JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 4, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.01 of 2011 (Computerized No.1600001 of 2011) ( State through Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow v. Banshraj ), arising out of R. C. No. 0062011A0001/2011, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act, 1988") Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow by means of which the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

i. under Section 7 PC Act, 1988 three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/- and, in case of default in deposition of the fine amount, six months additional rigorous imprisonment; and

ii. under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) PC Act, 1988 four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 40,000/- and in case of default in deposition of the fine amount, one year's additional rigorous imprisonment.

It has also been directed that both the sentences would run concurrently and the period spent in jail shall be adjusted in the sentence awarded.

2. Prosecution case, in FIR, was that accused-appellant, Banshraj, who was posted as Senior Executive Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical ) (hereinafter referred to as the "E&M), Kakari Project, National Coal Limited, Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "NCL") used to harass complainant, R.K. Mittal by asking for bribe for the work of dismantling and creating HT overhead line.

3. The tender was floated when required at mines in the area of the Kakari Project. The Technical Committee Member was Mr. P. Rai, Chief Engineer (Mines), but in his absence, the accused-appellant, being the Senior Executive Engineer (E&M), acted as Technical Committee Member. The Tender Committee Recommendations (hereinafter referred to as the "TCR") were made by the accused-appellant.

4. Complainant, R.K. Mittal was L-1. The accused-appellant allegedly asked the complainant to bring Rs. 2,600/- otherwise, he would disturb working of the complainant. The accused-appellant allegedly also told the complainant that his Rs.7,000/- was balance for the previous TCR and asked the complainant to bring the previous balance amount of Rs. 7,000/- as well.

5. The complainant gave a complaint to the CBI/ACB on 13.01.2011 in respect of the said demand of bribe by the accused-appellant.

6. After verifying the complaint, the case was registered by the CBI. During pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, the accused-appellant was arrested on 18.01.2011, at around 2 p.m., demanding and accepting Rs.9,600/- from the complainant, which was for making TCR in favour of the complainant and Rs. 20,000/- in respect of the payment made against the bills for the work done by the complainant.

7. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (i) (d) PC Act, 1988. The cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet on 06.05.2011 by the learned trial Court and accused-appellant was summoned to face trial.

8. Charge was framed on 08.07.2011 for the offence under Section 7 read with Sections 13 (2) and 13(i)(d) PC Act, 1988.

9. The accused-appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.

10. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 9 witnesses and proved 20 documents.

11. The accused-appellant, in his defence, examined 5 witnesses.

12. Statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein he had said that the sanction for his prosecution was given without application of mind and, denied that he demanded and accepted any bribe from the complainant. He had also said that pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were illegal and denied the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. He also said that the CBI, after arresting him, got his signatures on post-trap m