1. The State is the Appellant. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondent/accused from the charge of demand and acceptance of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for issuance of solvency certificate.

2. The case of the prosecution as projected before the trial court through the final report on completion of investigation is that, the respondent/accused while serving as Thasildar, Ambattur, Thiru Kannan, on behalf of Tmt. Arulmathi and Tmt. Ezhilmathi gave an application on 22.08.2005 for issuance of solvency certificate for Rs.10 lakhs for the land bearing S. No. 124/1-A2 at Nolambur Village, Ambattur Taluk. When Kannan met the respondent on 29.08.05 at his residential quarters, the respondent initially demanded bribe of Rs.20,000/- i.e. 2% of the value of the solvency certificate and later reduced to Rs.10,000/-. He further said, to met him on 2.9.05 at his residence with advance of Rs 5000/- and the balance 5000/- must be paid at the time of issuing solvency certificate. Since the employer of Kannan was not inclined to pay bribe, as per his instruction Kannan gave a complaint before the appellant on 1.09.2005 at 17.00 hrs. and same was registered and took up for investigation by the Inspector of Police, DV & AC, Chennai.

3. On 2.09.05, the witnesses were called to DV & AC office. At about 7.15 hrs., the mahazar was drawn in respect of pre-trap proceedings and entrustment of tainted money smeared with phenolphapthalien power on it. The defacto complainant Kanan along with the shadow witness Kumanan were asked to go to the Thasildar quarters at about 10.30 am. Since his house was found locked the decoy witnesses as well the trap team has proceeded to Thasildar office. Having come to know that the respondent has gone to High Court they waited for him all throughout the day. At about 4.30 pm, the respondent, came to his office and after attending meetings, he invited visitors at about 7.00 pm. The defacto complainant Kannan along with shadow witness Kumannan went to the Thasildar room, Kannan enquired about solvency certificate with the respondent/accused. The accused told him that his file has not yet come to him and enquired whether he has brought the bribe money he demanded. Then, Kannan took out Rs.5,000/- (Rs.500/- x 10) smeared with phenolphthalein and gave it the respondent/accused. The respondent received the money and kept it on his table. Called the Office assistant to bring the file and signed the certificate. Kannan and Kumannan left the Thasildar room and gave the pre arranged signal to the police. The police headed by trap laying officer Subramanian entered the room of the respondent/accused, and asked him to dip his right and left hand separately in the sodium carbonate solution. The hand wash were collected separately and sealed. The tainted money found on the table of the accused was recovered under recovery mahazar. The lab report of the sample solution found positive of phenolphthalein.

4. Based on the statements of witnesses and the records collected during the investigation, the trial court framed charges under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act 1988 and tried the accused.

5. To prove the charges the prosecution has examined, 10 witnesses marked 11 exhibits and 5 material objects. After appreciating these evidence placed by the prosecution, the trial court has acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand of bribe acceptance of tainted money and recovery of the alleged bribe money from the accused. To arrive at the said finding the trial court has pointed out the correction in the time of registering the FIR, delay in forwarding the FIR to the court, the defence theory of ill-motive, lacunae in the investigation and contradictions between the prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of tainted money.

6. The present appeal is filed on the ground that the previous demand