G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also the conviction and sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court ordered the period of sentence shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant while working as Vice-Chancellor of Anna University, Coimbatore, invited tender for the supply of 750 number of dual desks. While offering the contract, he bargained with one Senthilkumar (PW-1) to pay 10% of the contract amount as bribe, so as to confirm the contract in his favour. When the price bids were opened yet another participant Mr. A.K. Mohammed Iqbal (PW-6) was the successful bidder quoting the lowest price for supply of 750 numbers of dual desks. So the accused negotiated with Mohammed Iqbal (PW-6) and Senthilkumar (PW-1) and obtained consent of Mohammed Iqbal that he may not be able to supply 750 numbers of dual desks but only 500 numbers of dual desks within the stipulated period of 15 days. After obtaining the consent A.K. Mohammed Iqbal (PW-6) was awarded contract for supply of 500 numbers of dual desks and Senthilkumar (PW-1) was awarded for supply of 250 dual desks. The bill raised by Senthilkumar (PW-1) was withheld by the appellant till he paid the bribe amount of Rs. 40,000/-. On 11.9.2008 the appellant received Rs. 40,000/- from Senthilkumar (PW-1) in the presence of one V.M. Gopal (PW-2) and thereafter handed over the cheque for a sum of Rs. 11,60,000/- towards supply of 250 numbers of dual desks. On 6.7.2009 one S. Sivapandi moved this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 13279 of 2009 listing out several misconducts against the appellant, while discharging his official function as a Vice-Chancellor of Anna University, Coimbatore.

3. As a consequence the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore, registered First Information Report on 6.8.2009. Pursuant to the investigation the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant came to light and Senthilkumar (PW-1) has given a statement how the appellant extorted bribe money from him. So based on the evidence collected during the course of investigation the prosecution filed a final report before the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore.

4. The trial court after considering the material placed by the prosecution framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demand and acceptance of Rs. 40,000/- from Senthilkumar (PW-1) and thereby the appellant abused his official position as public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself.

5. To prove the charges the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses, marked 32 documents. On behalf of the accused/appellant he has mounted the witness box and subjected himself for chief and cross-examination. 16 documents were marked on the side of the defence.

6. The trial court after appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution and the defence held the appellant/accused guilty of both the charges and sentenced him as stated above.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the registration of First Information Report itself is misconceived. Neither the alleged bribe giver nor the aggrieved suppliers had expressed any grievance over the process of tender followed by the appellant herein. Based on the writ petition filed by the disgruntled element the First Information Report was registered on 6.8.