Rohit B. Deo, J.

1. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 24.11.2000, in Special Case 27 of 1988 delivered by the Special Judge, Nagpur, by and under which, the appellant is convicted of offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and is also convicted for offences punishable under sections 5(1), 5(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.

2. The prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that one Rambhau Bankar, a teaching employee of Raje Raghuji Nagar Madhayamik Vidhyalaya, Nagpur, approached the judicial for a against the said management making certain grievances and was successful in obtaining favourable orders from the School Tribunal/this Court. The complainant was entitled to certain monitory benefits by and under the judicial orders. A major portion of the amount due and payable towards the arrears of salary was received by the complainant. However, he did not receive the pay for November and December, 1985 and January, 1986 nor did he receive the amount due towards the difference of increase in salary from December 1983 to October 1985. The complainant, according to the case of the prosecution, was entitled to receive Rs. 10,500/- and odd.

The report lodged with the Anti corruption Bureau (for short ACB) by the complainant on 16.1.1986 would reveal, that the complainant allegedly contacted one Ali, the pay unit officer and the accused who was the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur on 15.1.1986. The accused allegedly demanded bribe of Rs. 2,000/- and Ali allegedly demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- The oral report dated 16.1.1986 further states that the complainant met the accused in front of Ravi Bhavan on the morning of 16.1.1986. The accused asked the complainant to bring the bribe amount to the residence of the accused in the evening. The complainant further states in the oral report dated 16.1.1986 that he met Ali in the afternoon and Ali decided to come to the residential house of the complainant at 8.30 p.m. to collect the bribe amount of Rs. 500/- . The oral report dated 16.1.1986 further states that the complainant submitted applications to both the accused and the pay unit officer Ali. This oral report was reduced into writing by the ACB officer Deshpande and a decision was taken to lay a trap. Panchas were summoned, elaborate preparations were made to lay the trap, necessary instructions were issued to the complainant and the two panchas and the standard protocol of demonstrating the sodium carbonate solution test was followed. The ACB decided to trap the accused at the residence of the accused and to thereafter trap Ali at the residence of the complainant Bankar. However, according to the prosecution case accused was not present at his residence at 7.00 p.m. when the complainant made inquiries with the wife of the accused on telephone, and as the accused had not returned till 8.30 p.m. when the complainant called the second time, the trap was postponed to 17.1.1986. The trap party assembled at the ACB office on 17.1.1986 at 10.30 a.m., the complainant was again asked to inquire with the wife of the accused about whereabouts of the accused, and the complainant was informed that the accused will return at 8.30 p.m.. The trap party proceeded to the residence of Borkar. However, when the complainant and the shadow panch went to the residence of Borkar/accused, the wife of the accused informed that the accused is yet to return. The complainant told the wife of the accused that he would be returning and the complainant and shadow panch waited for the accused. They again approached the residence of the accused on noticing that the accused had come home. The door was opened by the accused, complainant and the shadow panch entered sitting room, the complai