S.RAJENDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the sole accused, stood charged was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sec. 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in C.C.No.146/2011, dtd. 14/11/2016 by the learned Special Judge for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai, has filed this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) Prosecution's version:

(3.) Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has also failed to prove the foundational facts which are required to prove that the appellant is guilty for the above mentioned offences. The trial Court had erred in convicting the appellant without there being any legal proof of demand. He would further submit that there had been huge delay in lodging a complaint and though the initial demand is stated to be made by the appellant/accused on 31/7/2009, the complaint has been made to the respondent only on 11/8/2009, which makes the complaint doubtful. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.2, the defacto complainant had visited the office more than five times between 2/7/2009 and 30/7/2009, the conduct of the defacto complainant in not giving the complaint against the appellant before the superior officer creates grave suspicion in the prosecution case. He would also submit that even as per the evidence, the actual demand has been made only by P.W.4-Assistant Engineer and the appellant/accused, who is a differently abled person, has been made as a scapegoat. Admittedly, P.W.3 is a stock witness, who, by his own admission, had stated that he had been a witness in another case registered by the respondent and thereby, the evidence of P.W.3 is unreliable and doubtful. He would further submit that the conduct of P.W.8, the Trap Laying Officer, creates suspicion since, in his evidence, he had denied the presence of the petitioner's friend one Chellakannu whereas later, he had admitted that the arrest intimation was served on his friend and his signature was obtained. There are discrepancies with regard to receipt of bribe amount by the accused and the prosecution has not proved whether the bribe amount was received by the accused in his right hand or left hand from the defacto complainant. He would further submit that as per evidence of P.W.4, when the work of the appellant/accused was completed as early as on 25/7/2009, there is no need for the appellant to make any demand and thereby, sought to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.