RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence, dated 21. 12. 2000, imposed in C. C. No. 11/99 on the file of the Special judge " cum " Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, on 26. 08. 1997, at about

(3.) MR. AR. L. Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appellant / accused was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of prevention of Corruption Act 1988, though the alleged guilt was not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The learned senior counsel further contended that in order to convict the accused under the aforesaid sections, three vital aspects have to be established by the prosecution, namely, 1. Demand of illegal gratification, 2. Acceptance of the same and 3. Subsequent recovery of the amount from the accused. Here in the instant case, according to the learned Senior Counsel, all these three ingredients have not been established by the respondent before the trial court for convicting him under the aforesaid sections.