M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---This Criminal Appeal, along with companion Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 1989, has been preferred against convictions and sentences imposed on the two accused in Special Case No. 3 of 1986. The facts are most distressing, concerning as they do, with corrupt practices often indulged in by lawyers and clerks around the courts who collect money from litigants on the assurance of securing favourable verdicts and ruin the reputation of the Judge and the judiciary in general, but the redeeming factor being the exemplary manner in which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Miraj, and the learned Special Judge, Kolhapur, both of whom I will have occasion to compliment in the course of the judgment, have handled the complaints that went up to them. The present appellant, who was Accused No. 1, is a Senior Advocate from Kolhapur, and in addition to this was also functioning as a Senior Police Prosecutor assigned to the Judicial Magistrate's Court at Satara. Accused No. 2 at the relevant time was an Advocate's clerk attached to the Court at Miraj. The incident in question took place in the month of March 1984. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Miraj, Mr. Bhosale, was at that time hearing Criminal Case No. 129 of 1981, which case pertained to a prosecution instituted by the Miraj Railway Police in relation to the theft of aluminium wire in the year 1980. Originally, there were as many as 14 accused in that case, but some of them are supposed to have died in the course of the trial. The evidence in the matter and the arguments were apparently over and it appears that the decision in that case was expected in the month of March 1984. The Police Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State was one Advocate Raja and the defence Advocate was Mr. Narwadkar. It appears that the learned defence Advocate had informed the two accused with whom we are immediately concerned, one Sakhalchand and Shantilal, that the decision was likely to be against them and that they were likely to be convicted in that proceeding. Thereupon Sakhalchand is alleged to have contacted accused No. 2, who was an Advocate's clerk at the Court and who appeared to have been the regular Court clerk of Advocate Shah and he is supposed to have asked accused No. 2 as to what could be done under the circumstances to avoid a conviction. Accused No. 2 is alleged to have stated that though he was helpless in the matter that he would take Sakhalchand and Shantilal to one Advocate at Kolhapur, i.e., accused No. 1, who would "do their work". At the meeting with accused No. 1, it is alleged that he agreed to do the needful, i.e., to ensure that these two accused were acquitted provided they paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each which, in turn, accused No. 1 was to hand over to the learned Judicial Magistrate. Pursuant to this arrangement, the prosecution alleges that on 17-3-1984, accused Nos. 1 and 2, accompanied by Sakhalchand, went by a taxi to Miraj in the evening. Accused No. 1 went to the residence of Judicial Magistrate Bhosale and came back stating that he had gone out and would be back in an hour's time. Once again accused No. 1 went to the residence of Judicial Magistrate Bhosale and after half an hour came back and told these persons that they would have to come again as the Judicial Magistrate was busy and he could not talk to him.

2. Thereafter on 19-3-1984, it is alleged that once again the same group of persons made a trip to Miraj, and on this occasion accused No. 1 met the learned Judicial Magistrate when he was leaving the chambers. After exchanging some pleasantries, he brought up the subject of the theft case and told the learned Judicial Magistrate that there was practically no evidence in that matter. The learned Judicial Magistrate immediately reacted, rather strongly, and told accused No. 1 not to talk about the pending proceeding and that this would be decided on merits. Accused No. 1 excused himself by requesting the learned