T. MATHIVANAN, J.

1. This memorandum of grounds of criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 25.5.2004 and made in C.C. No. 16 of 2003 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases) Coimbatore finding the appellant guilty under Sections 7 and 13 Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, convicting thereunder and sentencing to suffer 6 months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-in default to suffer two weeks of rigorous imprisonment, and sentencing to suffer 12 months (1 year) of rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-in default to suffer 2 months of rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant till the date of judgment was also directed to be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The total fine amount of Rs. 1,400/- was paid on receipt.

2. The appellant during March 2002, was employed as telephone mechanic at Palladam, Coimbatore District and as such he is a public servant. That on 10.3.2001 and 26.3.2002 he had demanded a sum of Rs. 400/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from P.W.2, Janardhanan, for effecting the telephone line through, which was connected on 10.3.2002. That on 27.3.2002, he had directly demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 400/- from P.W.2 as motive or reward for the above said work. Hence, P.W.10 Mr. J.I.Lurdus Anandan, Inspector of Police attached to ACB/CBI, Chennai had laid a final report against the appellant on 19.6.2003 before the Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (CBI Cases), Coimbatore.

3. After taking cognizance of the offences and after furnishing copies to the appellant as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, the learned trial judge had framed two charges;

1. Under Section 7 and;

2. Under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

4. When the ingredients of the charges were explained and questioned the appellant had pleaded innocent and claimed to be tried and therefore, he was put on trial.

5. The prosecuting agency in order to establish it’s case had totally examined 10 witnesses and during the course of their examination Exhibit P-I to P27 and the material objects ranging from M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked.

6. The gravamen of the prosecution case is this;

6.1. P.W.2 Mr. Janardhanam is residing in Door No. 881, Mahalaxmi Nagar, Tirupur Road, Palladam, Coimbatore District. He had been occupying that house as a, tenant. In order to obtain a telephone connection, he had made an application under Exhibit P2. In pursuant to the demand notice, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on 14.12.2001, Then his name was placed in the waiting list under serial No.4186. That on 08.3.2002, the appellant, Sunder and P.W.7, Nagaraj had fixed a drop wire from the telephone post standing near the house of P.W.2. On 10.3.2002, they both had brought the telephone instrument and installed in his house. Since ringtone was not received on that day, the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs. 400/- as bribe for which P.W.2 told him that he would pay the amount on 20.3.2002. However he was not willing to pay bribe. But on the evening of 10.3.2002, the telephone line was effected through and this fact was intimated to P.W.2 by the appellant through his phone after informing that the telephone No.viz., 525074 was allotted to him and he had also reminded about the bribe amount of Rs. 400/- and had given his residential phone number also.

6.2. On 23.3.2002, P.W.2 had rung up to CBI office from his telephone and informed about the demand of bribe as well as his unwillingness. On 26.3.2002, at about 8.30am, the appellant had contacted P.W.2 through phone and informed that he would come to his house at 8.00am on the next day and receive the amount of Rs. 400/- and he had also instructed P.W.2 to keep the amount ready and if the amount was not give