G.R. Udhwani, J.

Learned counsel Mr. Yatin Soni for the appellant has taken a serious objection to the appearance of learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for State of Gujarat on the ground that the State of Gujarat is a formal party since the learned APP is replaced by CBI counsel Mr. R.C. Kodekar. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt has contended that the State of Gujarat being a party to the appeal, has all the rights to address this court. This matter has been heard since last few days and this court has been addressed by learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt as also by learned CBI counsel Mr. R.C. Kodekar. Strangely enough the learned counsel Mr. Yatin Soni has no objection against the appearance of CBI counsel who is not party to the appeal but has an objection only against the appearance of learned APP for State; though the State of Gujarat being a party to the proceedings, the objection is not understandable; it is over.

2. Judgment and order dated 29.9.2000 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Court No.4, Ahmedabad City, in Special Case No. 24 of 1995 recording conviction and ordering the appellant to serve the sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short "the Act of 1988") is sought to be assailed in this appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.").

2.1 The appellant was employed as a Chief Draftsman with the Central Railway. One M/s. Chromatography and Instruments Company with whom the informant Rakesh Dhansukhlal Shah was employed as a store officer was awarded contract for supply of dissolved gas analysers at Jhansi and Nagpur. In pursuance to the tender floated by the Controller of Stores, Central Railway Office, Mumbai, the purchase order in respect of above two contracts came to be issued on 6.12.1994 and 16.1.1995 subject to inspection of machinery by one M/s. Rites Limited, which company was employed by Central Railway for the said purpose. It appears that the tenderer requested the Stores Department of Central Railway for inspection contending that the machineries were ready for use; however, inspection was not taking place.

2.2 The appellant allegedly contacted the informant on 18.3.1995 stating that his efforts had yielded the contract to the tenderer and therefore he must be paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/-; in absence of the bribe, he allegedly threatened to ensure the rejection of product during the inspection. The informant communicated this fact to Shri M.K. Shingari, proprietor of the firm above-named, who told the informant that the contract awarded to it on its own strength and not as a result of favour by appellant and therefore he was disinclined to pay Rs. 15,000/- to him. The informant therefore was instructed to lodge the complaint. The appellant allegedly again reiterated his demand telephonically on 19.3.1995 on which date he also talked to Shri M.K. Shingari. The appellant allegedly agreed to accept Rs. 10,000/- on 20.3.1995; i.e. before the inspection and the remainder of Rs. 5,000/- after inspection. Eventually FIR was lodged, trap was laid, the appellant was trapped while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification and the tainted money were recovered from the appellant.

2.3 Following oral as well as documentary evidences were adduced during the trial after the appellant sought trial rather than pleading guilty to the charge when asked to select such option.

1. Arvindbhai D. Rana, PW No.1 at Exh.22.

2. Rakeshbhai D. Shah, PW No.2 at Exh.32.

3. Kantibhai M. Patel, PW No.3 at Exh.39.

4. Bipinbhai P. Vora, PW No.4 at Exh.84.

5. Mahendrakumar Shingari, PW No.5 at Exh.85.

6. G.P. Thomas, PW No.6 at Exh.93.

7. B.D. Moris, PW No.7 at Exh.107 and

8. V.R. Rao, PW No.8 at Exh.108.

Documentary Evidence:

1. The complaint given by Rakeshbhai D. Shah dtd. 25.3.95 at Exh.33.

2. The award of the contract intimated by the Senior Store Officer on behalf of the President of India on 16.1.95 is produced at Exh.30.

3. The award of