This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Special Case No.4/2004 on 02.03.2007.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein while working as Secretary in Chengam Co-operative Housing Society. Mr.Pichandi - the defacto complainant during the month of November and December 2002 came to the said Society and enquired the appellant for redeeming the mortgage loan of his father-in-law, Mr.Rajarathinam, who availed housing loan from the Society but, died before clearing the dues. At that time, the appellant demanded illegal gratification from the defacto complainant to get back the documents of his father-in-law. Since, the defacto complainant was not inclined to give bribe, he reported the same to the respondent Police on 03.02.2003 they laid trap and caught the appellant red handed on 04.02.2003, immediately after receipt of the tainted money of Rs.3,000/-.

3. Based on the final report, the trial Court has framed two charges for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 16 Exhibits were marked and 8 material objects were relied upon by the prosecution. On the side of the accused/appellant, one witness and six exhibits were marked.

4. The case of the prosecution as unfold through the witnesses is that, Mr.Rajarathinam availed housing loan on 23.04.1997 and 16.11.1997 for Rs.38,500/- in total. On 23.01.1998, Mr.Rajarathinam died due to snake bite. When the widow of Mr.Rajarathinam enquired the appellant/accused about redeeming the mortgage, he got the Death Certificate of Mr.Rajarathinam and told the widow of Rajarathinam that he will communicate her about the balance money to be paid towards the loan account. Even after three years, there was no communication from the Society and hence, Mr.Pichandi -P.W.2 - the defacto complainant, who is the son-in-law of Mr.Rajarathinam met the accused/appellant during the month of November 2002. At that time, the accused/appellant informed the defacto complainant that he has to pay Rs.86,000/-. When the defacto complainant asked about the details of the loan particulars, the accused/appellant demanded Rs.56,000/- and also instructed him to give that money, at his house. The defacto complainant, sold his wife's jewels and took Rs.50,000/- and went to the Office of the accused/appellant on 07.12.2002 and met the accused/appellant got enraged, scolded the defacto complainant for meeting him at Office instead of his house and left the place.

5. Thereafter, one Mr.Rajendran, the Clerk of the Society perused the accounts and told the defacto complainant that he should pay Rs.49,200/-. After receiving the money, Mr.Rajendran gave receipt for the same and also two empty letter pads with script to be typed. On the next day, when the defacto complainant went to the accused/appellant Office to get his signature in those two letters, the accused refused to sign on the same.

6. Again, on 02.02.2003, the defacto complainant went to the accused house and requested him to forward those letters to Chennai so that, they will receive the original documents mortgaged by the deceased Mr.Rajarathinam. For which, the accused/appellant initially demanded Rs.12,000/- as bribe and later agreed for Rs.3,000/- and told if the defacto complainant pays Rs.3,000/-, he will forward those letters to Chennai. When the defacto complainant asked where he should pay the money, the accused/appellant asked him to come to Kottavur bus stop on 04.02.2003 (Tuesday), between 10.00 am and 11.00 am.

7. The defacto complainant was not willing to give bribe to the accused hence, along with the complaint, he went to the Vigilance Office at about 2.00 pm on 03.02.2003. The Deputy Superintendent of Police - P.W.7 has received the said complaint and registered a case in Crime No.2/2003 for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention