1. Devendra Mavjibhai Makwana, the appellant – original accused of Criminal Appeal No.1280 of 2003 and Nazir Ahmed Gulam Mustafa Shaikh, the appellant – original accused – have preferred these appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Mehsana, in Special (ACB) Case No.19 of 1999, whereby, the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 4 (four) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, to undergo further R.I. for 06 (six) months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d), (1)(2)(3) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 (four) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, to undergo further R.I. for 06 (six) months. The accused No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 (four) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, to undergo further R.I. for 06 (six) months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d), (1)(2)(3) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 (four) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, to undergo further R.I. for 06 (six) months. The learned Judge has ordered that substantive sentences are to run concurrently.

2. As both the appeals arise out of the same Special Case, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

The Complainant-Kiritkumar Bhogilal Raval was living at Unava village and was earning his livelihood by doing pooja and labour work. The complainant was having LML Vespa bearing registration No.GJ24238. On 02.15.1999, he sold the same to one Mahendrasinh Ajaykumar Kapoor of Palanpur for Rs.7,000/and it was promised by the complainant to register the said vehicle in his name. As the said vehicle was of R.T.O., Mehsana, on 03.15.1999, the complainant went to Office of Mehsana R.T.O., met the clerk, deposited Rs.15/and got receipt No.589957 and completed the other formalities. Thereafter, he went to office of D.M.Makwana, appellant-accused No.1, where he was told that he had to pay Rs.100/for No Due Certificate. At that time, as the complainant did not have money, on the next day he again approached and again appellant-accused No.1 demanded Rs.100/. As the complainant did not want to pay the bribe amount, on 28.05.1999, he approached ACB Office, Mehsana and lodged a complaint. Accordingly, Devabhai Chhatrabhai Bhabhor, PI called two panchas, Ramanbhai Vitthaldas Patelpanch No.1 and Bipinkumar Madhavlal Patelpanch No.2. Thereafter, the complainant was introduced by PI to panchas and also explained the procedure of raid. Thereafter, the complainant produced the currency notes of the bribe amount and on the said notes, anthracene powder was applied. Then, preliminary panchnama was drawn. The complainant put the said currency notes in the left pocket of his shirt. He was advised not to touch the said amount of bribe, prior to making of demand. Thereafter, they went to the place of offence. Panch No.1 was advised to stay with the complainant whereas panch No.2 was advised to stay with members of raiding party. At that time, appellants accused were present there. When the complainant gave No Due Certificate and bribe amount of Rs.100/, accused No.1 accepted the same amount and passed it to accused No.2 and put in his pocket. As decided earlier, signal was given and members of the raiding party rushed to the place of incident and from the