MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 14th February, 2005 and an order dated 15th February, 2005 passed by Special Judge, Delhi in CC No. 23/2001 whereby the appellants were convicted for offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “PC”). They were sentenced to undergo :-

i) Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

ii) Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

iii) Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. It was observed by the trial court that all the substantive sentences to run concurrently and benefit of period of detention already undergone be given. Fine stood paid.

3. The appeal was admitted on 23rd February, 2005. The sentence of the appellants was suspended by order dated 4th March, 2005.

4. The case of the prosecution is recorded by the trial Court. The details of the same are that the case was registered by the CBI against the accused persons on the basis of written complaint of Sh. C.K. Dhingra wherein he alleged that on 1st May, 2001 appellant No.1 visited the premises of the complainant i.e. L-13, Kalkaji, New Delhi and threatened him to seal the said building in which the construction work was going on. The appellant No.1 directed the complainant to stop the construction and threatened him if the amount of Rs.3 lacs is not paid to him, he will not allow the construction and in case of non-payment, he will demolish the building. On the request of complainant that it is difficult for him to arrange Rs.3 lacs, appellant No.1 directed him to pay Rs.50,000/- by 3.00 pm on 2nd May, 2001. The appellant No.1 further said that he would come to the showroom of complainant to collect the first installment of bribe and further directed him to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1 lac in two or three days and the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- after 15 days. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe and wanted legal action against appellant No.1. On 2nd May, 2001 a case RC No. 35(A)/2001 was registered which was entrusted to Inspector A.K. Malik for investigation who procured presence of two independent witnesses namely, Sh. Mahipal Singh Panwar and Sh. Ram Sharma, both LDC from DDA, Vikas Sadan. A trap party consisting of Inspector U.K. Goswami, Inspector M.M. Ansari, SI Prem Nath was constituted under the leadership of Inspector A.K. Malik. The complaint was read over to the witnesses who got themselves satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint. The complainant also produced Rs.50,000/- in the form of 100 GC notes of Rs.500/- each, numbers of which were noted down in the handing over memo. The GC notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and practical demonstration was given to show the reaction between phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate with the help of Sh. Ram Sharma. After demonstration, the solution was destroyed. The powder treated GC notes were kept in the upper left side pocket of complainant and he was directed to handover the said GC notes to appellant No.1on his specific demand or to any other person on his direction. Sh. Mahipal Singh was directed to act as a shadow witness and to remain as close as possible to the complainant and to overhear the conversation and to see