STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this Criminal Appeal against the acquittal of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that, based on the complaint dated 23.03.2000 given by one Mr.Govindaraju against Mr.Sundaram, Commercial Inspector, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Veeraganoor, Salem District, alleging demand of gratification for providing electricity service to his house, a trap was laid. After complying the pre-trap procedure, the defacto complainant along with the decoy witnesses went to the office of the accused on 24.03.2000. At his office, the accused demanded money from the defacto complainant and received a sum of Rs.300/-. After getting the pre-arranged signal, the Investigation Team went to the accused Office and seized the tainted money of Rs.300/- from the possession of the accused. The hand wash of the accused, answered positive to the phenapthalin test conducted on the spot. The accused being the public servant was prosecuted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.300/-, after obtaining sanction from the competent authority.

(3.) Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses; marked 16 exhibits and 5 material objects. On behalf of the accused, one witness was examined and one document was marked.