JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. By this Appeal, the Appellant has challenged Judgment and order dated 21.12.2015, passed by the Court of Special Judge, Panaji, whereby, the Appellant has been found guilty of offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘aforesaid Act’). For conviction under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act, the Appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. For conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act, the Appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The offences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the Appellant was caught red handed while accepting bribe from the complainant. The Appellant was working as an Assistant Director of Khadi and Village Industries Commission, at Panaji, and he was in charge of Khadi Gramodhyog Bhawan, as a Manager. In his capacity of holding the said offices, he was responsible for the repair work of the office of the Khadi Gramodhyog Bhawan and upon verification of completion of the works, he was required to disburse cheques towards payment for such repair and renovation work. The contract was awarded to the complainant in April 2006.

3. The complainant received part payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- in three cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each and after completion of the renovation work, he raised a final bill dated 27.06.2006 for Rs. 2,95,600/-. Since the complainant had received the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- he was supposed to receive the balance amount of Rs. 1,45,600/-. It was the case of the complainant that when he demanded payment of the balance amount, although two cheques for payment of the said amount were ready since 30.06.2006, the Appellant was refusing to hand over the said cheques to the complainant and he demanded bribe of Rs. 45,000/- to hand over the said cheques. As the complainant was not ready to pay the bribe, the Appellant allegedly told him that he will hand over a cheque of Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant, which could be encashed and Rs. 45,000/- be given towards the bribe and only then would the second cheque be released.

4. It is the case of the Respondent-Prosecution i.e. the State through Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), that the complainant, in this backdrop, approached the office of the CBI on 11.10.2006 and gave a written complaint regarding the aforesaid bribe being demanded by the Appellant. On the basis of the complaint, the CBI decided to lay a trap against the Appellant and, accordingly, on 11.10.2006, a pre-trap panchanama was executed. It was the case of the CBI that the trap was executed at Hotel Fidalgo, where the Appellant was called. The complainant was given cassette recorder with micro cassettes concealed in his clothes in order to record the conversation that would take place at the time of execution of the trap. According to the CBI, the trap was executed and when the panch witnesses at the place of the trap along with the team of the CBI confronted the Appellant, he was found in possession of the currency notes.

5. On standard procedure of chemical tests being conducted on the spot, the colour of the currency notes, the hands of the Appellant and the left side pocket of the trouser of the Appellant changed colour to pink. A post-trap panchanama was executed, wherein details of execution of the trap were recorded. The micro cassettes in which the complainant had recorded the conversation with the Appellant were kept in a sealed envelope in the presence of the panchas and their signatures were taken. All the material used in the trap, including the chemicals were collected for forensic examination and further necessary action was undertaken.

6. There wer