JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 19-11-1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Washim in Special Case No. 8/1994, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 = months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of prosecution can briefly be stated as under :- At the time of incident, the appellant/accused was serving as Junior Clerk in Tahsil Office, Mangrulpir, District Akola. P.W.1 Haribhau Chawan, the complainant is resident of village Jogaldari, Tahsil Mangrulpir, District Akola and had applied to Tahsildar, Mangrulpir for grant of permission for operating brick kiln on Gat No.30 vide his application dated 26-11-1990 and thereafter applied for grant of permission to excavate soil from Government land for running business of brick making by his application dated 10-12-1990. The complainant thereafter contacted accused for couple of times when accused demanded amount of Rs. 500/- as bribe. The complainant thus on 14-12-1990 met Tahsildar, Mangrulpir with a request for grant of above permissions, who in turn directed accused to grant the same. However, accused even thereafter did not take any step with reference to applications filed by the complainant as stated aforesaid. 3. In that circumstance, on 17-12-1990 the complainant met the District Collector, Akola and stated about the demand made by accused by making an application. The District Collector accordingly forwarded complainant's application to the authorities of Ante Corruption Bureau, Akola. On receipt of said application, P.W.5-Dashrath Gawande, Police Inspector, Ante Corruption Bureau asked the complainant to contact accused and to fix the date for making payment of bribe amount of Rs. 500/-. Accordingly, on 18-12-1990 the complainant met accused in Tahsil Officer. On that day, accused issued challan for Rs. On receipt of said application, P.W.5-Dashrath Gawande, Police Inspector, Ante Corruption Bureau asked the complainant to contact accused and to fix the date for making payment of bribe amount of Rs. 500/-. Accordingly, on 18-12-1990 the complainant met accused in Tahsil Officer. On that day, accused issued challan for Rs. 760/- and asked the complainant to deposit the said amount in the bank and to collect the permissions on the following day. It is the case of prosecution that on that day i.e. on 18-12-1990 accused told complainant to bring Rs. 300/- and without payment of said amount he would not issue the permissions to the complainant. Thus, the complainant on the same day visited the office of Ante Corruption Bureau and lodged his complaint. 4. P.W.5 Gawande, Police Inspector recorded his complaint and asked the complainant to come to the office of Ante Corruption Bureau on the next day i.e. on 19-12-1990. Accordingly, complainant visited the office where two panchas were present and were informed about the trap to be laid by the officers of Ante Corruption Bureau. The complainant and both panchas were thereafter given demonstration of chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder when it comes into contact with solution of sodium carbonate. The complainant thereafter produced Rs. 300/- consisting three notes of Rs. 100/- each in denomination. Serial numbers of said currency notes were recorded in the panchanama and on being applied with phenolphthalein powder, said currency notes were kept in the shirt pocket of complainant with instructions to not to touch the same and to not to make payment unless demanded by accused. Instructions were also given to both the panchas by instructing P.W.3 Janardhan Bansod to act as first panch and to remain with the complainant and to hear the conversation whatsoever may take place between the complainant and the accused, while co-panch was instructed to remain present with the raiding party. The complainant was further directed to give proposed signal if accused accepts the bribe. After drawing pre-trap panchanama, trap came to be laid at Tahsil Office, Mangrulpir. Before that the complainant visited the bank and deposited the amount of challan and along with P.W.3 Janardhan went to the office of accused where accused came to be apprehended as was found to have demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 300/-. 5. After drawing pre-trap panchanama, trap came to be laid at Tahsil Office, Mangrulpir. Before that the complainant visited the bank and deposited the amount of challan and along with P.W.3 Janardhan went to the office of accused where accused came to be apprehended as was found to have demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 300/-. 5. According to the prosecution case, when right hand fingers of accused were dipped into solution of sodium carbonate, it turned into violate colour. Similarly, when said newly prepared solution was sprinkled on the bribe amount, violate colour dots were found on them. Thereafter complainant was called and when his fingers were dipped into the fresh prepared solution of sodium carbonate, it changed into violate colour. Similarly, on dipping the shirt pocket of complainant in freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate, it changed into violate colour. Post panchanama came to be drawn and applications filed by the complainant for grant of permissions Exhibit 17 and 23 respectively came to be seized. 