This appeal is filed challenging judgment and order of the Special Judge at Aurangabad in Special Case No.01/1993. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant herein was convicted U/Sec.248(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.l,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for three month. He is further convicted for the offence punishable UlSec.13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for six months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:

It is alleged by the prosecution that accused had accepted the bribe amount of Rs.130/- for doing official act of issuing ration card to the complainant. It is case of prosecution that, accused is public servant who was working as E.G.S. candidate in the office of District Supply, Aurangabad on financial benefit of Rs.100/- per month. His job was to assist the clerical staff therein.

3. Further, case of the prosecution is that. complainant on 22.09.1992 had given an application in the said office for issuing ration card. At first complainant met one Mr. Sonwane, who endorsed on the application and had sent him to Mr. Bansode clerk. Mr. Bansode clerk directed him to meet accused and accordingly printed form along with the document were handed over by the complainant to the accused.

4. It is case of prosecution that, accused demanded Rs.150/- for the work. When complainant showed his inability to pay, accused showed his reluctance towards the work and asked to give whatever amount complainant had. Accordingly, complainant paid Rs.20/-. Accused further told the complainant to pay remaining amount of Rs.130/- on the next day morning at his residence and also gave him his residential address.

5. It is case of the prosecution that, complainant went to A.C.B. Office and gave complaint. Accordingly, his complaint was reduced into writing, panchas were called, pretrap panchanama was prepared and thereafter trap came to have been arranged on 23.09.1992. Accordingly, complainant and panchas at about 11.00 a.m. along with raiding party proceeded to the office of accused. Complainant and panch No. 1 proceeded further while other raiding party followed them. Complainant and panch first went to the office of accused and asked about the work. Accused told him wait for 10 minutes and after 10 minutes he came out of office and took them to the canteen where they had tea and bill was paid by the accused. When they returned, complainant questioned about the work, at that time accused told them, it will take 8 to 10 days. Thereafter, accused asked whether complainant has brought the adjoin amount was given by the complainant to the accused who accepted it and kept in his shirt pocket. Accordingly, signal was given to the raiding party and raiding party caught hold of accused. (emphasis supplied)

6. It is further case of prosecution that on checking the fingers and shirt pocket of the accused, traces of antracene powder were seen, so also the trap amount. note numbers tallied with the number of the notes mentioned in the pre-raid panchanama. Accordingly, detailed panchanama to that effect was drawn, documents were also attached from the custody of the accused and complaint was lodged in City Chowk Police station, which came to have been registered as Crime No.153/1999. The raiding party thereafter returned to the office, where unsealing panchanama was carried on. The documents and other papers were forwarded to sanctioning authority and after obtaining the sanction order to prosecute the accused, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, the appellant herein was not in-charge of the work for which application was filed by