S. L. Talati, J. :- The appellant is Junior Engineer working in Sub-Divisional Office (Telephones) in Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under S. 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also for the offence punishable under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one month on each count. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal.

2. The prosecution case shortly stated is as under : -

There is Federal Bank Ltd. which is a scheduled bank and it had a branch in National Chambers on Ashram Road at Ahmedabad. They wanted to shift their premises and go on the opposite side on the same road. The premises to which they were going to shift are situated near Ashok Karnavati Hotel. This was to be done some time in the month of May, 1980. Now the bank had a telephone o.78133 and also the Telex machine which was given No. 343. Now in due course they had applied and it appears that ultimately on 26-7-1980 the telephone was shifted. The bank in fact shifted the premises on 28-7-1980. Further prosecution case is that one Jawahar Abraham (P. W. 8) exh. 63 was working in the Federal Bank Ltd. and the accused demanded Rs. 200/- for shifting the telephone and the telex. Now this Abraham was in fact in charge of Manager also. But the new Manager took over from him as Manager and that person is P.W. 1, George exh. 44. Mr. George took over sometime around 28th July 1980 as Manager Abraham continued to work as Accountant. Now when Mr. George took over as Manager of the bank it is the case of the prosecution that Abraham told George that the accused had demanded Rs. 200/- for shifting the telephone and the telex and that amount he had not given to him. Further prosecution case is that in the new premises the bank also wanted one more telephone and for that purpose also under the "O.Y.T." scheme the bank had submitted an application with deposit which is necessary for the purpose, the deposit amount being Rs. 5,000/-. It appears that in the new building Telex was shifted some time in the month of October, 1980. According to the prosecution case when this Telex was shifted the accused demanded Rs. 300/- from Abraham and Abraham told him that the bank cannot pay any bribe and Abraham did not pay any attention to the demand made by the accused. Thereafter it appears from the evidence on record that the Telephone Department demanded a sum of Rs. 115/- for installation charges and that amount was paid on 4-12-1980. The bank received the information on 8-12-1980 that they would be given new telephone connection. Thereafter the prosecution case is that on 15-12-1980 the accused at some time noon went to the Bank and met Abraham and asked him as to where the new telephone was required to be installed. Abraham after consulting Mr. Geroge told him that the new telephone was required to be installed in Manager's cabin. Again on that day a sum of Rs. 300/- was demanded from Abraham for shifting the old telephone and the Telex and installing a new telephone. Abraham again did not pay any heed to this demand but informed George and George told him that he should inform the accused that the bank was agreeable to pay the bribe. Now the prosecution case is that on that day the accused had insisted on payment and asked Abraham to tell him as to whether the bank was willing to pay or whether the bank was not willing to pay and the answer in affirmative or in negative must be given and the prosecution case is that the accused threatened Abraham that unless the bribe amount was given to him new telephone will not be installed. When George was apprised of all this talk he told Abraham that the bank was agreeable to pay the amount and such information should be sent