1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction rendered by the Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in C.C.No.132 of 2011 (old C.C.No.9 of 2008), dated 26.10.2015.

2. The appellant herein Thiru. P. Ganesan, who was tried for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was found guilty by the trial Court for demand and acceptance of Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification. The trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also sentenced him to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Brief facts leading to the prosecution:

Tmt. S. Ragini, W/o A.V.S. Manian entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat in her son's name and advanced Rs.15,000/- to the Builder during the month of June 2006. She purchased Stamp Paper for Rs.26,000/- for execution of the sale deed. Later, she decided to rescind the contract with the builder. For the refund of the Stamp Paper, which was purchased, she gave a requestion letter to the Tahsildar Egmore on 17.05.2007 (Ex.P4). Despite her frequent visit to the Taluk Office, she was not able to get the refund. On 08.10.2007 at about 05.30 p.m. when Tmt. S. Ragini(PW-2) went to the Taluk Office, the appellant/accused, who was working as Assistant in the said office introduced himself as Venkat and promised her to get the refund of Stamp Paper and demanded Rs.500/-. Since the defacto complainant had no other way to get the refund, gave to him Rs.500/-. After receiving Rs.500/- the accused/appellant had told her that, this money is to process the application and a further sum of Rs.1,500/- has to be paid to get the refund. After some bargaining, the accused/appellant had reduced his demand of illegal gratification to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.1,500/-. He wrote his phone number in the defacto complainant's(PW-2) telephone diary and asked her to come with bribe amount.

4. Smt. S. Ragini/defacto complainant working as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department was not inclined to give any further bribe to the accused. Therefore, she has lodged a complaint at Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Special Unit at Chennai on 11.10.2007 narrating the above facts and to take action against Venkat, Assistant at Taluk Office Egmore. The complaint of Smt. S. Ragini/defacto complainant was received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police at 11.00 hours and he had endorsed the complaint to the Inspector of Police Thiru. Prabakaran to register a case and investigate the same.

5. Accordingly, Thiru. Prabakaran [PW-15] had taken up the complaint and after discreet enquiry, had arranged for trap. The pre-trap proceeding in the presence of two independent official witnesses demonstrating the significance of the phenolphthalein test has been conducted at 13.00 hours on 11.10.2007 and the proceedings has been reduced into writing as Entrustment Mahazar [Ex.P3]. Thereafter, the defacto complainant along with the decoy witness Tmt. Irudhaya Rani followed by the trap team had gone to Taluk Office at Spur Tank Road, Chetpet. Smt. S. Ragini [PW-2] and Smt. Irudhaya Rani [PW-3] met the accused/appellant at about 16.00 hours. The accused/appellant enquired whether PW-2 [Smt. S. Ragini] had brought the money. When she answered in affirmative, he told her to wait, he will confirm whether the cheque is ready. Then, he went to the first floor and came back to confirm the cheque is ready and demanded money. When PW-2[Smt. S. Ragini] took out the tainted money from her handbag and handed over it, the appellant/accused directed PW-2[Smt. S. Ragini] to keep the money on the table. Thereafter, he