JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal, the appellant (accused) has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.9.2004 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Wardha (learned Special Judge) in Special Case No.3/1996.

2. By the said impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act).

For the offence under Section 7 of the said Act, the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months

For the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Learned Special Judge directed that all the sentences of the accused shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell runs, thus:

The accused, at the material time, was serving as Talathi at Wardha (Maneri). In the month of May 1995, Damodhar Nathuji Dhurve (informant), who is resident of Wardha (Maneri), having four acres of agricultural land at Wardha (Maneri), having 50-55 teak wood trees on the boundary of the said field. For cutting the said trees, the informant was required permission of the forest department and for such permission, he was in need of 7/12 extract, map, and certificate from Talathi and, therefore, he approached to the office of the accused for obtaining the above said documents. He intimated the purpose of his visit to the office of the accused and requested the documents as the aforestated. As per allegations, the accused has demanded Rs.300/- for supplying copies of the said documents. The informant requested for reducing the amount of illegal gratification. However, the accused has refused the said request on the count that if he reduces the said amount, he has to reduce for everybody and insisted for Rs.300/-. The informant informed that he is not having that much amount and, therefore, the accused asked him to come along with the amount on 8.5.1995 at his office. It is further alleged that the accused informed him that unless and until the informant would pay the amount, he will not issue the required documents. As the informant was not inclined to pay the amount, he approached to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Wardha and lodged a report. The officials of the ACB decided to conduct a trap and accordingly necessary formalities were completed and the trap was laid on 9.5.1995. The trap was successful and the tainted currency notes, comprised of Rs.100/- three in numbers, were recovered from a register in which he was carrying out the work. Necessary panchanamas were drawn out. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against the accused.

4. The accused was tried for the offences as the aforesaid. On merits of the case, learned Special Judge found that the prosecution succeeded in proving charges as demand and acceptance are proved and, therefore, convicted the accused as the aforestated.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred by the accused on the ground that learned Special Judge has not considered evidence adduced that the accused has forwarded a report against the informant as the informant was involved in constructing a mosque by encroaching on the land of grampanchayat along with one Ramchandra Khanorkar and Shaikh Shafik etc.. On his report, the action was taken against the informant. The further defence of the accused is that amount Rs.224.45 was due against the informant towards the fees of reimbursement and the amount is paid towards the said fees.

6. Heard learned counsel Shri R.M.Patwardhan for the accused and learned Additi