JUDGMENT :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. Although the matter came up before this Court both, on a Criminal Misc. Application as well as the main Criminal Appeal, the learned counsel for both parties, while consenting for the final adjudication in the main appeal itself, made their final arguments. Thus, the present judgment disposes the main Criminal Appeal as well as the Criminal Misc. Application.

3. The present Criminal Misc. Application and the Criminal Appeal, are preferred claiming the following reliefs :

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 146/2021:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and during the pendency of appeal operation of the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 15.2.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No. 74/2015 [14/2012] for the offence U/s. 7, 13 [1][D], 13 [2] of Prevention of Corruption Act may kindly be Stayed.”

In S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 211/2021:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and impugned Judgment of conviction dated 15.2.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No. 74/2015 [14/2012] for the offence U/s. 7, 13 [1][D], 13 [2] of Prevention of Corruption Act may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellant may kindly be acquitted from the alleged offences in the interest of Justice.”

4. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the Court are that the complainant, Vinod Kumar Pareek, filed a complaint before the A.C.B. Bhilwara on 08.03.2011, stating therein that he runs a business of seed insecticide, in the name of Anuj Krishi Seva Kendra at village Maanpura, and that on 07.03.2011, the accused-appellant, Vinod Kumar Pandey, the then Assistant Director of the State krishi/agriculture department, Kotadi, Dist. Bhilwara inspected the shop premises of the said business run by the complainant and that upon noticing that a carton of seeds had expired, which was supposedly kept aside to be disposed of by the complainant, and that the then Assistant Director served a notice to the complainant and directed him to be present at Kotadi the subsequent day, which is when he allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 6,000/- from the complainant so as not to initiate proceedings against the complainant. And that, the appellant told the complainant to come to House No. C-8, R.K. Colony, Bhilwara, where the A.C.B. had set a trap, which was being recorded on a D.V.R. and that on the scene, the appellant’s son was present who in turn took the bribe from the complainant. Subsequent to which, the appellant, Vinod Kumar Pandey and his son, Prashant @ Bhanu Pandey, were arrested and F.I.R. was lodged against them at the A.C.B. Jaipur for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)D / 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as it then stood) and Section 120B I.P.C. and an investigation was conducted by the S.P. Police, Bhilwara whereby the call details of the appellant were acquired and submitted into evidence before the learned Court below. And that the learned Court below convicted the appellant, Vinod Kumar Pandey, for the offences under Section 7, and under Sections 13 (1) (D) and 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as it then stood) and sentenced him to 3 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo one month S.I. and 4 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo one month S.I., respectively.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below has not taken into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, and that the impugned order passed by the learned Court, s