Swapna Joshi, J.

The appellant, who was working as a Head Constable attached to Police Station, Mulchera at the relevant time, was prosecuted on the allegations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act of 1988'). The learned Special Judge, Gadchiroli, after conducting the trial, found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under section 7 of the said Act and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to suffer further R.I. for one month. She further sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for fifteen days under section 13(2) of the said Act.

2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the complainant Pralhad Mandal (PW 1) was working as a Watchman in Ganga Jamna Macchipalan Sanstha, Bamanpeth in Chamorshi Talqua, lodged a complaint with Anti Corruption Office, regarding the demand of Rs.4,000/- on 6.12.2013, by the accused for not beating him and his brother, against whom a complaint regarding theft of fishes from the tank at Singampalli was lodged at the Police Station. As per the instructions of the appellant, the complainant was supposed to bring the amount of Rs. 4000/- on 17.12.1993. After lodging the complaint (Exh.15), the complainant brought the amount of Rs. 4000/- and deposited it with the Anti Corruption Office for using it as tainted currency notes. The Panchas were explained about the grievance of the complainant through the Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. Kulkarni who demonstrated to the complainant and Panchas the use of phenolphthalein powder and sodium corbonite while arranging the trap. The currency notes of Rs. 4000/- were smeared with the phenolphthalein powder and kept it in the right pant pocket of the complainant. During the trap, panchnama (Exh.18) was drawn. The complainant along with the panchas and raiding party proceeded to the house of the appellant. The appellant was sitting below the pandol of his house taking meals. One person was sitting with him. The appellant asked the complainant to keep the amount in the basket kept inside his house. Accordingly, it was kept by the complainant. The complainant then signalled the raiding party by cleaning his face with a scarf. The raiding party then apprehended the appellant. The liquidsodium carbonate was sprinkled on the currency notes and the colour of those notes was changed to violet. The currency notes were taken charge and Panchnama (Exh.28) was drawn accordingly.

3. During the course of investigation, sanction to prosecute the appellant as contemplated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was obtained from the competent authority i.e., Additional Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed alleging commission of offences punishable under section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with section 13 (1)(2) of the Act of 1988.

4. The prosecution in all examined as many as five witnesses. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as aforesaid.

5. I have heard Ms. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.P. Gangane, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. The learned APP took me through the entire evidence led by the prosecution and the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge.

6. Ms. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge is illegal and perverse inasmuch as the learned Judge has not considered the material discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses clearly indicates that neither the appellant demanded the bribe nor he accepted it and the seizure of the tainted notes is not satisfactorily proved. According to Miss Kshirsagar, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the