The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special No. 4/2008 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The appellant was working as Recovery Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. The complainant Shri Sanjeev Omprakash Agrawal had purchased one Flat in Apartment No. B, Ward No. 74, constructed on Nagpur Improvement Trust Plot No. 76, Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur in a public auction held by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on 11th June, 2007. The auction money of Rs. 10,01,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the Debt Recovery Tribunal within the prescribed limit. The confirmation of sale was also given. Thereafter the complainant was frequently visiting the office of Debt Recovery Tribunal to get possession of the said flat. Since the appellant was working as Recovery Officer in the office of Debt Recovery Tribunal and it was within his jurisdiction to take care of grievance of the complainant in respect of possession of the flat purchased by him. Mrs. Kusum W. Muktewar, who appears to be a defaulter and was in possession of the said flat, continued to possess the said flat and did not vacate the same. It is alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant to take effective steps for getting the said flat vacated. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe amount and therefore, he had approached the Office of Central Bureau of Investigation, Nagpur. The complaint of the complainant was recorded. As per usual practice, the complaint was verified by making telephone call to the appellant. The telephonic conversation was recorded on the micro cassette. The said conversion was thereafter copied to a regular cassette.

3. The demand was made on 9th October, 2007. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant had called the complainant at his residence on 9th October, 2007. The complainant had accordingly visited the house of the appellant. The appellant was not present at his house. The complainant, therefore, gave his mobile number to the Security Guard of the building. It is alleged that the complainant received a phone call from the appellant demanding Rs. 25,000/- for taking necessary steps to recover possession from the defaulter Mrs. Kusum Muktewar. The complaint was lodged on next day i.e. 10th October, 2007. As stated earlier, the verification of the complaint was done and trap was arranged. As per usual practice, money was provided by the complainant by way of Indian Currency Notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/-. The said money was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and it was given to the complainant for being handed over to the appellant. The necessary panchanamas in respect of the application of phenolphthalein powder to the notes were drawn and all arrangements were made to trap the appellant at his residence. The appellant was residing at Flat No. 803, 8th Floor, Kalpana Building, Central Bazaar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.

4. The complainant was directed to visit the house of the appellant along with panch witness Mr. Pramod Pekade and was directed to give a missed call to the C.B.I. Officer Shri Rishi as soon as the money was accepted by the appellant.

5. Accordingly, the complainant and panch witness Shri Pramod Pekade visited the house of the appellant. The appellant had accepted Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant by way of part payment and said amount was kept by the appellant in the newspaper lying in the bedroom. A missed call was given by the complainant to the C.B.I. Officer, C.B.I. Officers along with second panch witness Shri Gogate reached 8th Floor and rang call bell of flat No. 803. The door was opened by the panch witness Shri Pramod Pekade. The C.B.I. Officers and another panch witness entered the flat. The complainant disclosed the C.B.I. Officers that he had handed over money to the appellant and money