6. After apprehension of accused and on drawing post trap panchanama and seizure panchanama, P.W.5-Gawande, Police Inspector lodged his complaint with Police Station Mangrulpir, on the basis of which offence came to be registered vide Crime No.240/90 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On receipt of sanction for prosecution of accused and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Special Judge, Washim. 7. Charge is framed against the accused vide Exhibit 10 for above offences to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case of accused is of simple denial and of false implication. 8. Considering the evidence on record and documents, the learned trial Court convicted accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 9. Heard learned Counsel Shri O.Y. Kashid for the accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Rashi Deshpande for the respondent/State. For effectively evaluating the submissions advanced by learned Counsels for both the sides, I have scrutinised the evidence on record with their assistance. 10. Hence, this appeal. 9. Heard learned Counsel Shri O.Y. Kashid for the accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Rashi Deshpande for the respondent/State. For effectively evaluating the submissions advanced by learned Counsels for both the sides, I have scrutinised the evidence on record with their assistance. 10. P.W.1 Haribhau Chawan, the complainant has stated that on 26-11-1990 he had submitted application to Tahsildar, Mangrulpir for grant of permission to start brick kiln on the field of one Pralhad Narayan Adhao vide Exhibit 17 and along with his application he had produced 7/12 Extract of the land owned by Pralhad at Exhibit 18 and his authority letter authorising complainant to start his business vide Exhibit 19. The complainant along with his application Exhibit 17 had also supplied No Objection Certificate issued by Talathi along with map of field of Pralhad vide Exhibit 20. Map is at Exhibit 21. He had also supplied Certificate issued by village Sarpanch at Exhibit 22. 11. It is further stated by the complainant that he had also applied for grant of permission to excavate soil from the Government land as per Exhibit 23 and accused since was working in Tahsil Office, Mangrulpir, he was dealing with all such applications for grant of permission and had accordingly given both the applications to the accused, when he had demanded Rs. 500/- when complainant expressed his inability to pay said amount. 12. It is further stated by P.W.1 Haribhau, the complainant that he thereafter contacted Tahsildar, Mangrulpir with reference to his applications, who accordingly instructed accused to grant permissions as applied for by the complainant. However, accused did not issue such permissions and thus complainant applied to District Collector, Akola vide his application Exhibit 24, who forwarded the application to Ante Corruption Bureau Office. It is further stated that thereafter complainant was asked by P.W.5-Gawande, Police Inspector attached to Ante Corruption Bureau to fix a date and time to pay the amount of bribe by contacting the accused. It is further stated by the complainant that on next day he contacted accused and enquired about his applications when accused prepared one challan for Rs. 760/- and directed the complainant to deposit said amount in the bank on the next day. Upon complainant enquiring with the accused about issuance of permissions, accused told him that he will issue the same on payment of Rs. 760/- and directed the complainant to deposit said amount in the bank on the next day. Upon complainant enquiring with the accused about issuance of permissions, accused told him that he will issue the same on payment of Rs. 300/- to him and thus the complainant visited the office of Ante Corruption Bureau on the same day. It is further stated by the complainant that on the same day accused asked complainant to pay Rs. 300/- on the next day and thus he visited office of Ante Corruption Bureau. 13. The complainant has further stated that in the office of Ante Corruption Bureau his complaint was reduced into writing by P.W.5 Gawande, Police Inspector at Exhibit 25 and directed him to come on the next day in the morning at 8.00 a.m. Accordingly, he visited said office where two panch witnesses were already present, who had gone through the contents of complaint Exhibit 25. The complainant thereafter produced three currency notes of Rs. 100/- each in denomination and was then given demonstration of effect of phenolphthalein powder with solution of sodium carbonate and thereafter phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and same were kept in his shirt pocket. On complainant's visiting to the office of Ante Corruption Bureau, apart from the bribe money he was possessing Rs. 760/- along with other articles. Complainant has further stated about P.W.5 Gawande, Police Inspector instructing him to give signal by moving his left hand over