Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th March, 2005 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Special Case No. 03/2003, whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court, after holding the Appellant guilty of commission of offence under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") has sentenced him to undergo R.l. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one month for each of the offences, directing both the sentences to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Nathlu Ram Kunjam made a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, Jagdalpur stating that he is resident of village Rajpur and that his father Kaliram was the President of Jul Upbhokta Sanstha, Sihari Nala No. 59017, Block- Narharpur. In the complaint, it was stated that Rs. 24,800/- was sanctioned in the yearly budget of 2001-02 for certain works and the aforesaid amount was received from Water Resources Department, (Canker and deposited in the Bank. On 25.8.2001, Jal Upbhokta Sanstha (for short "the Society") passed a resolution for repair work of sluice of the tank as also canal of Sihari Nala. It was stated in the complaint that the aforesaid Society got the work done in the month of October, 2001. In the complaint, it was alleged that when the complainant met Ashok, the present Appellant, for getting the valuation work done in the month of October, 2001 on the basis of vouchers and muster-rolls, the Appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for doing the work of valuation, which was given to the Appellant along with the muster-rolls and related documents relating to the work of repair. It is alleged that thereafter, the Appellant came to his house at village- Rajpur on 14.3.2002 and examined muster-rolls from 21st April to 26th April of the year 2001, but did not examine muster rolls for the period 27.4.2001 to 28.4.2001 & 18.9.2001 to 16.10.2001 and returned the same to the complainant in the presence of the father of the complainant namely- Kaliram Kunjam and one Ramesh. who were present in the house of the complainant on that day. It was alleged that the Appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 3,000/- for making valuation of the work done in respect of the muster-roll for the period 27.4.2001 to 28.4.2001 & 18.9.2001 to 16.10.2001. The complainant and his father stated that they would arrange for money within one week, upon which, the Appellant told them to arrange for the money stating that he would again came to their house on 21.3.2002 and in case he is not able to come, then the money and muster-rolls be handed-over to him in his house at Ranker.

3. The application, which was submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, was made over to D.S.P.-Gandhi Joge (P.W.I3) for investigation, who, in turn, summoned two witnesses R. N. Kamdi & Awadesh Kumar Minj. who read the application and singed the same. Further case of the prosecution is that thereupon, the complainant produced currency notes of an amount of Rs. 3,000/- in the denomination of 100. The numbers of currency notes were noted down in the preliminary panchanama (pre-trap panchnama) and phenolphthalein powder was smeared on it by constable Bhuwan Mandal. The currency notes were kept in the left side pocket of the trouser of the complainant and he was instructed that he should not touch the currency and should hand over the currency notes to the Appellant on his demand. The panch witnesses were instructed to witness the incident and hear the conversation which takes place between the complainant and the Appellant. For the purposes of demonstration, solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and the fingers of Constable-Bhuwan were dipped, upon which, the colour of the solution turned pink, which was kept in a bottle and was sealed by a sl