PANKAJ BHANDARI,J. - (1.) The accused-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 19.06.2006 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Jaipur whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) Briefly state the facts of the case that the complainant-Hukum Chand lodged a written report Ex.P-3 to the Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (First) alleging therein that his Tata Sumo bearing registration No. RJ-17-C-0891 collided with a camel cart on 23.4.1999 when he was going from Jaipur to Mehandipur Balaji. It was alleged in the FIR that his vehicle was seized by the police and the investigation of the FIR was handed over to the appellant-Pukhraj. It was further mentioned in the FIR that Pukhraj demanded Rs. 5,000/- for release of the vehicle and the complainant gave Rs. 1,000/- on 24.5.1999, thereafter case diary was not sent and he had to give Rs. 2,400/-. It was alleged that till balance Rs. 1,600/- is given mechanical inspection would not be conducted. The Anti-Corruption Bureau for secret verification of the demand gave a tape recorder to the complainant and Sultan Singh was sent with the complainant for demand verification. A raid was conducted on 5.5.1999 and the amount of Rs. 1,600/- were recovered from the Quarter belonging to the accused-appellant. The Bureau after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.
(3.) Appellant was charged under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Act. As many as 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, Accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and five witnesses were examined as DW-1 to DW-5 in defence by the appellant.;