JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. These appeals challenge a common judgment and order of the trial Court and hence decided by a common judgment. The appellant in Appeal No. 1473 of 2004 is the original accused no. 1. The appellant in Appeal No. 1480 of 2004 is the original accused no. 2. The challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting the accused no. 1 for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) sentencing him to suffer two and a half years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 month’s rigorous imprisonment. Accused no. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(2)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer two and a half years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, 2 month’s rigorous imprisonment. So far as the accused no. 2 is concerned, he is convicted for the offence punishable under section 12 of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of fine, 1 month’s rigorous imprisonment.

2. Accused no. 1 being a public servant was at the relevant time working as a Block Education Officer at Taluka Maval, District Pune. It is alleged that during the period when he was working as a Block Education Officer, accused no. 1 demanded Rs.5,000/- from the complainant – Krishnarao Nantuji Bodke-PW.1 for submitting a favourable report in the enquiry to be held against him and also threatened that if the complainant does not pay the said sum, an adverse report will be sent against the complainant, the consequence of which will be suspension. It is alleged that the demand of Rs.5,000/- was made on 20/07/2000 at about 9.15 a.m. at the residence of accused no. 1. PW-1 made a complaint to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 26/07/2000. On 27/07/2000, pre-trap panchanama was prepared between 6:15 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. The raiding party went to the house of the accused no. 1. PW-1 and the shadow witness-PW-2 went inside the house of the accused no. 1. PW-1 informed accused no. 1 that he has come ready with the amount. Accused no. 1 asked PW-1 to hand over the amount to the accused no. 2 who was then present along with accused no. 1. As per the version of the PW-2, one Mr. Shinde was also present at the relevant time. After the amount of Rs.5,000/-was handed over to the accused no. 2 by PW-1, PW-1 gave a signal to the raiding party. The prosecution alleged that the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 were caught red-handed.

3. The trial Court held that demand and acceptance is proved. According to the trial Court demand of bribe was made for the first time on 20/07/2000 at the house of the accused no. 1. Though the trial Court noted the deposition of the PW-1 in the cross examination that there was a failed attempt to raid accused no. 1 on 25/07/2000, the trial Court was of the opinion that neither investigating officer i.e. PW.4 nor panch witnesses have admitted about the trap on 25/07/2000 and therefore the trial Court observed that the complainant’s version about lodging of the complaint on 20/07/2000 and the first trap on 25/07/2000 was made only to help the accused as it appears that he was won over by the accused persons. The trial Court was of the opinion that on the basis of the evidence of the PW-1, PW-2 shadow witness and PW-4, charges against the accused are established.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of PW-1 is untrustworthy. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution case is false and concocted only with a view to frame the accused persons. According to learned counsel the factum of demand and acceptance is not proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence and therefore the question of rebuttal of presumption under section 20 of the PC Act will not arise. In any case, it is submitted that there