1. This Appeal is directed against appellant's conviction by the learned Special Judge, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 60 days with a fine of Rs.500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for 15 days imposed upon the appellant on each of the two counts.

2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:-

The appellant was serving as a shop inspector in the office of the Additional Commissioner of Labour at Pune. PW-2 Pratibha Bhojraj Ostwal was running a shop by name Sahyog Provision Stores since 1989. Her husband had deposited requisite fees for getting license under the Bombay Shop & Establishment Act, 1948. However, the Certificate was not received from the appellant's office. PW-4 Prakash Bansilal Salunkhe is the brother of said Pratibha, who was reading in the final year of Law. When Pratibha and her husband lamented about non-receipt of Shop Act license, Prakash Salunkhe, the Complainant was asked to look into the matter, since he was doing nothing at that time. He claims to have gone to the office of the appellant in March, 1991 to make an enquiry about the license. The appellant told him that the previous application was lost and therefore, asked him to get a fresh application. The appellant, however, told the Complainant that there was no need to pay fees afresh, since challan for payment of Rs.15/- was already there. On 18th March, 1991 the Complainant Prakash submitted a fresh form filled by his sister, attaching a photocopy of the previous challan whereby fees of Rs.15/- had been paid. The appellant asked the Complainant Prakash to come after two days for collecting the license. On 22nd March, 1991 at about 11:30 a.m. Prakash claimed to have met the appellant and asked him about the license. The appellant told him that the license was ready but that Prakash would have to pay Rs.100/-. Prakash stated that he has only Rs.25/- with him. The appellant accepted that sum of Rs. 25/- and asked Prakash to come back with Rs.75/-.

3. Prakash then claims to have been gone back to his sister and discussed the matter with his sister and brother-in-law. It was decided to lodge a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau. Therefore, in the noon Prakash went to the office of ACB and lodged a report. The officers called panchas and asked them to report again on 25th March, 1991, since balance amount of Rs.75/- was to be paid after two days, that is on 25th March, 1991. In the morning of 25th March, 1991 a trap was arranged. A pre-trap panchanama of all the activities preceding the trap was drawn up. Marked currency notes smeared with Anthracene powder were kept in the pocket of the Complainant. The Complainant, accompanied by PW-1 Sou. Usha Dattatraya Ranate, one of the panchas shadow witness, was asked to go to the office of the appellant and pay the amount. Accordingly, at about 10:30 a.m. the Complainant accompanied by PW-1 Sou. Usha Dattatraya Ranate went to the office of the appellant and found him in sitting at a table. Complainant asked the appellant about the license. The appellant stated that the license was ready and asked whether Prakash had brought the fees. The appellant opened his brief case and handed over the license asking Prakash to take entries in the relevant register on a different table in the same office, but immediately called back the Complainant and asked for payment. Accordingly, the marked currency notes were taken out by the Complainant and paid to the appellant which the appellant accepted in his right hand and put them in the pocket of his shirt. One Sayyed Gani was standing near the table of the appellant throughout. On Complainant's giving predetermined signal, raiding party swooped.

4. One of the officers in the raiding party held the hands of the appellant, who was all the while protesting that the amount was forcibly inserted in his pocket. Th