K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge and Principal Sessions Judge at Bidar in Spl. Case No. 2/2007 convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C. Act') and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- for each of the offences and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.

2. The appellant/accused has challenged the above said judgment of conviction and order of sentence on several grounds. Before adverting to the grounds urged before this court and countered by the Respondent-Lokayuktha, I feel it just and necessary to bear in mind the brief factual matrix of the case which resulted in conviction of the accused by the trial Court.

3. P.W.11-Mr. Mahantayya has lodged the First Information Report as per Ex. P16 stating that, he has been working in Border Security Force at Kolkata. His father by name Panchayya has a landed property in Survey No. 77 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas situated at Koutha-K village, Aurad Taluk, Bidar District. About 6 to 7 months prior to lodgment of the first information report, they dug a bore-well in the said land and for that bore-well they wanted to take electricity connection. In that context, his father filed an application before the Assistant Executive Engineer, KEB. In this connection, when the complainant came to the village during December 2001, he came to know that his father's application was not yet disposed of by the KEB Authorities. On 11.01.2001 he went to the Assistant Executive Engineer's Office at Aurad and enquired about the application of his father. In fact, Mr. Gundappa, the Assistant Executive Engineer, informed him to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,460/- and accordingly, he deposited the same. In turn, the Assistant Executive Engineer informed him to meet the accused-Mahalingayya Swamy, who was working as a Junior Engineer at Santhpur KEB Office. Immediately, on the same day, the complainant went to Santhpur and met the accused and in turn it is alleged that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- bribe, for the purpose of giving electric connection to the bore-well of the complainant. Again on 15.01.2001, the complainant met the accused and informed that he was not in a position to pay such an amount. Then after bargaining, the accused told him to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. As the complainant did not wish to pay any bribe to the accused, he went to Lokayuktha police on 17.01.2001 and lodged first information and he has also produced along with his complaint, the receipt for having deposited a sum of Rs. 2,460/- towards electricity connection vide receipt dated 11.01.2001.

4. On the basis of the above said first information report, the Lokayuktha Police registered a case in Crime No. 1/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and taken-up investigation. The Investigating Officer after securing the panch-witnesses to his office conducted a pre-trap mahazar as per Ex. P13, in order to lay a trap against the accused. He explained the formalities before the panch-witnesses and handed over the Currency Notes tainted with phenolphthalein powder to the complainant and also gave certain instructions to the panch-witnesses as to how they have to behave during the course of the trap and thereafter they went to the office of the accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 17.01.2001 at about 13.45 hours, the Investigating Officer along with the panch-witnesses and the complainant went to the office of the accused and it is alleged that the complainant and the shadow panch-witness by name Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, who was examined before the Court