The prosecution must prove the indictment with impeccable evidence beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused can establish their defense by preponderance of probabilities.

1. Challenge is made in this appeal to the Judgment dated 30.12.2004, and made in C.C.No.73 of 2001, on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge, for CBI Cases, Chennai convicting the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to suffer one year of rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- for each count in default to suffer two months of rigorous imprisonment for each count.

2.There are two accused in C.C.No.73 of 2001, on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge, for CBI Cases, Chennai. The appellant herein is the first accused, whereas one T.N.Venkatraman is the second accused. The appellant was employed as Lineman in Keelkattalai (External) Telephones and the second accused T.N.Venkatraman was employed as Telephone Technical Assistant in the same office.

3.That on 19.10.2001 P.W.9 Mr.P.K.Nair, Inspector of Police, attached to CBI/ACB, Chennai had laid a final report against the appellant S.Kumar and the second accused T.N.Venkatraman before the Court of Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, alleging that the appellant (A1) being public servant employed as Lineman in Keelkattalai (External) had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.700/- from the complainant (P.W.5) as gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or award for installation of the telephone instrument and transfer at the residence of the complainant Dr.Laxman Marvarkar (P.W.5) for which it is alleged that the second accused T.N.Venkatraman had abetted the appellant (A1) for the commission of the above said offence and therefore the appellant was charged under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereas the second accused T.N.Venkatraman was charged under Sections 109 I.P.C. and 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4.The learned Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, after taking cognizance of the above said offences and on hearing both sides had framed necessary charges.

5.When the ingredients of the charges were explained and questioned, the first and second accused had pleaded innocent and claimed to be tried. Therefore, they were put on trial.

6.The prosecuting agency in order to establish it's case had examined as nearly as 9 witnesses and during the course of their examination, Exs.P1 to P22 were also marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence side.

7. On appraising the evidences, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court had found the appellant (A1) guilty under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced as stated above. The second accused was found not guilty and hence he was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

8.Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant being the first accused has knocked at the door of this Court with the present criminal appeal.

9.The gravamen of the prosecution case is this;

9.1.P.W.5 Dr.Laxman Marvarkar is employed as the consultant Dermatologist in Appollo Hospital, Colombo. During the year 1996-2000 he was working in Madurai and in the year 2001, he had shifted from Madurai to Chennai. Before his shifting, he had applied for shifting of his telephone connection bearing No.563571 from Madurai to Chennai. Hence, he had presented an application under Ex.P6 on 05.02.2001 before the Customer Service Center, BSNL, Madurai. He had also received a surrender certificate (Ex.P7) to that effect at the end of March, 2001.

9.2.Subsequently, he had also applied for providing telephone connection at Saidapet Telephone Office on 03.04.2001. Thereafter, he did not get any communication and therefore he had been to Commercial Office, Panagal Building at Saidapet on 03.05.2001, wherein he was informed that an advice note was sent to Keelkattalai Telephone Exchange for providing telephone connection. There