his head after the amount is paid and has stated about instructions given to P.W.3 Janardhan, the panch witness to remain with him throughout the trap. 14. It is further stated by the complainant that on arriving to Mangrulpir, he along with P.W.3 Janardhan went to the bank wherein he deposited Rs. 760/- through challan vide Exhibit 26 and thereafter both of them came to the office of accused and contacted him. In the office, complainant produced challan and asked for the permit upon which accused directed the complainant to come in the afternoon. It is stated by the complainant that at that moment accused had also enquired about P.W.3 Janardhan, who was introduced by complainant as his partner. Thereafter both of them came out of the office of accused and informed panch No.2 and members of raiding party that they were called by the accused in the afternoon. 15. It is stated by the complainant that at that moment accused had also enquired about P.W.3 Janardhan, who was introduced by complainant as his partner. Thereafter both of them came out of the office of accused and informed panch No.2 and members of raiding party that they were called by the accused in the afternoon. 15. It is further stated by the complainant that at about 2-00 p.m. he along with panch went to Tahsil Office where accused alone was present and enquired about the permissions when accused took out register from the cupboard and obtained complainant's signature and issued him licence. At that time accused asked the complainant "as to whether complainant has done his work", to which complainant replied in "affirmative" and took out Rs. 300/- from his shirt pocket and tendered it to accused, which amount was directed by him to be kept in a register. Accordingly, the complainant kept said amount in the register opened by accused and on coming out of the office, gave the proposed signal upon which members of raiding party arrived and apprehended the accused. 16. The complainant further stated that half an hour thereafter he was called in the office, fingers of his right hand were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, which turned into violate colour. He has further stated that in the freshly prepared solution when his shirt pocket was dipped, it turned into violate colour. 17. In his cross-examination, complainant has admitted that he had applied to the Tahsildar on 26-11-1990 and has denied that he had not submitted application on 26-11-1990. In fact, from Exhibit 17 on record it appears that by filing the same complainant had applied to Tahsildar to start business of brick kiln and the application is dated 26-11-1990. It has further come in the cross-examination that he had correctly mentioned in his application Exhibit 24 made to Collector, Akola that he had applied to Tahsildar on 26-11-1990 and admits that on that day he had contacted the accused and on that day accused had not demanded any bribe. Complainant also admitted that on his submitting application Exhibit 23 for grant of permission to excavate soil there was no talk between accused and him and thereafter contacted accused after about seven days on which day accused asked to come on the next day. Complainant also admitted that on his submitting application Exhibit 23 for grant of permission to excavate soil there was no talk between accused and him and thereafter contacted accused after about seven days on which day accused asked to come on the next day. It has come in his evidence that he had visited accused for about thirteen times and thereafter accused made demand of bribe. Complainant has denied that accused was insisting him to deposit royalty amount for 150 brass soil while complainant was willing to pay royalty amount for 50 brass of soil only and has denied that for this reason he has made a false complaint Exhibit 24 to Collector, stating that accused demanded bribe. 18. It has further come in the cross-examination of complainant that he visited office of accused on 18-12-1990 on which day Tahsildar asked accused to pass challan, which was accordingly passed by the accused. However, on that day since the complainant was not having with him amount of challan with him, he could not deposit said amount in the bank on that day. Even otherwise it has come in his evidence that it is the accused who asked the complainant to deposit the amount of challan in the bank on the following day as the complainant was not having cash on that day. Complainant has denied that on that day accused informed him that his licence was ready and that he should collect it. Complainant further stated that he visited the office of Ante Corruption Bureau on 18-12-1990 at about 4-00 p.m. and on lodging his complaint again visited the office of Ante Corruption Bureau on 19-12-1990 in the morning where both the panchas arrived after 10 to 15 minutes to whom the complainant narrated his complaint. Complainant has denied that phenolphthalein powder was not applied in his presence upon the currency notes produced by him in the Ante Corruption Bureau Office. It is denied that accused had not demanded Rs. 300/- from him and that he has lodged a false report. It is also denied that he had forcibly kept Rs. 300/- in the register without the knowledge of accused. It is further denied that earlier complainant had made similar false complaints against the overseer of Public Works Department and several such complaints against other officials. 