1. Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 1997 has been filed by the appellant – (original accused), under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C. Act”) read with Section 374(2) of Cr. P.C., challenging the Judgment and order dated 3rd July, 1997, passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special Case No. 14 of 1993, whereby the learned Special Judge, has held the appellant – accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, and under Section 193, 196 and 477A of I.P. Code, and sentenced him (i) to undergo SI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act; (ii) to undergo SI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act;

(iii) to undergo SI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 193 of I.P. Code; (iv) to undergo SI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 196 of I.P. Code. Learned Judge has ordered that in default of making payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment of two months for each such default. The learned Judge has also ordered that substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. However, no separate sentence is passed by the learned Judge for the offence punishable under Section 477-A of I.P. Code.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 1997 has been filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat, under Section 377 of Cr. P.C., for enhancement of sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, in Special Case No. 14 of 1993 vide Judgment and order dated 3rd July, 1997.

3. Both the above Appeals are arising out of the one and same Judgment and since the oral as well as documentary evidence are the same, they are heard together and disposed of together by this common Judgment.

4. The facts of the prosecution case are that, at the relevant time, the appellant – accused was serving as Sub-Registrar at Jam-Jodhpur. The complainant and his brother had purchased agricultural land from one Ashwin Trikam and Hasmukh Trikam by executing unregistered Sale Deed on a stamp paper of Rs.20/-. Thereafter, the complainant decided to execute registered Sale Deed. Therefore, the complainant inquired from the accused about the probable expenses and formalities. It is alleged that the accused informed the complainant that if the vendors and vendee of agricultural land are small farmers, the stamp duty will be somewhat lesser and the vendors and vendee has to file affidavit testifying that they are small farmers. The appellant – accused, therefore, advised the complainant to file such affidavit and thereafter informed the complainant to meet him again. Thereafter, Affidavit of one of the vendors Ashwinbhai was made before the Mamlatdar, through the Bond Writer Velajibhai and then the complainant alone met the accused and inquired from him about the probable expenses of registration of Sale Deed and at that time the accused demanded Rs.1000/-as an illegal gratification from the complainant for getting the Sale Deed registered. However, thereafter, the amount was reduced and settled at Rs.400/-. The accused also informed the complainant that he should pay the said amount at the time of registration of the documents. It is alleged that as the complainant was not willing to pay such amount and, therefore, he approached the A.C.B. Office at Rajkot on 10.1.1993, where his complaint was recorded by Police Inspector of A.C.B., Rajkot. On the basis of complaint, the Police Inspector called two Panchas on 11.1.1993 and narrated the facts about the complaint. Four currency notes, each of Rs.100/-denomination, were produced in A.C.B. Office, Rajkot, by the complainant. Usual experiments of ultraviolet lamp and anthracene powder was carried out in the A.C.B. Office. Thereafter, after completing the necessa