P. Velmurugan JUDGMENT
P. Velmurugan, J.
1. The appellants 1 & 2 were tried before the learned Assistant and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam on the allegation that on 5.4.2002, at about 3.15 p.m., first respondent who was working as sub inspector of survey received illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- through the second respondent from the defacto complainant. The first respondent was charged for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the second respondent was charged for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w. Section 34 of IPC and both the respondents were tried for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court found that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, giving the benefit of doubt to both the respondents and they were acquitted from the charges. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Trial Court, the State has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts necessary to dispose of the appeals are as follows:-
The first respondent was working as sub inspector of survey in mannargudi town and the second respondent was working as field assistant, both the respondents are public servants as defined under section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1998. The defacto complainant has applied for patta. The first respondent has to survey the land of PW-2 and send a report to the Tahsildar, Mannargudi for issuing patta, for which the first respondent/A-1 is said to have demanded Rs. 700/- from PW-2/complainant. As the complainant/PW-2 was not interested or willing to give the bribe, he preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Nagapattinam. The Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr. No. 1 of 2002 on the file of the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption wing, Nagapattinam and took up the case for investigation. The Inspector of police arranged for a trap. As per the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Nagapattinam, PW-2 had gone to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption office, Nagapattinam with Rs. 700/- where he was demonstrated the pre-trap proceedings by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department Officials. On 5.4.2002 at about 3.15 p.m., as per the instructions of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department Officials, the defacto complainant went to the office of the first respondent along with PW3 where first respondent demanded money from PW1. As per the instruction of first respondent PW2 gave Rs. 500/- to 2nd respondent and he also received the amount from PW2 for and on behalf of first respondent, wrapped the currency notes in a piece of paper and kept it in a register then PW2 came out of the office of the first respondent and gave the pre-arranged signal to the Officials of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption team. On notice of the said signal, the trap laying officer with his team entered into the office of the first respondent and recovered the money. They also prepared mahazar and subsequently trap laying officer entrusted the case for further investigation.
3. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 4 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam and after serving the copies to the respondents, the charges were framed against the respondents.
4. In order t........