JUDGMENT :

1. The Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2004 is filed by the appellant – original accused No.2 under Section 3 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21/11/2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.3, City Sessions Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.29 of 1993, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act, 1988”). The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and awarded fine of Rs.250/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 15 days for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year with a fine of Rs.250/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Sections 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act. Whereas, the Criminal Appeal No.560 of 2004 is filed by the appellant – Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the very same judgment and order dated 21/11/2003 so far as acquittal of the respondent – original accused No.1 under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the captioned appeals are as under :

2.1 The original accused No.1 - M.K. Katariya was serving as Regional Deputy Director and original accused No.2 – Govindji Dhalaji Majirana was serving as lower division clerk in the office of Regional Director of National Savings Organization at Ahmedabad. It is the case of the prosecution that an application was given by one lady namely, Sunitaben Tarachand Koshti for getting agency of Monthly Recurring Deposits Scheme, and for that, the said lady who is the wife of the complainant had approached the office of the accused, at that time accused No.2 had asked for Rs.600/- towards bribe by saying that she would not be required to come for an interview if she pays that amount. She was told that if she would not pay the amount then she would not get agency, inspite of giving interview. It was also told to her that out of the said amount, some share had to be given to his subordinate officer Mr.Manilal K. Kataria, accused No.1. It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter, as the lady was not inclined to give the amount of Rs.600/- towards bribe, her husband Tarachand Koshti filed a complaint before the office of CBI on 25.08.1993 and on the basis of the said complaint, the Police Inspector, CBI called two panch witnesses and after going through all the procedure for raid, had arranged for a raid on 26.08.1993. It is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant alongwith panch witness no.1 met accused No.2. They were having some conversation and thereafter, they had gone to the tea stall where some conversation had taken place between them and then the amount was offered and the same was accepted. Thereafter, on receiving the signal, the raiding party immediately rushed at the spot and accused No.2 was apprehended. On enquiry, it was disclosed by accused No.2 that the amount of bribe was not for himself but, it had been taken on behalf of his officer and from this amount, he was to pay some share to his officer also. Thereafter, Mr.Jitendrasinh again made some experiment of phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and the said amount was given to accused No.2 to give the share to his officer. Thereafter, the raiding party alongwith the complainant and panch witness No.1 had accompanied accused No.2 and went to the chamber of accused No.1 where also some conversation took place and the amount was offered by accused No.2 to accused No.1, which was accepted and upon signal received from inside the chamber, the raiding party had raided the chamber