300/- from him and that he has lodged a false report. It is also denied that he had forcibly kept Rs. 300/- in the register without the knowledge of accused. It is further denied that earlier complainant had made similar false complaints against the overseer of Public Works Department and several such complaints against other officials. Admittedly, no such complaint or any record to that effect is brought on record in support of above suggestion by the defence. 19. In the light of above-said evidence of complainant, it is pertinent to note that except for bare suggestion put to the complainant that accused had not demanded Rs. 300/- as bribe and that complainant has planted the same, there is absolutely no challenge to the evidence of complainant in the entire cross-examination on the aspect of accused demanding and accepting amount of Rs. 300/- as deposed by him. On the contrary, with reference to the evidence of complainant about his visiting office of accused, it appears from Exhibit 17 that on 26-11-1990 he had applied to Tahsildar Mangrulpir for grant of permission to a start brick kiln and had supplied 7/12 extract with his application in respect of a land owned by Pralhad Adhao upon which the business of brick kiln was to be started. Exhibit 19 corroborates the evidence of complainant about Pralhad issuing his authority letter to complainant Haribhau, to set up brick kiln upon his land in Survey No.30, while Exhibit is 20 No Objection Certificate issued by concerned Talathi for setting up brick kiln upon Gat No.30 of which map is on record Exhibit 21. Exhibit 22 is the certificate issued by Sarpanch of village Jogaldari having no objection for grant of permission to set up brick kiln. Exhibit 23 is an application of complainant for excavating 50 brass soil, which is dated 06-12-1990, while Exhibit 24 is the application made by the complainant to Collector dated 17-12-1990 based upon which complainant visited the office of Ante Corruption Bureau and was informed by P.W.5 Gawande, Police Inspector to fix the date and time with the accused and accordingly trap came to be laid. 20. 20. In the background of above documentary evidence and corroborative evidence of complainant as aforesaid from the complaint Exhibit 25, it is also established that on that day complainant visited the office of Ante Corruption Bureau and lodged his complaint, which is dated 18-12-1990, which corroborates evidences of complainant when he has stated that on his contacting accused for enquiring about his application, accused prepared challan Exhibit 26, which is also dated 18-12-1990 valued for Rs. 760/- and directed complainant to deposit said amount in the bank on next day, which falls on 19-12-1990. According to the complainant, on 18-12-1990, on receiving the challan, when he asked accused to issue the permit, he was informed that he will issue the same on payment of Rs. 300/- and since was directed to pay the challan on the next day i.e. 19-12-1990, on the same day i.e. 18-12-1990 the complainant visited the office of Ante Corruption Bureau and lodged his report Exhibit 25. 21. When above documents are considered with the evidence of complainant, it thus appears that on his applying for grant of permission on 26-11-1990 and 06-12-1990 for starting brick kiln and for excavating soil for said business respectively, in spite of applicant's visiting office of accused on number of occasions and though his superior authority Tahsildar gave direction to accused to issue necessary permissions, accused did not act upon the same. From the evidence of complainant, it has specifically come on record that it is only on 18-12-1990 accused prepared challan and directed complainant to deposit amount of challan in the bank on the next day and on the same day informed complainant that he would issue the permits only on payment of Rs. 300/- to him and thus on the same day on 18-12-1990 accused visited the office of Ante Corruption Bureau and lodged his report. 22. On the point of demand and acceptance there is specific evidence of complainant that on his meeting accused in his office after 2-00 p.m. with P.W.3 Janardhan, the panch, on complainant's enquiring about his permission, accused asked the complainant "as to whether he has done his work", to which he replied in the "affirmative" and took out Rs. 22. On the point of demand and acceptance there is specific evidence of complainant that on his meeting accused in his office after 2-00 p.m. with P.W.3 Janardhan, the panch, on complainant's enquiring about his permission, accused asked the complainant "as to whether he has done his work", to which he replied in the "affirmative" and took out Rs. 300/- from his pocket and tendered it to accused, which amount was directed by accused to be kept in the register, which was accordingly kept by the complainant and thereafter gave the proposed signal. Above evidence on the point of demand and acceptance is in no way shattered in the cross-examination of complainant, which on the contrary finds fully corroborated with the documentary evidence referred as above. 