Jaya Roy, J. The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.03.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge VIII -cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 14(A) /90(D) whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one years together with fine of Rs.250/-under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and further convicted for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year together with a fine of Rs. 250/- and both the sentences will run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant of this case namely Gafar Khan Lodged a written complaint to the S.P. (CBI) at Dhanbad on 8.10.1990 alleging therein that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification from him. It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant was facing a Departmental enquiry in which the appellant was the Enquiry Officer. The appellant had threatened the complainant and he was asked to pay the aforesaid sum otherwise he would be dismissed from his service. The appellant had agreed to accept a sum of Rs.4,000/- as part payment of the illegal gratification out of Rs.20,000/- at his quarter No. C-1/7, Koyla Nagar in the evening of 9.10.1990. The above complaint was endorsed to one T.J.Ghosh, the C.B.I. Inspector to verify into the matter and submit a report. The verification report by the aforesaid CBI Inspector was submitted on 9.10.1990 confirming the allegations of the complainant. On this basis a regular case was registered under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant who was at the relevant time posted at Bastakola area IX of B.C.C.L., Dhanbad as Personnel Manager i.e. R.C. Case No. 14(A)/90(D) dated 9.10.1990.

3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed under the aforesaid Sections of the Prevention of the Corruption Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in this case. P.W.1 C.K. Raman, P.W.2 Suraj Ram, P.W.3 T.N. Ghosh, P.W.4 Gaffar Khan (complainant), P.W.5 Sarabjeet Singh, P.W.6 Tapan Jyoti Ghosh, P.W.7 Sanat Kumar Mukhopadhayay, P.W.8 Bal Krishna Birdi. P.W.9 Jyoti Kumar, I.O.

5. The prosecution has brought several documents on records which are marked as Exhibit as Exhibit-1is sanction order, Ext.2 is series running from Ext.2 to Ext.2/79 are signatures on different documents, Ext.3 is complaint, Ext.4 and 4/1 are report of F.S.L. and 4/1 is forwarding copy ext.5 is preliminary memorandum, Ext.6 memorandum of recovery, Ext.7 is F.I.R., Ext. 8 is search list, Ext.9 is examination of Exhibits dated 6.12.90, Ext.9/1 is certificate of Superintendent of Police, Ext.10 is Arrest memo, beside these materials exts. are Ext. I is bottle containing solution of the hand wash, Ext.II envelop containing tainted paper Ext. III to III/1 are bottles, Ext. II/1 is sealed envelop containing notes, Ext. IV to IV/39 tainted 40 notes of Rs.100/- total Rs.4000/-. The defence has not examined any witness. However, at the request of the defence 'Ext. A' the second complaint petition, Ext. B.C.D are the files containing ext.1,1/1 and 1/2 beside this 'X' is photocopy of the verification report and 'Y' to 'Y/2' are three files have been marked for identification.

6. Mr. B.M.Tripathy, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing in this case has submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the appellant's case right from the beginning i.e. from the stage of submission of the written complaint, as the written complaint is full of cutting and interpolation and does not bear the signature of the court showing receipt of the same in the cou