(1) The appellant, who is the sole accused, has been tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-carrying with the default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the learned sessions Judge (Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanatha-puram, in C. C. No. 17 of 1997 by judgment dated 11. 12. 2001 has come forward with this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence.

(2) Charges against the accused : the accused was working as Municipal commissioner of Paramakudi Municipality. The charge against the accused is that on 26. 10. 1995 at 8. 20 p. m. at his municipal quarters at Madurai-Ramanathapuram main Road said to have demanded rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification from p. W. 2, a relative of P. W. 4 and received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for giving municipal drinking water connection to the house of P. W. 4 and thereby committed the offence under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (l) (d) of the Act. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined p. Ws. l to 11 marked Exs. P. l to P. 34 and m. Os. l to 12.

(3) Prosecution version :

(i) The report in this case is said to have been given by P. W. 2 to P. W. 9, the Deputy superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, on 26. 10. 1995 at about 11. 30 a. m. and a case was registered by P. W. 9 in crime No. 1 of 1995 for the offence under section 7 of the Act. Ex. P. 8 is the report and ex. P. 18 is the First Information Report.

(ii) P. W. 2 in this case has turned hostile and he has admitted only his signature along with two lines in the report stating that he has read the report and the same is correct as per his statement and the same is marked as Ex. P. 2 during the course of cross-examination by the prosecution. The report said to have been given by P. W. 2 was marked as ex. P. 8 through P. W. 9, Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(iii) The report, Ex. P. 8, discloses that p. W. 4 is the brother's wife of P. W. 2 and his brother one Periasami was residing at Malaysia and as such P. W. 2 used to assist his brother's wife. The reading of the report, ex. P. 8 discloses about submitting application for drinking water connection to the house of P. W. 4 and thereafter meeting the accused on 21. 10. 1995 at 10. 30 a. m. for seeking the drinking water connection to the house of P. W. 4 and at that time the accused demanding a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for him and rs. 5,000/- for office expenses. Further allegations are that P. W. 2 stated that his application is under the seniority No. 71 and for that the Commissioner (accused) replied that he is not seeing the seniority and he can give water connection for the persons who gave the money. Again P. W. 2 met the accused on 25. 10. 1995 along with his brother-in- law one Rathinam in the evening at 6. 30 p. m. and even at that time the accused demanded the amount and P. W. 2 stated that he cannot give such a huge amount and thereafter the accused asked p. W. 2 to give at least Rs. 5,000/- for him and instructed him to come and give the said amount to his house and as P. W. 2 is not inclined to give such amount, he has preferred the present complaint, Ex. P. 8.

(iv) P. W. 9 on receipt of the complaint and after registration of the case, as stated above, decided to conduct trap as accepted by P. W. 2 and received Rs. 5,000/- brought by P. W. 2. P. W. 9 also received Ex. P. 5 and Ex. P. 6 letter given by P. W. 2 for drinking water pipe connection and unfilled application form respectively. Thereafter, P. W. 9 demonstrated the phenolphthalein test to P. W. 2 and the witnesses summoned by him, namely, P. W. 3, assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity board, Ramanathapuram and Excise Assistant Commissioner one Mani. P. W. 9 gave the amount of Rs. 5,000/- smeared with phenolphthalein powd