23. Evidence of complainant Haribhau as stated aforesaid is found further corroborated from the evidence of P.W.3 Janardhan, the panch witness when he has stated that as per the directions of his superior officer from Sales Tax Office, Akola, he visited the office of Ante Corruption Bureau on 19-12-1990 at 8.30 a.m. where he was introduced with the complainant and gave consent to act as panch in a trap case and had thereafter read the contents of complaint Exhibit 25, which according to him was in respect of demand of bribe money for issuing licence. He has stated that he also verified the contents of complaint by enquiring with the complainant and on being satisfied signed on it along with co-panch. According to his further evidence, on obtaining personal search of complainant, he was found having with him cash amount of Rs. 760/- and other articles, one challan and Rs. 300/- consisting of three notes of Rs. 100/- each in denomination of which serial numbers were mentioned in the pre-trap panchanama. P.W.3 Janardhan thereafter stated about demonstration of phenolphthalein powder with solution of sodium carbonate given by the officers of Ante Corruption Bureau where from it revealed that when phenolphthalein powder comes into contact with the solution of sodium carbonate, it turns into violate colour. 100/- each in denomination of which serial numbers were mentioned in the pre-trap panchanama. P.W.3 Janardhan thereafter stated about demonstration of phenolphthalein powder with solution of sodium carbonate given by the officers of Ante Corruption Bureau where from it revealed that when phenolphthalein powder comes into contact with the solution of sodium carbonate, it turns into violate colour. He has stated that phenolphthalein powder was thereafter applied to the bribe money and it was kept in shirt pocket of complainant and instructions were issued to him to accompany complainant and to observe the activities whatsoever may take place at the time of trap, while the complainant was instructed to first deposit the amount of challan in the bank and then to contact the accused and to enquire about his permit. He further stated that the complainant was instructed to pay the bribe money only on demand and then to give signal by stretching his head by left hand. This witness has proved pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 34. 24. It is further stated by P.W. 3 Janardhan that thereafter he accompanied the raiding party members along with complainant and co-panch. At about 11-00 p.m. they left Akola for Mangrulpir and reached at around 12.30 p.m. Thereafter he along with complainant went to the State Bank of India where complainant deposited challan and then came to the office of accused. The members of raiding party were following them. On his reaching in the office of accused with complainant, accused was found sitting there to whom complainant gave challan and enquired about his permits, upon which accused told him to come in the afternoon and accordingly they came out of the office and went to the office of accused again at 2.00 p.m. At that time, accused was alone sitting in the office to whom complainant asked to issue the permits, upon which he issued one permit to the complainant. It is further stated that on complainant's insisting for second permit, accused told him that he will issue second permit after sometime and at that moment enquired from complainant "as to what has happened about his work", upon which complainant informed that "he has brought the amount". Accused thereafter demanded the same and asked complainant to give the amount when complainant took out the bribe amount from his shirt pocket by right hand and tendered it to accused. Accused thereafter demanded the same and asked complainant to give the amount when complainant took out the bribe amount from his shirt pocket by right hand and tendered it to accused. Accused told him to keep amount in an open register where he accordingly kept the amount and gave the proposed signal. According to this witness, while accused touched the bribe money members of raiding party arrived in the office and apprehended accused. 25. P.W.3 Janardhan has further stated that when right hand fingers of accused were dipped into the solution of sodium carbonate, it changed into violate colour. According to him, thereafter complainant was called in the office of Ante Corruption Bureau and when his right had fingers were dipped into the solution of sodium carbonate, it turned into violate colour. Similarly, on dipping the shirt pocket of complainant in said solution of sodium carbonate, it turned into violate colour. He has proved post trap panchanama at Exhibit 35 on record and seizure panchanama in respect of documents at Exhibit 36. It has come in the evidence of this witness that accused was then asked to give his explanation. 