ROHIT B. DEO, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.6.2002 in Special Case 4/1997, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) and offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months for each of the offences, the sentences are, however, to run concurrently. The appellant is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- each for the aforesaid offences.

2. The genesis of the prosecution is complaint/report lodged by the complainant Dnyaneshwar Karnake with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Wardha (A.C.B.) on 18.7.1996. The gist of the said complaint is that the complainant is the owner of 10 acres ancestral land, he has three sisters all of whom are happily married, the father of the complainant expired on 24.5.1992 and since then it is the complainant alone who is tilling the agricultural land. The complainant received a notice from Land Acquisition Officer, Wardha, around 17.6.1996, intimating that an amount of Rs. 3,875/- was sanctioned as compensation against acquisition of some area of the agricultural land. The compensation notice was addressed to late father of the complainant Namdevrao. The complainant asked his mother Kaushalyabai to collect the compensation, however, since the notice was in the name of late Namdevrao, the office of the Land Acquisition Officer asked the mother of the complainant to obtain fresh 7/12 extract. Enquiries revealed that in order to obtain fresh all the legal heirs are required to be brought on record. The complainant obtained the death certificate of his father late Namdevrao and in the last week of June 1996, went to the office of the accused Patwari at Manikwada. The complainant informed the accused that an amount of Rs. 3,875/- was sanctioned as compensation and that since the intimation is in the name of late Namdevrao, the Patwari may effect the mutation. The Patwari (accused) retained the death certificate and told the complainant that an amount of Rs. 300/- will have to be given and that the said amount be brought on 24.6.1996 and that the mutation shall be done. The complainant states that on 24.6.1996 he went to the office of the accused at Manikwada and requested him to effect the mutation and was questioned by the accused as to whether the complainant has brought an amount of Rs. 300/-. The complainant said that the amount of Rs. 300/- is on the higher side and requested the accused to reduce the demand. The accused, however, insisted on being paid Rs. 300/- for effecting mutation and told the complainant that the work shall not be done unless Rs. 300/- is paid. The complainant states in the complaint that though reluctant, he paid the accused Patwari Rs. 300/-. The accused accepted Rs. 300/- and told the complainant to come on 25.6.1996 to collect the 7/12 extract. The complainant, as told by the accused, went to the office of the accused at Manikwada on 25.6.1996 and met the accused. The accused gave him 7/12 extract. The complainant noticed from the 7/12 extract that other than the names of the complainant and his mother, the names of the three sisters of the complainant were also incorporated in the 7/12 extract. The complainant told the accused Patwari that the sisters are not interested in their shares of the compensation and enquired from the accused the procedure for deleting the names of the sisters. The accused told the complainant to approach the Tahsil office alongwith the three sisters, to prepare relinquishment-deed and then appear before the Tahsildar who will verify the relinquishment-deed after questioning the three sisters. The accused further told the complainant that then the relinquishment- deed be brought to his office and the necessary changes in the 7/12 extract shall be made by deleting the nam