1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th January 2008 passed by the Special Judge, CBI in CC No. 68 of 1999 and order on sentence dated 16th January 2008 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for two years and a fine of Rs.2,500 under Section 7 of the PC Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for a period of two months and to further undergo RI for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2,500 under Section 13(2) of the PC Act and in default of payment of a fine to undergo SI for a period of two months.

2. It must be noted at the outset that there were three accused before the trial Court and by the same impugned judgment one of the co-accused Gianender Singh has been acquitted while another co-accused Ram Sarup has been convicted along with the Appellant.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 8th December 1997 the complainant Sudhir Kumar (PW-11) went to the office of the Anti Corruption Branch (‘ACB’) and got his complaint Ex.PW-11/A recorded by Inspector Prem Chand (PW-12) in the presence of Shri Chandershwar Singh (PW-13) who was on duty as panch witness in the ACB on that day. In his complaint PW- 11 stated he was in the business of putting up hoardings. He received an order from M/s. Shiva Vision for displaying the hoardings of contact lenses in the area of Paschim Vihar. The Appellant Mahavir Singh was working as Licensing & Advertising Inspector in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’). In the complaint it was stated that the Appellant on 3rd December 1997 demanded from PW-11 Rs.3,000 as bribe for displaying 30 boards i.e. Rs.100 for each board and further threatened him that if the bribe amount was not paid, he would remove the hoardings. The Appellant is stated to have accepted Rs.500 as advance and asked PW-11 to pay the balance amount of Rs.2500 to him along with the site list on 8th December 1997 at 10 am in the MCD office, West Zone, Rajouri Garden.

4. The prosecution states that PW-11 took with him Rs.2500 i.e. five government currency (‘GC’) notes of Rs.500 each. The numbers of those GC notes were noted down by the Raid Officer (PW-12) and treated with phenolphthalein powder. PW 12 got the right hand of the panch witness PW-14 touched with GC notes and took his right hand wash in a sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. The treated GC notes were then given to PW-11. The instruction to PW-11 was that he should remain close to PW- 14 so that PW -14 was able to see the transaction and hear the conversation. The instruction to PW-14 was that he should overhear the conversation and once he was satisfied that the bribe had been given he should give a signal by hurling his hand over his head. The pre-raid proceedings (Ex.PW-11/B) were drawn up.

5. The raiding party comprising PW-12, PW-11, PW-14 and Inspector R.P.Singh, Investigating Officer (‘IO’) of the case, reached the MCD office at about 9.30 am on 8th December 1997. However, the Appellant did not come to the office on that day. PW-11 and PW-14 met Gianender Singh (A-3) who asked PW -11 if he had brought the balance sum of Rs.2500 to which PW -11 replied in the affirmative. According to the prosecution, A-3 insisted that PW-11 should pay him the bribe amount and stated that the share of the Appellant would be given to the Appellant as and when he came. A-3 further told them that if they met the Appellant, they would have to pay more money. He was then stated to have taken PW-11 and PW-14 to the canteen and served them tea and asked them to come on 9th December 1997 at 8.30 am. PW-12 is stated to have recorded it in a separate proceeding Ex. PW-11/C.

6. When the raiding party went again to the MCD office on 9th December 1997, the Appellant was not available. They met A-3 again who reiterated the demand made by him on the previous day. It is stated that PW