26. In his cross-examination, complainant has denied to have not gone through the contents of complaint or about his verifying correctness thereof from the complainant. He has also denied that no demonstration of chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution was given in the office of Ante Corruption Bureau. Though P.W.3 Janardhan has stated to have mentioned before Investigating Officer Gawande that complainant has demanded permit from accused and said omission has been duly brought on record from the evidence of Investigating Officer Gawande, it does not affect the case of prosecution as it is not a material omission touching to the facts of the case. Similarly, though it has come in the evidence of P.W.3 Janardhan that accused had not demanded amount at the time of issuance of first permit, it is no case of prosecution as according to the evidence of complainant on his demand accused issued first permit, however on his demanding for the second permit accused informed him that he will issue it after sometime and asked accused whether he has done his work to which he replied in affirmative and tendered bribe amount of Rs. 300/- which accused accepted. 300/- which accused accepted. P.W.3 Janardhan has denied that accused has not asked the complainant about "his work" and that complainant has replied him that he has brought the amount and thereafter paid the same to accused. He has also denied that there was no change in the colour of sodium carbonate solution after accused's fingers were dipped into it or that no violate colour spots were found on the seized bribe notes while sodium carbonate solution was sprinkled upon them. 27. Considering the evidence of panch, an independent witness as aforesaid same finds fully corroborating the evidence of complainant on all material aspects, particularly with reference to demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 300/- by the accused. Even otherwise nothing material is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to doubt his testimony. 28. Case as set out by prosecution and evidence of complainant is further found corroborated from the evidence of P.W.2 Abdul Rahim, who on the day of incident he was working as Tahsildar at Mangrulpir. He has stated that he was serving as Tahsildar from 07-6-1990 to 30-4-1992 and accused was his Reader and was dealing with applications for grant of permissions for brick kiln and other related applications. He has stated that on 19-12-1990 accused was present in the office and P.W.1 Haribhau had applied for grant of permission to start brick kiln, which according to his evidence was already signed by him on 15-12-1990 and has proved permission on record at Exhibit 28, which corroborates evidence of this witness having issued on 15-12-1990. P.W.2 Abdul Rahim has further stated that accused had issued said permission to complainant on 19-12-1990. No explanation is put forth on behalf of accused for not handing over said permission to complainant prior to 19-12-1990 or at least on 18-12-1990 when according to the case of prosecution accused has prepared challan Exhibit 26 on that day and could have very well instructed complainant to deposit the challan in the bank on the day itself and could have given permission on 18-12-1990. However, from the evidence of complainant it has come on record that despite complainant's visiting office of accused on 18-12-1990 accused asked complainant to pay Rs. 300/- to him upon which he would issue the permit and thus on the same day on 18-12-1990 accused by visiting office of Ante Corruption Bureau lodged his report. However, from the evidence of complainant it has come on record that despite complainant's visiting office of accused on 18-12-1990 accused asked complainant to pay Rs. 300/- to him upon which he would issue the permit and thus on the same day on 18-12-1990 accused by visiting office of Ante Corruption Bureau lodged his report. In fact, in the cross-examination of P.W.2 Abdul Rahim, it has come on record that on 18-12-1990 itself it is the complainant on depositing royalty amount through challan, could have collected permission. 29. Similarly, case of prosecution is further found substantiated from the evidence of P.W.4 Ramesh Ubale, District Collector, Akola who has stated that at the time of incident accused was serving in Tahsil Office at Mangrulpir of whom he was appointing authority and as such was competent authority to remove accused from his service. Prosecution has examined this witness to prove sanction on record at Exhibit 41, accorded for launching prosecution against accused. However, defence has not seriously disputed said aspect involved in the appeal. In the cross-examination of this witness, it is suggested that since complainant visited his office and made complaint to him, which was accordingly forwarded by him to the office of Ante Corruption Bureau, he has accorded sanction for prosecution, which is denied by him. 30. On considering the evidence of complainant having materially corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 Janardhan, an independent witness as well as evidence of P.W.2 Abdul Rahman, Tahsildar and P.W.4 Ramesh Ubale, Collector, prosecution can said to have established its case