The appellant herein is the accused tried for the offence under Section 7 r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in special case No.5 of 2006 on the file of learned Special Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the present appeal is filed.

3. Brief facts leading to the appeal is as under :-

3.1 One Thiru Jagir Hussain, son-in-law of Ameena Beevi lodged a complaint to the respondent police on 31.01.2005, alleging that one Thiru Kannan, appellant herein working as surveyor had demanded bribe of Rs.7,000/- to effect mutation of patta records in respect of 37 cents of land in Survey No. 178/2 Thirukazhukundram Village which stood in the name of Ameena Beevi. Hence, the trap was laid and the accused was held red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.7,000/- on 31.01.2005. The prosecution, to prove the case, has examined 12 witnesses, 14 exhibits were marked and 5 material objects.

3.2. PW.2 the defacto complainant Jagir Hussain has deposed that on 31.08.2004 on behalf of his mother in law Ameena Beevi he gave a requisition letter for change of Patta to the Tahsildar at Thirukankundram Taluk Office. The accused who was working as Firkha Surveyor at that time, came to measure the land after one month. Thereafter he went to the Taluk Office and enquired the accused about his petition. At that time, the accused has demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe. When the defacto complainant expressed his inability to give Rs.10,000/- as bribe, the accused has reduced his demand to Rs.7,000/- and alleged to have been stated that only if bribe is given he will arrange for change of patta. Since [PW.2] was not interested in giving bribe, he has given the complaint to the Vigilance and Anti corruption police which is marked as Ex.P.2. His complaint was registered and a First Information report was laid on 31.01.2005. He arranged Rs.7,000/- through his friend Meera Sha from Kanchipuram and gave the trap money to the police. After smearing phenolphthalein on the currencies in the presence of two witnesses. A pre-trap Mahazar was prepared by conducting phenolphthalein test and thereafter the money was kept in his shirt pocket by trap laying officer. He was ask to go to the Taluk Office and if the appellant demands money, he was advised to give the tainted money to him. One Mr. Inbanathan [PW.3] was ask to accompany PW.2 to over-see the transaction between PW.2 and the appellant.

4. Accordingly, PW.2 and Inbanathan (PW.3) went to taluk office and met the accused at 4.00 p.m. on 31.05.2005. The accused told PW.2 to come out of the office and went to the Kullar Street, adjacent to Taluk Office, where he demanded money on his demand PW.2 gave the tainted money to the accused and the same was received by the accused and kept it in his right side pant pocket. Thereafter, they all came back to the Taluk Office. The trap laying team, which followed them from Kullar Street to Taluk Office on receiving the signal from PW.2, went inside the Taluk Office. There the accused was identified by PW.2. The tap laying officer one Thiru.Manokaran, Inspector of Police (PW.10) arranged two tumblers of plain water mixed it with Sodium carbonate power and asked the accused to dip his hands, on dipping the colourless solution turned pink. Sample solution from two tumblers were separately drawn, labeled and sealed, which are marked as MO.1 and MO.2.

5. When the accused was asked whether he has received any money from PW.2, he took out Rs.7,000/- from his left side pocket and gave it to the witness. The numbers found in the currency notes were compared with the entrustment mahazar and found tally. The currency of Rs.7,000/- was marked as MO.3. The pant pocket dipped in Sodium Carbonate Solution turned pink. The sample solution of the pant wash and the pant of the accused are marked as MO.4 and MO.5 respectively. The file pertaining to the application for change of Patta recovered from the accused an