JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court while upholding that the respondent-accused s conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act ), was in order, further held him to be entitled to the benefits available under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ). The State has questioned legality of latter view.

3. Factual background in short is as follows :

Respondent-accused was serving as Commercial Superintendent of the erstwhile DESU office. Proceedings under the Act were initiated against him for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 1,500/- from a consumer Mahabir Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the complainant ). After trial by the Special Judge, Delhi, he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation for offence under Section 7 and 40 months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation for the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the Act. An appeal