Z. K. SAIYED, J.

1. THE appellant - original accused has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 3rd March, 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.7, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Special Case No. 35 of 1996, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant - accused for the offence under sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo further R.l. For 15 days. The appellant is also convicted for the offence under Section 13(l)(d) of the P.C. Act and is sentenced to undergo R.l. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ -, in default, to undergo further RI for 15 days, which is impugned in this appeal. The learned Judge has ordered substantive sentences to run concurrently.

2. THE brief facts of the prosecution case is as under :- That on 7.2.1996, complainant Firozkhan Hafizkhan Pathan, manufacturer of wooden heels of chappals, gave a complaint before the ACB that before about four years he purchased house for Rs.1,05,000/-. The municipal tax of the said house for the previous years to the tune of Rs.4000/-remained unpaid and, therefore, the licence under the Shops and Establishment Act by the Health Department of the Corporation has not been issued to him. It is alleged thjat prior to Diwali, the appellant - accused, who was Sanitary Inspector in the Corporation, and also the other persons of the said Department, have visited his shop and told that the complainant is not possessing the licence under the Shops and Establishment Act and, therefore, he should pay Rs.50/- per month and then he would not require to obtain any licence. It is alleged that on 7.2.1996 the appellant - accused came to his shop and asked the complainant that why he has not paid the amount of Rs.50/- and thereafter told him that he should approach his office between 4.00 and 6.00 p.m and pay the amount. As the complainant did not want to pay the said amount, he approached the Office of Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodged the complaint. After receipt of the complaint, the panchas were called and after following the due procedure, raid was carried out and the accused was found accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant in presence of Panch No.1. It is alleged that experiment of ultra-violet lamp was carried out on the hands and clothes of the accused and the anthracene powder marks were found. After following due procedure, panchnama was drawn and after raid was over, after getting due sanction for prosecution, Police Inspector Mr. Rathod of ACB submitted the charge-sheet against the accused.

Thereafter, the charge was framed against the appellant. The appellant - accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. IN order to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant- accused, the prosecution has examined four witnesses and also produced documentary evidence on record before the trial Court. On behalf of accused, one witness D.W. 1 - Rajesh Kantilal Darji (Exh.27) has been examined.

4. THEREAFTER, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused under sec. 313 of Cr PC was recorded in which the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution.

After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Special Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2000, held the appellant - accused guilty of the charges levelled against him and awarded the sentence as referred herein above.

5. BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad, the present appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. HEARD Mr. Jayesh Bhairavia, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr H.L. Jani, learned APP for the responde