JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.69 of 2011, dated 23/01/2018 by the Special Judge dealing with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases, Madurai.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The complainant to get electricity connection for himself and to his two sisters house, enquired somebody in the Electricity office, Kottampatti. That person directed him to get residential certificate from Manappacheri VAO and directed him to produce house tax receipts, ration cards and title deeds of the houses, Thereafter, the de- facto complainant met the accused in the VAO office. At that time, the accused demanded Rs.200/- for each certificate in total Rs.600/- for giving residential certificates. As he was not willing to bribe, went to the office of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Wing, Madurai and lodged a complaint. Based upon the complaint, trap was laid. Case in Crime No.27 of 2009 was registered for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was arrested in the trap. After completing the formalities of the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken on file by the Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Madurai, in SC No.69 of 2011 for the offence under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused:-

(1) The accused was working as Village Administrative Officer of Manappacheri Village between 19/02/2009 and 16/10/2009. On 30/09/2009 at about 07.00 pm, when the de- facto complainant gave petition seeking for the Nativity certificates; at that time the accused demanded Rs.600/- as bribe amount and thereby, the accused has committed an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and

(2) In the course of the same transaction, the accused by using his position as a public servant obtained Rs.400/- as pecuniary advantage for himself from the complainant and thereby the accused has committed an offence under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. To that charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial process, on the side of the prosecution, 8 witnesses have been examined and 19 documents were marked. Apart from that, MO1 to MO6 were also marked, one document was marked on the side of the accused.

5. PW7 was working as Inspector of Police, attached to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, in Madurai. On 06/10/2009, PW2 lodged a complaint under Ex.P2. Upon which the case in Crime No.29 of 2009 was registered for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the complaint, PW2 has stated that the accused demanded Rs.600/- for issuing nativity certificates. He submitted the original records to the Court and the copies to the concerned authorities. For launching trap, requested the Government Departments to depute two responsible officials. Accordingly, two officials namely Arulmozhiselvan and N.Krishnan appeared before him. He introduced PW2 to the witnesses. PW2 handed over the ration card, tax receipts an site sale documents, etc. After verification, those documents were returned to PW2. Apart from that, he has also handed over Rs.600/- demanded by the accused as bribe consisting of six 100 notes. He prepared the mahazar mentioning the currency note numbers. Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared as per the procedure. At his request, Head Constable Ramar prepared the Sodium Carbonate solution. In the solution container, the official witness Krishnan was directed to dip his hand. He dipped his hands. There was no colour change. Later Rs.600/- currency notes were applied with phenolphthalein powder. Again the official witness was directed to dip his hands. According to the official, counted the notes and dipped his hands. It turned pink. It was also collected, labe