1. The appellant herein challenges the judgment and order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.93 of 2004 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for six months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default S.I. for six months.

2. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this Appeal, are as follows :-

One Ashok Shankar Tiwari (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was working as a Travel Agent in Gallop Travels Agency. Prior to working in Gallop Travels Agency, he was working for Madhura Travels. On 14.3.2000, the complainant was arrested by Flying Squad of Local Crime Branch on the accusation that he had booked tickets for passengers without licence. Crime No.3007/2007 was registered against the complainant under Section 143 of Indian Railways Act. Charge-sheet was filed against him before 36th Court, Mumbai Central Railway, Mumbai. The said case was registered as CC No.162/P/2000. In the said case, the evidence of the Investigating Officer was to be recorded on 25.3.2003.

3. The appellant herein was representing the State as a prosecutor. On 25.3.2003, the Investigating Officer was absent. The next scheduled date was 27.3.2003. The accused was being represented by Advocate Shri Vora. It is alleged that after the matter was adjourned to 27.3.2003, the present appellant had asked the complainant to wait outside the Court. At about 2 p.m., the appellant had allegedly discussed with the complainant the evidence against him. He had asked the complainant to accompany him to his office. At about 2.15 p.m., the appellant had allegedly demanded Rs.2,000/- as a gratification for favouring the accused and also for receiving Rs.40,120/- from the Court. The said amount was seized from the complainant in the course of investigation. The complainant had expressed his inability to extend any gratification. The appellant had allegedly threatened the complainant that he will make it sure that the accused would be awarded maximum punishment. The complainant was scared and had given Rs.300/-and the appellant had instructed him to give the balance amount of Rs.1700/- on 27.3.2003.

4. The complainant therefore decided to approach the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Accordingly, he went to the A.C.B. Office on 26.3.2003 and had narrated his complaint. The Investigating Officer had arranged for a trap. He followed the procedure by calling upon the panchas. After having completed the formalities, it was decided to lay a trap on 27.3.2003. According to the prosecution, the trap was successful. It is alleged that the appellant had accepted the amount however, he had entrusted the same to the original accused No.2 (since deceased). The amount was recovered from accused No.2 (since deceased). The Investigating Officer lodged a report on the basis of which Crime No.20/2003 was registered against the appellant and the deceased-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The appellant was a public servant and hence the Anti-Corruption Bureau had obtained sanction for prosecution and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed on 10.11.2008. The case was registered as Special Case No.93/2004. Sanction was obtained on 15.6.2004. The prosecution examined following six witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused :-

1) P.W.1 - Ashok Shankar Tiwari, the complainant.

2) P.W.2 - Somnath Mandhaji Bhabad, Police constable attached to Mumbai Central Railway Station.

3) P.W.3 - Namdeo Rabaji Gaikar, Panch No.1.

4) P.W.4 - Kal