec. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the same were read over and explained to the accused and on being questioned, he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.