(1.) These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment dtd. 24/2/2012 passed in Special Case No.51 of 2011 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai.
(2.) The case of the prosecution is that in order to obtain electricity service connection, the de facto complainant had made an application before the appellants / A1 and A2 under the scheme of payment of Rs.25,000.00 and accordingly, he had paid a sum of Rs.50.00 as fees on 2/5/2003. The accused No.1 was working as a Junior Engineer and accused No.2 was working as a Commercial Inspector in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It was informed by the appellants that only after inspecting the de facto complainant's property, necessary electricity service connection would be given. When the defacto complainant / P.W.2 had approached accused No.1 on 25/10/2004, he had demanded a sum of Rs.5,000.00 and accused No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.500.00 as gratification. However, the defacto complainant was not willing to pay such gratification, he approached the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai and preferred a complaint on 25/10/2004 against the appellants / accused Nos. 1 and 2, alleging that the appellants had demanded bribe for issuing valuation certificate. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai in Crime No.9 of 2004. After registration of the said case, a trap was planned. Accordingly, on 26/10/2004 at about 11.35 a.m. as demanded by the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2, the de facto complainant had approached the accused Nos.1 and 2 along with P.W.3 in order to observe the transaction between both the defacto complainant and the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The accused No.1 had stated that he would receive the amount after completion of the work. Suspecting the same, the accused No.1 had denied to receive the amount and thereafter, P.W.2 alone had gone inside the office of accused No.1. At that time, accused No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.500.00 and accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.5,000.00. When the said sum was handed over to the accused Nos.1 and 2, they received the same. Immediately, the defacto complainant had shown pre-arranged signal to the Trap Laying Officer. After receiving such signal from the defacto complainant, he along with his team members had gone inside the office and the defacto complainant identified the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2. During enquiry, the accused Nos.1 and 2 had stated that they have not received any amount from the de facto complainant. However, a phenolphthalein test had been conducted to the appellants for proving such gratification. Immediately, the Trap Laying Officer recovered the tainted money. The currency notes were recovered under recovery mahazar in the presence of independent witness and signatures were obtained from the witnesses and also from the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2.
(3.) After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2 and another accused under Ss. 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned Special Judge, Madurai. The said charge sheet was taken on file in Special Case No.51 of 2011 and after completing the legal formalities framed charges against the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2 and also another accused.