beyond all reasonable doubt, that accused while working as a Junior Clerk in Tahsil Office, at Mangrulpir and since was dealing with applications for grant of permission to start brick kiln and other related permissions for excavating soil etc. deliberately withheld complainant's permission, for excavating soil from Government land with an intention to demand and accept bribe amount of Rs. 300/- of which demand was made by him to the complainant, which was further reiterated on the date of incident on 19-12-1990 and has accepted the same, when he came to be apprehended by the members of raiding team. 31. It is material to note that it has come in the evidence of P.W.3 Janardhan that during the course of drawing of post trap panchanama, accused was asked to tender his explanation. 31. It is material to note that it has come in the evidence of P.W.3 Janardhan that during the course of drawing of post trap panchanama, accused was asked to tender his explanation. Similarly, P.W.5 Dashrath Gawande, Investigating Officer has deposed of his asking accused to submit his explanation, which was accordingly submitted by him. However, admittedly, neither his explanation is forming part of record nor contents thereof appears in the post trap panchanama Exhibit 35. In view of above fact, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede reported in (2009) 15 SCC 200 , wherein para 16 of its judgment it is observed by the Apex Court that "before invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt." In view of above observations, it is necessary to consider the explanation whatsoever offered by the accused before raising presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. However, it is material to note that in spite of above evidence, no steps are taken on behalf of accused to bring on record his explanation. Even otherwise accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not put forth any explanation and is silent on this aspect. In fact, in view of evidence of P.W.3 Janardhan, the panch, who has deposed that he has singed on the explanation of accused, defence at the time of trial could have had very well brought said document on record and in that case could have had confronted the same to P.W.3 Janardhan, however, no such recourse appears to be adopted nor as stated aforesaid any explanation was tendered by accused while recording the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that view of the matter, nothing is on record in the form of explanation of accused which can be considered. 32. In that view of the matter, nothing is on record in the form of explanation of accused which can be considered. 32. With reference to the facts involved in the appeal, learned Counsel for accused has further relied upon the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779 , wherein it is reiterated that mere recovery of tainted money by itself is not enough, in absence of evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. In view of above observations, when above discussed evidence is considered, prosecution as already stated earlier can said to have established above requirement and as such it can safely be said that in absence of any explanation to be considered, accused is found to have demanded and voluntarily accepted the bribe money knowing it to be bribe. 33. Lastly, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1979) 4 SCC 526 , wherein paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment it is observed thus :- "There could be no doubt that evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165-A, IPC making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon. (Para 8) On facts, there was no corroboration of the testimony of the complainant regarding the demand for money by the appellant. (Para 8) On facts, there was no corroboration of the testimony of the complainant regarding the demand for money by the appellant. On this crucial aspect, therefore, it has to be found that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant on this aspect cannot be relied on." (Para 9) Considering the facts involved in above cited judgment, same cannot be considered in favour of accused, as in that case there was no corroborative evidence to the evidence of complainant, however in the appeal in hand evidence of complainant is found fully corroborated by further evidence on record in the form of evidence of P.W.2 Abdul Rahman, the independent witness and others as referred above along with documents on record, while in the case referred Supra (Panalal Damodar Rathi), there was no corroboration to the testimony of complainant regarding the demand of money by the accused and thus evidence of complainant was not relied. 34. In view of above discussed evidence, prosecution is, therefore, found to have established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. I, therefore, find no substance in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 35. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is confirmed. On the application of learned Counsel for the appellant, time of six weeks is granted to the appellant to surrender to Jail, from today.