R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant - Virsingh Salubhai Rathod - original accused against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2000 passed by learned Special Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Special Case No. 6 of 1994 whereby original accused - appellant herein was convicted for the offence under section 7(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also convicted him for the offence under section 13(1) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also ordered to run both the sentences concurrently.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the accused appellant who was serving as primary teacher since last years in the primary school met the complainant in the year 1991 at his house and stated to the complainant to use his influence for appointment of the complainant as non-teaching teacher and also demanded Rs. 20,000/- to be given to the District Education Officer and also Rs. 2000/- for using the influence from the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filled in the form and given it to the PTC College, Junagadh but his interview was not done. Thereafter, the accused arrived at the home of the complainant and demanded the amount, but the complainant given him Rs. 5400/- and asked the complainant to meet the District Education Officer along with remaining amount. Thereafter, the complainant went in the office of the District Education Officer along with Rs. 4000/-, but the complainant gave Rs. 3600/- to the appellant accused. The appellant accused also given the receipt of Rs. 9000/- wherein the revenue receipt has also been affixed. It is alleged that again the appellant accused demanded Rs. 2000/- from the complainant. As the complainant did not want to pay the illegal gratification, he approached the ACB office and lodged the complaint. It is alleged that during the trap, the accused was caught red handed.

3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the original accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.

4.1 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - original accused has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

6. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant - original accused has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such. Whereas, the State has preferred the appeal for enhancement of sentence awarded by learned trial Judge.

7. Mr. B.Y. Mankad, learned advocate appearing for Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned advocate for original accused has taken this Court through the evidence on record and argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove vital ingredients as regards to demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is required to be extended to the appellant accused. He submitted that there appears some contradictions