K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (TAct for short) and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (TI. P. C. T for short) has been challenged.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is stated below. P. W. 2 Mohamad Usman is an employee of the Rourkela Steel Plant. In the evening of 24-9-1978, the appellant, who was serving as the Officer-in-Charge of the Government Railway Police Station, Rourkela (TG. R. P. S. for short) called him and when he came told him that he was involved in a case of wagon breaking and was likely to be arrested and sent up to court for trial, in which case, he would lose his service. P. W. 2 became anxious to escape from such a situation and requested the appellant to find him a way out. The appellant asked for a bribe of Rs. 1500/- so as to save P. W. 2.- P. W. 2, however, expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and ultimately the bribe amount was settled at Rs. 500/ -. P. W. 2 requested for time for a couple of days for making the payment. In the same evening, P. W. 5 Baishnab Charan Samal, a local journalist, purporting to be a bail or for P. W. 2, signed a piece of paper. P. W. 2 could not arrange the promised amount immediately. Therefore, he obtained a letter (Ext. A) from P. W. 5 addressed to the appellant asking for some more time for making the payment. P. W. 2 also felt outranged by the illegal demand of the appellant, went to the local vigilance police office and lodged F. I. R. (Ext. 1) making allegations against the appellant for illegal demand of bribe from him. On the strength of Ext. 1 a trap was arranged and all arrangements in pursuance thereof were made. P. W. 2 secured a loan of Rs. 400/- from P. W. 6 Mohamad Yakub and added a sum of Rs. 100/- from his own pocket. On 27-9-1978 the trap was laid. P. W. 2 paid the sum of Rs. 500/- in currency notes to the appellant while he was in the police station in the evening. The appellant accepted the currency notes by his left hand from P. W. 2. P. W. 3 Sadhu Charan Biswal was the overhearing witness. When he saw the payment and overheard the conversation between P. W. 2 and the appellant, he gave the signal, whereupon, the officers of the vigilance department, including P. W. 8, the Investigating Officer, Inspector B. Das and P. W. 4 Shri Jaganmohan Pani, an Executive Magistrate entered inside the office and caught the appellant red-handed in the act of accepting bribe. When P. W. 8 asked the appellant about the currency notes, the appellant prayed for permission to go to the bath room to urinate. After he returned within a few minutes, he gave out that he hap asked for a loan of Rs. 500/- from P. W. 5 Baishnab Charan Sarnal to meet the ensuing Dassera expenses and that P. W. 5 had sent the loan amount of Rs. 500/- to him through P. W. 2 Patently, the explanation offered by the appellant did not satisfy P. W. 8, who, carried on investigation and after obtaining sanction for the prosecution (Ext. 14) from the Inspector General of Police, Orissa, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for having committed offences under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Act and section 161, I. P. C.

( 3 ) THE defence of the appellant was that he did not know P. W. 2 Mohamad Usman nor was there any case against him, suggesting thereby, that there was no necessity to call him to the police station. At that time a large gang under the leadership of one Karunakar Naik was operating and engaged in theft of valuable property by breaking Railway Wagons. Being an honest and efficient police officer he was specially deputed and posted as Officer-in-Charge of the Government Railway Police Station, Rourkela so as to prevent the crimes. He subsequently checked the crimes and submitted charge-sheet against Karunakar Naik and 71 others. During this period P. W. 5 Baishnab Charan Samal was working as