JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant (accused) has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.2.2005 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, designated under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (learned Judge of the trial court), Nagpur in Special Case No.5/1996.

2. By the said judgment and order of conviction impugned, learned Judge of the trial court convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act) and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

Learned Judge of the trial court also convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Learned Judge of the trial court also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. During pendency of the appeal, the accused died and his legal heirs proceeded with the appeal with leave of the court.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case run, as under:

The accused at the material time was working as Assistant Sub Register, Cooperative Societies at Saoner. Pawan Jagmohan Jaiswal (informant) approached the accused for obtaining Money Lending Licence. As per allegations, the accused informed him that he has to deposit Rs.200/- by challan in the State Bank of India and handed over him a printed form. Accordingly, the informant deposited Rs.200/- by challan and applied for Money Lending Licence. The informant had submitted copies of challan; application; consent letter; affidavit, and court fee stamps. The informant was further informed by the accused that he has to spend some amount for recommendation for the licence. The informant approached to the accused on 25.7.1994 and informed that he had submitted an application and copies of challan. As per instructions of the accused, the informant further submitted an affidavit.

5. It is further alleged that the accused called the informant in his chamber and demanded amount Rs.3000/- for recommendation of the licence. The informant requested to reduce the amount. However, the accused told him that he has to come with amount Rs.3000/- on 26.7.1994. As the informant was not willing to pay the amount, he approached to the Office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Nagpur on 25.7.1994 and lodged a report.

6. After receipt of the report, officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau called two panchas. In presence of the panchas, the informant has narrated the incident which was verified by the panchas from the First Information Report. After following due procedure, it was decided to conduct a raid and the panchas and the informant were called on 26.7.1994. On 26.7.1994, panchas read the complaint and verified contents of the complaint. The informant produced tainted five currencies denomination of Rs.500/- and five currencies denomination of Rs.100/- and numbers of the currencies were noted. The demonstration as to use and characteristics of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was shown. The said solution was applied on the tainted amount and kept in shirt pocket of the informant. The instructions were given to pancha No.1 Khobragade to stay with the informant and pancha No.2 was asked to stay along with raiding party members. The informant was further instructed to hand over the amount only on demand. Accordingly, pre-trap panchanama was drawn.

7. After pre-trap panchanama, the informant along with the panchas and raiding party members went at the office of the accused. He along with pancha No.1 visited the office of the accused and the accused demanded the amount and the informant handed over the same to him. The accused was caught after the informant was given signal to the raiding party members. Pancha No.1 disclosed as to demand and acceptance. The hands of the ac