1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Peramabalur in Special C.C.No.5/2000 dated 21.10.2009.

2. Based on the complaint (Ex.P.4) given by one Chinnappan on 16.10.2008, alleging that when he went to Taluk Office, Kunnam to get Death certificate of his wife Parvathi. The Record Clerk attached to Taluk Office, Kunnam received his application and the challan of Rs.5/- paid as fees for death certificate demanded Rs.60/- as bribe to issue the death certificate. He was not inclined to give bribe. So on 15.10.1998 he again went to the Taluk Office and met Chandrasekaran the Record Clerk, but Chandrasekaran had firmly told him, unless you give bribe you will not get the death certificate.

3. The Inspector of Vigilance and Anti corruption had received the above complaint and recorded the First Information Report at 9.15am and arranged for two witnesses. After demonstrating to the witnesses and the de facto complainant about the trap proceedings, the entrustment mahazar Ex.P.6 has been prepared. The bribe money of Rs.60/-, 2 twenty rupees note and 2 ten rupees note were smeared with phenolphthalein and entrusted to Chinnappan (PW.2). The defacto complainant (PW.2) at about 1.30pm along with the accompanying witness Kanagasabai (PW.3) had gone to Kunnan Taluk Office. They were followed by trap team. When Chinnappan met Chandrasekar (A-1) he had demanded and obtained Rs.60/- from Chinnappan (PW.2) in the presence of Kanagasaba (PW.3). After receiving the tainted money, A-1 counted it and given it to Venkatachalam (A-2) a private individual. The said Venkatachalam had kept the money in his pocket.

4. After, receiving the pre-arranged signal, the trap team entered into the Taluk Office and apprehended Chandrasekaran (A1) and Venkatachalam (A2). The Phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands with sodium carbonate solution turned into it pink. Hence, they are enquired about the tainted money received from PW.2 Chinnappan. The Venkatachelam (A2) had produced the tainted money from his right side pant pocket after comparing the serial number found in the currency produced by A2 with that of the numbers noted in the entrustment mahazar, the trap laying officer had got satisfied himself that (A1) had received bribe of Rs.60/- from PW.2 and given it to A2, prepared seizure mahazar and recovery of tainted money. The said seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P.11.

5. After completion of investigation final report filed against the A1 for offences under 7 r/w 13(d) and offence against A2 private individual for offence 12 r/w Section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and 109 r/w 13(2), 13(1) (d).

6. To Prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses, marked 18 Exhibits and 7 material objects. After appreciation of these evidence, the trial court has found A1 guilty for offence under section 7 & r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and A2 guilty of offence 12 r/w section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Whereas acquitted A2 for the charge under Section 109 r/w 13(1)(d).

7. Aggrieved by the judgment the present appeals are preferred by A1 and A2 and taken up for consideration.

8. The first accused Chandrasekarn (A1) in his Criminal appeal 714 of 2009 had contended that the judgment of conviction under section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment for offences 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo 18 months rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for offence under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is illegal and contrary to law. The trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution properly. In the absence of adequate corroboration to the evidence of interested witness, the trial Cour