1. The present appeal takes exception to the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judge of Special Court, Akola, constituted for trying the cases arising out of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Special Case No.2/2001 dated 20.02.2004. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act” for the sake of brevity). On account of his conviction, under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Insofar as his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act is concern, the learned Judge awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned Judge directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be detailed as under:

(a) Shri Yadavrao Damu Patil (PW-7), was discharging his duties as Deputy Superintendent of Police with Anti Corruption Bureau, Akola during the period from 22.6.2000 to 28.5.2003. On 18.7.2000, Sanjay Shivaji Shirsat (PW-1) came to the Bureau and lodged report with him. The report was reduced into writing. The report is at Exh.21.

(b) The report Exh.21 lodged by PW1 Sanjay Shirsat recites that he has taken education upto 12th standard. The office of Mahatma Fule Backward Development Corporation, Akola (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation” for the sake of brevity) imparts vocational training to the students belonging to the backward classes and such students are also given stipend during the period of training. Therefore, on 15.7.2000, he along with his friend Anand Ingle (PW-3) and Vijaykumar Shegokar, all educated unemployed, went to the office of the said Corporation. There they noticed that on the notice board an information was displayed that for Thane district, vocational training for trades Mason, Tailoring, Radio and TV repairing, Three wheeler mechanic is to be conducted. Therefore, they went inside for enquiry and met with Mr. Shere (appellant/accused), who was manning the training table. There they asked that the information displayed on the notice board does not contain the training in computer and they were interested in the same. Upon that, according to the complaint, the appellant/accused informed them that if they wish to have computer training that can be done at Akola itself. He asked them to apply separately and accordingly, the complainant Sanjay and his two friends submitted their application in prescribed format and handed over the same to the appellant. As per the complaint, thereafter the appellant asked these three applicants that if they wish to have the training, they will have to pay Rs.50/- per candidate and after they were selected, they will have to pay Rs.100/- by each of them. Upon that, as per the complaint, it was informed that the said amount is not with them and thereafter, they were asked to visit on Monday and on that day, all three persons need not come and only presence of complainant will be sufficient. According to the complaint, on 17.7.2000 (Monday), the complainant again visited the office of the Corporation and met the appellant and pleaded that he could not arrange for the money, however, on that it was stated to him that unless and until the amount is paid, the complainant and his friends will not be selected. Upon that, the complainant pleaded for time and on that as per the complaint, the appellant stated that by tomorrow Rs.150/- for each should be given then only they will be selected. Since, the complainant was not ready to give bri