A.D. Mane, J. - The appellant-accused was tried for offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, before the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad. The learned Special Judge convicted the accused for these offences and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500 on each count in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months with the directions to run the substantive sentences concurrently. That judgment and order of conviction and sentence is challenged in this appeal.

2. In nutshell, the prosecution case was that the accused was working as Talathi at Sajja Rajapur situated in Paithan Taluka in the year 1987. The village Pedganon is under Sajja Rajapur. The complainant Natha is of village Deogaon in Taluka Paithan. The father of the complainant died in -1978. The name of the complainant was shown as Karta in the record of right in respect of the landed property in place of his father. In order to have the benefit of a small holder the complainant Natha and his brothers appeared to have partitioned the lands and on the basis of the partition deed Natha was interested to have the mutation effected in the record of rights in respect of the landed property.

It was alleged that on 7-10-1987 the complainant Natha along with his friend Subhash saw the accused in his office. The complainant Natha tendered his application along with the xerox copy of the partition deed to the accused with the request to make the mutation. It was alleged that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 400 from the complainant for effecting the mutation. The complainant, however, pleaded with the accused that he was a poor man and was not able to pay Rs. 400. It was further alleged that the accused demanded Rs. 300 but the complainant also showed his inability to pay Rs. 300. Atleast, the accused is said to have told the complainant that his work would not be done unless he gave him Rs. 150. The complainant had no alterative but to agree to the said demand. It was alleged that the complainant had only Rs. 50 at that time and he paid it to the accused in presence of Subhash. It was alleged that the accused thereupon asked the complainant to pay the balance of Rs. 100 on 1310-1987 so that his work could be done.

On 13-1071987 at about 10.15 a.m. the complainant Natha approached the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Aurangabad. He met Shri Shinde, Dy. S.P. and apprised him about the demand of the accused. His statement was recorded at Exhibit 11. Shri Shinde then arranged the trap and after following the usual procedure of handing over the bribe amount to the complainant in presence of Panch Ravindra Kulkarni instructed the complainant to pay the amount of bribe to the accused only on his demand. The complainant was earlier shown the demonstration on the effect of phenolphthalein powder in presence of the panchas. He was also given instructions how to give the prearranged signal after the trap to the raiding party. The pre-trap panchanama single, was accordingly made.

It is said that the complainant Natha and the Panch Ravindra first went to the office of the accused but the office was found to be locked. Natha inquired with the neighbouring boy about the accused and it is said that the boy told him that the accused was in his house. The complainant Natha and the Panch, therefore, went to the house of the accused and the accused then took them of his office. It is said that after entering into the office room, the accused sat on the carpet. The complainant and the panch also sat in front of him. It is said that the complainant Natha first inquired from the accused as to whether the mutation was sanctioned. The complainant also told the accused that he has paid Rs. 50 on 7th and he had brought the remaining amount of Rs. 100. According to the prosecution, the accused told Natha t