1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No. 16/1995, which was pending in the Court of Special Judge, Aurangabad. By the decision dated 12.10.2000, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under section 7 and section 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C. Act' for short). Both the sides are heard.

2. The original complainant had complained to Fuse Call Center of M.S.E.B. in the first week of February 1995 that his meter of electricity was faulty. Accused/appellant Shri. Gaikwad and one Shri. Pardhi were working as Lineman, as public servant, in Fuse Call Center of M.S.E.B. They visited the residential place of the complainant to check the meter and after checking it, they expressed that the meter was burnt and so, there was need to replace the meter. These two Linemen informed the complainant that it was necessary for him to pay Rs. 400/-as the charges for replacement of the meter. The complainant gave Rs. 400/- to Shri. Pardhi on the same day.

3. In the second week of February 1995, Pardhi visited the residential place of complainant and shifted the place of meter, however, new meter was not fixed. On that day, Pardhi and Gaikwad demanded Rs. 265/-more from the complainant as shifting charges. The complainant was not having such amount with him on that day. No new meter was fixed on that day.

4. In the first week of March 1995, complainant visited the aforesaid office and met Pardhi. When the complainant made inquiry about the replacement of the faulty meter, Pardhi said that for the replacement and for supplying new meter, it was necessary to give some amount to Superior Officer. The complainant said that he had already paid Rs. 400/- and he promised to give more amount after the replacement of the meter. Pardhi informed that within few days, the replacement will be made.

5. On 19.4.1995 the accused Gaikwad went to the residential place of complainant with new meter. Before fixing the new meter, he demanded Rs. 300/-from the complainant. Complainant said that he was having only Rs. 150/-on that day. The accused said that the complainant should give remaining amount of Rs. 150/-on the next day. When complainant agreed to it, the accused fixed new meter. The necessary form in respect of the replacement was got filled from the complainant. The accused then visited many times the residential place of complainant to collect the remaining amount of Rs. 150/-, but complainant avoided to give the amount. On 24.4.1995 when the accused visited the residential place of complainant, accused expressed grievance that he had visited the place of complainant many times for collecting Rs. 150/-and complainant should fulfill his promise. On that day also, complainant said that he was not having the amount of Rs. 150/- with him. The accused then gave ultimatum to the complainant and said that if the amount was not given on 25.4.1995 he would disconnect the electricity supply. In view of this threat given by the accused, the complainant promised to give amount of Rs. 150/- on 25.4.1995 and the accused was to visit the place at 8.00 a.m.

6. The complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) Office on 24.4.1995 and gave complaint against the accused. The trap was laid in the house of complainant on 25.4.1995 after following the routein procedure. On 25.4.1995 the accused did not turn up. The complainant visited the Office of accused on 26.4.1995 to make inquiry. In the office, the complainant learnt that the accused had taken weekly off on 25.4.1995 and the accused was expected to join the duty for shift starting at 2.00 p.m. on 26.4.1995. As residential place of complainant is situated on the way of accused to office, the complainant thought that the accused would visit his house at 2.00 p.m. on 26.4.1995. The complainant then went to A.C.B. Office and gave complaint accordingly.

7. The trap was lai