Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By this appeal the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 2nd January, 2003 convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the PC Act’) and the order on sentence dated 3rd January, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months on each count.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the material witnesses, that is, the Complainant, the shadow witness and the recovery witness have turned hostile and the learned Trial Court has passed the judgment on the part testimony of the hostile witnesses. Reliance is placed on Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration, 1976 (1) SCC 727. The allegations against the Appellant are that he demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to complete the bail bond of the complainant pursuant to grant of anticipatory bail and since he could not arrange the money, the demand of bribe amount was reduced to