9.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that admittedly, the appellant / accused officer is working as Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Ramanathapuram. P.W.2 is a Poosari in Kalanchi Temple, where the forefathers of P.W.2 were buried and P.W.2 is doing daily pooja in the said Temple and initially, there was a complaint registered against P.W.2 before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai on 02.01.2002 and the said information was forwarded to the accused / Inspect of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Ramanathapuram. Based on the instruction, the accused officer inspected the P.W.2's temple on 18.01.2002 and instructed P.W.2 to appear before him on 19.01.2002 and as per the instruction, P.W.2 met the accused officer on 19.01.2002 at his officer at 5.30 p.m., wherein the accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from him and thereafter, he issued summons for the appearance of P.W.2 on 09.03.2002 and 20.03.2002 and directed P.W.2 to appear on 16.03.2002 and 26.03.2002 respectively. Thereafter, since P.W.2 afraid that any action would be taken against him, he appeared only on 03.04.2002, on which date, the accused officer reiterated the earlier demand and again on 08.04.2002. Thereafter, the complaint was registered. Hence, the prosecution clearly established the initial demand on 19.01.2002 and subsequent demand on 03.04.2002 and 08.04.2002.
