Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

1. The Appellants herein are convicted vide judgment and order dated 27.12.2005 in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Malegaon. The Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2006) Original Accused No. 1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer S.I. for 2 months. The Appellant (in Criminal Appeal 111 of 2006) Original Accused No. 2 is convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w. 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to suffer S.I. for one month. Hence, this appeal.

2. Such of the facts necessary for decision of the appeal are as under.

3. The Appellant-Dr. Nishikant Kulkarni in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2006 was officiating as a Medical Officer at Manmad Municipal Hospital in the year 1987. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2006 was serving as a peon in the said hospital. On 9th September, 1987, Manohar Mulchandani approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Nasik and lodged a report alleging therein that his brother Puran had expired. He wanted to mutate the name of his brother along with himself in the property extract and, therefore, he was in need of a death certificate of his deceased brother Puran. Initially, he had submitted an application to Dr. Nishkant Kulkarni. However, he was directed to submit the same to the Municipal Council. Thereafter, he had once again approached the Medical Officer and requested him to issue death certificate. There was a demand of Rs. 150/- by the doctor. Since Mr. Mulchandani was incapable of paying the same, the amount was negotiated to Rs. 100/-. He was unwilling to pay the said amount as a bribe and, therefore, he was constrained to approach the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Nasik. He had informed that he was to pay the said amount on the next date i.e. on 9th of September, 1987. The Anti Corruption Bureau, upon hearing the complaint and receiving report in writing, had decided to lay a trap. Two public servants were called upon to act as panchas. The pre-trap panchnama was conducted. Thereafter, on 9th September, 1987, one Mr. Prabhakar Panditrao Dandavate, working as a Joint Director of Animal Husbandry was called upon to act as a panch, more particularly, as a Shadow Witness and to follow the Complainant. On 9th September, 1987, the Complainant Mulchandani along with Panch Dandavate had approached the office of Medical Officer. Upon his arrival and query, the Medical Officer had assured him that he has kept his medical certificate ready. After some time, one employee of the Hospital (Kadar Shaikh) Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2006 had called upon Mulchandani and they had been to the cabin of the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer had asked the Complainant to hand over the amount of Rs. 100/- to the said peon. The peon had accepted the same. The Complainant had given the pre-determined signal. The Complainant had collected the certificate. Thereafter, the raiding party had laid the trap. The tainted notes were seized from the custody of the peon Mr. Shaikh. The first information report was lodged by Dy. S.P. (ACB) on behalf of the State. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 142 of 1987 was registered against the Appellants for the offences punishable under Section 5(1) (d) r.w. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 equivalent to section 13(1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and offences punishable under section 161, 165A of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The case was registered as Special Case No. 16 of 1999.

4. At the trial, the de-facto Complainant Manohar R. Mulchandani had proved the contents of his report f