The appellant herein was a civilian in the Air Force. He had worked as a temporary accountant in the canteen attached to the Thiruvananthapuram unit of the Air Force. After his retirement in October 2000, he was appointed as a temporary staff on daily wages to assist the main accountant in the Unit Run Canteen. On the complaint of one Dileep Kumar, who was employed on daily wages in the Unit Run Canteen of the Thiruvananthapuram Air Force, that the appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as illegal gratification for making him permanent, the Kochi Wing of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a crime against the appellant. A trap was accordingly arranged by the officer of the CBI, and the amount of Rs. 12,000/- brought by the complainant Dileep Kumar was received as per mahazar for trap purposes. After demonstrating phenolphthalein test, Dileep Kumar was instructed by the CBI officer to handover the phenolphthalein tainted currency of Rs. 12,000/- to the appellant at his office. Accordingly, the complainant, along with another public servant arranged by the CBI officer to witness the trap went to the office of the accused on 8.3.2001 and paid the amount. Within no time the CBI team lead by the CBI Inspector reached at the office of the accused on getting pre-arranged signal, the CBI officer seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency from the possession of the accused, and arrested him on the spot. After investigation, the CBI submitted final report before the learned Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam.

2. The appellant herein faced trial before the learned trial judge in C.C No.5/2001. He pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the learned Special Judge, under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C Act') and he claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in the trial court and also marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents and MO1 to MO6 properties including the phenolphthalein tainted currency. When examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and maintained a defence that the amount of Rs. 12,000/- received by him was in fact the money collected by the complainant, and three other employees as fee for engaging a counsel for filing a case before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and that one R.R Pillai who had some grudge against him used the complainant Dileep Kumar to arrange a trap against him. The accused examined four witnesses in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced on both sides, the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act. On conviction thereunder he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of 25,000/-, under Section 7 of the P.C Act, and to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act by judgment dated 20.12.2002 in C.C. No.5/2001. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up in appeal.

3. In appeal, before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant argued mainly on the legal ground that the appellant herein was not in fact a public servant as defined under the law, and that the conviction is legally unsustainable. Though the learned counsel argued on facts also the stress was mainly on the legal aspect.

4. Of the seven witnesses examined in the trial court, PW1 is the complainant Dileep Kumar, and PW2 is the public servant arranged by the detecting officer to witness the trap. PW6 is the Inspector who registered the crime in this case on the complaint of PW1, and PW7 is the CBI Inspector who conducted investigation. The main evidence in this case is that of the complainant, the trap witness and the detecting officer. Before going to the legal aspect, as to whether the appellant herein was in fact a public servant, let me discuss the factual aspects. The short point for