JUDGMENT :

B. Pugalendhi, J.

1. The State preferred this appeal as against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, namely, the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli, in Spl. Case No. 61 of 2011, dated 30.08.2013.

2. The respondent/first accused was charged before the trial Court for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with another accused for the offence under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. During the trial, the second accused died and therefore, the charge as against him was abated. With regard to the respondent/first accused, the trial Court found her not guilty and by order dated 30.08.2013, acquitted her from the charges and as against the order of acquittal, the present appeal is filed.

3. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:

(i) The respondent/first accused was working as a Sub-Registrar, Upuliyapuram, Trichy from 19.12.2005 to 07.09.2006. While she was serving as Sub-Registrar at Upuliyapuram, she is said to have demanded a sum of Rs. 900/- as a bribe from the complainant/P.W. 2 on 06.09.2006 for registering a mortgage deed to him. P.W. 2 has availed a tractor loan Mercantile Pavithram Pudhur Branch. The Branch Manager [P.W. 9] gave him a model draft mortgage deed [Ex. P5] and suggested him to mortgage his agricultural land as a security for the tractor loan.

(ii) Accordingly, P.W. 2 went to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Upuliyapuram on 06.09.2006 along with the draft mortgage deed and approached the Sub-Registrar/first accused for registering the same. The first accused told him that he has to pay a sum of Rs. 1100/- as registration fee and another sum of Rs. 900/- for her. When the complainant questioned why he has to pay a sum of Rs. 900/- to her apart from the registration fee, the first accused added that it is for her and stated that without paying any money, the document would not be registered. Annoyed over the same, P.W. 2 went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy, on 07.09.2006 at 07.00 am and lodged the information under Ex. P2. The Inspector of Police, Mr. Pandithurai [P.W. 12] recorded the same in Crime No. 12 of 2006 [Ex. P12] u/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, he also made a request for official witnesses from the Department of Integrated Child Development Scheme, Trichy and from the Public Works Department (WRO), River Conservation Division, Trichy. Accordingly, P.W. 3, Kannan, Junior Assistant in Integrated Child Development Scheme, Trichy and one Shunmuga Sundaram, Assistant in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (WRO), River Conservation Division, Trichy, were deputed.

(iii) The Inspector [P.W. 12] introduced P.W. 2 to the official witnesses and they also verified with P.W. 2 and the complaint. Thereafter, P.W. 12 demonstrated the Phenolphthalein test to P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and to the other official witness. He also received a sum of Rs. 1100/- for the registration fee and a sum of Rs. 900/- for the first accused, he quoted the same with phenolphthalein powder and, the serial numbers of the currency notes were noted in the entrustment mahazar Ex. P4.

(iv) P.W. 2, P.W. 12 and the official witnesses, namely, P.W. 3 and another went to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Upuliyapuram. P.W. 12 remained outside and P.Ws. 2 & 3 went inside the office of the Sub-Registrar on 07.09.2006 at about 05.15 pm and also met the first accused and requested her to register the document. She directed him to pay the registration fee of Rs. 1100/- and also verified whether he is having a sum of Rs. 900/- meant for her. After ascertaining the same, the first accused proceeded with the registration of the mortgage deed and P.W. 8 and another person signed as a witness to the deed. After completion of the registration, the witnesses and others left the office. Thereafter, the first accused enquired with P.W. 2 about the