1. Appellant assailed the judgment of conviction awarded by learned Judge, Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Wardha in Special Case No. 12/1994.

2. The case of the prosecution against the appellant can be summarized as under.

(i) The complainant had purchased one cow. Complainant applied for loan. As he was in the category of BPL (Below Poverty Line), complainant approached to the bank officer. Bank officer directed the complainant to bring certificate from veterinary doctor. Appellant was working at Panchayat Samitee, Selu. Complainant approached to appellant. Appellant demanded Rs. 300/- from the complainant to issue certificate of insurance.

(ii) Complainant taken appellant in the animal market. Appellant examined cow. Complainant requested to appellant to issue certificate but he was insisting to pay Rs. 400/-. After negotiations, he agreed to accept Rs. 300/- from the complainant. But complainant was not ready to give bribe, therefore, he approached to the office of Anti corruption Bureau (ACB), Wardha and lodged report against appellant. As per procedure, pre-trap panchanama was prepared in presence of panchas. Thereafter necessary instructions were given to complainant and panchas by the Officer of ACB Shri Johari. On the next day, trap was arranged.

(iii) As per the instructions given by Shri Johari, complainant and panch No. 1 approached to the office of appellant. Complainant saluted to appellant. Appellant issued certificate to the complainant and thereafter he demanded amount of Rs.200/-. Complainant went out of the office and gave signal to the trap party.

(iv) Trap party reached to the office of appellant and apprehended his hands in presence of panchas.

(v) Demonstration was given. Both the hands of appellant were dipped in the solution. Colour of solution was changed into purple. Post trap panchanama was prepared and thereafter report was lodged in the police station. Papers were sent for sanction to the appointing authority. After complete investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the Special Court at Wardha.

(vi) Charge was framed at Exhibit 19. Same was readover and explained to the accused/appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It appears from the defence that appellant was visiting to the house of complainant and used to give treatment to his animals, therefore, appellant demanded his visit fee and expenditure of medicines. It is clear from the suggestions in the cross-examination to the witnesses that appellant demanded that amount in respect of his visit fees and expenditure of medicines and it was not the amount of bribe.

(vii) Prosecution has examined in all total 7 witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Mardikar for the appellant. He has pointed out evidence of P. W. 1 Shashikant Chithale and submitted that sanction accorded by P.W. 1 is defective. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out cross-examination of panch witness and submitted that defence of the appellant is admitted by this witness. Therefore, it is clear that it was not bribe amount but it was the amount of visit fees and medicine expenditure. Learned trial Court not considered the defence and wrongly convicted the appellant.

4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Mirza for the State/respondent. He has supported the impugned judgment.

5. Perused the evidence on record. From the evid