(1.) - The appellant was convicted under S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/ - on the first count and one year rigorous imprisonment on the second count. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The facts of the case are as follows :
(3.) In this appeal Mr. P. S. Poti learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence on the question of demand as well as on the acceptance of illegal gratification is insufficient and does not inspire confidence. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution version as to how the accused appeared to receive the tainted money is highly artificial and does not merit acceptance at all. We have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and have perused the relevant evidence. We find it difficult to come to a different conclusion.