S. Muralidhar, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 19th July 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, in CC No. 134/06/01 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and the order on sentence dated 22nd July 2008 whereby for the offence under Section 7 PC Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for two months and for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) PC Act, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for one and half years with fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default, to undergo SI for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The Appellant was employed as Patwari with the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’). The case of the prosecution is that the Complainant, Tarkeshwar Sharma (PW-5), who was conducting furniture business at 18-C, Bharat Vihar, Kakrola, Delhi, was told by certain employees of the DDA that his house was going to be demolished and that he had been called by the Patwari. In his complaint to the Anti-Corruption Branch (‘ACB’) on 11th August 2000 (Ex.PW-5/A), he stated that two or three days after receiving the above message, he met the Appellant in his office when the Appellant demanded a bribe amount of Rs. 5,000 for not demolishing the house. Upon request of PW-5 the amount was reduced to Rs. 4,000 and some time was granted to arrange for the same. PW-5 further stated in his complaint that on 31st July 2000 he again met the Appellant and gave him Rs. 1,500 as first the instalment. PW-5 also explained his financial difficulty. He stated that the Appellant called him again on the next day, i.e., 1st August 2000 and asked for the balance amount from PW-5. He stated that he would bring it to the office of the Appellant in Subhash Nagar, DDA office between 11 am and 12 noon.

3. Since PW-5 was not willing to pay any further bribe amount he went to the office of the ACB and lodged a complaint. R.S. Yadav (PW-8) who was posted as Inspector in ACB recorded the complaint of PW-5 in the presence of the panch witness, Amod Barthwal (PW-7). PW-5 gave two government currency (GC) notes of Rs.500 each to PW-8, who noted down their serial numbers in the pre-raid report (Ex.PW-5/F). Thereafter, PW-8 applied phenolphthalein powder on the GC notes and gave a demonstration as to its effect. The treated GC notes were then handed over to PW-5 to be given to the Appellant. PW-5 kept the GC notes in the pocket of his shirt. PW-7 was directed to remain close with PW-5 so that he could overhear the conversation and give a signal when the bribe money was being handed over to the Appellant.

4. At around 10.30 am, PW-8 along with PW-5, PW-7 and Inspector N.S. Minhas, Investigating Officer (IO) (PW-9) along with other members of the raiding party left the ACB in a government vehicle for DDA office, Subhash Nagar, Delhi. The raiding party reached there at around 11.55 am. While PW-7 and PW-5 went inside the office of the DDA, PW-8 along with other members of the raiding party took suitable positions outside the office.

5. From the evidence of the panch witness (PW-7), it emerged that he and PW-5 went to the room where the Appellant was sitting. Thereafter PWs 5 and 7 along with the Appellant came outside the office and went to a tea stall near the DDA office. The Appellant asked PW-5 whether he had brought the bribe money. PW-5 replied in the affirmative and took out the treated GC notes from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same in the right hand of the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant put the said GC notes in the left pocket of his shirt. At that point PW-7 gave pre-determined signal by hurling his right hand over his head. The raiding party reached there. PW-8 introduced himself and c