JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai District, in Special C.C.No.6 of 2014, dated 28.12.2016, by which, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo 2 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and directed the above sentences to run concurrently.

2 . The case of the prosecutio n:-

P.W.2 lodged a complaint with the first respondent stating that the appellant, who was working as Assistant Account Officer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Sivagangai District, demanded a sum of Rs.150/- for the purpose of discharging his official duty of transferring the defacto complainant's name in the service connection to the house in D.No.6-166/5 in Kallal Village. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by him, a case was registered in Crime No.2 of 2003 by the first respondent and a trap was laid. When the appellant has accepted the bribe amount of Rs.150/-, he was arrested. Based upon that, investigation was undertaken and a final report was also filed before the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai District,, which took cognizance in Special Case. No.6 of 2014 and framed the following charges against the accused.

(ii) The first charge is that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe amount for the purpose of discharging his official duty for transferring the defacto complainant's name in the service connection and accepted the same on 08.04.2002, at about 05.00 p.m in his office, thereby, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(iii) The second charge is that by demanding and accepting Rs.150/- as bribe amount, he has committed criminal misconduct and thereby, he is liable to punish for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(iv) After framing the above said charges, the appellant was questioned and he denied the charges. For proving the above said charges, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked 36 documents. On the side of the accused namely, the appellant herein, no witness was examined and no document marked. 7 Material Objects were exhibited by the prosecution.

3. T he case of the prosecution in brief as narrate d through the evidence:-

P.W.2, who is the defacto complainant is a resident of Indra Nagar, Kallal. She approached the appellant for the purpose of transferring the service connection in the house, which was purchased by her from one Sethu and submitted the relevant documents and forms. At that time, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe. He also advised her to remit Rs.200/- towards legal charges. She did not intend to give bribe. So, she requested the help of P.W.3, who is her neighbour and approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Sivagangai, and as per his instruction, P.W.12, who was working as Inspector, attached to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Sivagangai, registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2002 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Anticorruption Act. He submitted the original copy to the concerned Court and requested the officials for assisting him to lay the trap. As per his request, one Mythili and Santhanakrishnan came to the office. On the arrival of the above said witnesses, he introduced them to P.W.2, the defacto complainant. At his request P.W.2 handed over Rs.150/- as 3 fifty rupee notes. Apart from that, she also handed over Rs.200/- as 2 hundred rupee notes, which was liable