The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for satisfactory evidence of the demand of illegal gratification, the significance of non-production of recorded conversation, and the potential for false implication based on the complainant's motive and behavior.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd July 2011 delivered by the Special Judge, Pune in Special case No.26 of 2009, convicting the appellant who was the sole accused in the said case, of offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act')

2. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer RI for six months with respect to the offence punishable under section 7 of the P.C. Act, and to suffer R.I for 1(one) year, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with respect to the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The learned Judge directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case can be best stated from the 'brief facts of the case' appearing in Column No.16 of the printed prescribed proforma of the police report/chargesheet. Digambar Bajirao Borade is a person working as a plumber in Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. He resides at Navy Nagar, Colaba, Mumbai. About two years before, he had purchased a shop admeasuring about 300 sq.ft situate at Maruti Mandir Chowk, Omkar Cooperative Housing Society. This shop is in the name of Borade's wife Pramila Borade. Borade is doing the business of footwear in the said shop, and has named the same as 'Mumbai Style Footwear'. There are totally five shops in the said co-operative society, and there are about 10-12 residential tenements. That the owners of the residential tenements have been made members of the said housing society, but no shop owner has been made a member. Borade had requested the Chairman of the said housing society on a number of occasions that his wife also be made a member of the society, but the society had not accepted Borade's wife as a member. Borade, therefore, made an application to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune on behalf of his wife, but though a period of two years elapsed, since the giving of the said application, the Society did not admit Borade's wife as a member of the Society. Borade had purchased the shop in the name of his wife from one Kothari, and after it had been purchased, he had paid a transfer fee of Rs.5,000/- to the Chairman of the said Society. However, while giving the receipt, the amount was shown as voluntary donation for the building fund. Borade was informed that in case of sale of premises by any member, the Society used to give such type of receipts only.

A few days after this incident, Borade had approached the Chairman of the said Society for obtaining a water connection, but was informed by the Chairman that since shop owners had not been admitted as members, they had no right to seek any assistance from the Society for water connection. Borade then asked the Chairman as to why in that case, an amount of Rs.5,000/- had been taken from him for which the Chairman could not give any satisfactory reply. Borade went to the office of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies after this incident, gave a written complaint and met Assistant Registrar Shri Katke. This was on 4th December 2008. Katke told him that he would entrust Borade's work to the Head Clerk Shri Bidgar (appellant). Borade then contacted Bidgar and inquired about his work when the appellant told him that Borade would have to pay Rs.500/- to him, and that otherwise, the appellant would not make any inquiry into Borade's application/complaint. Borade asked the appellant as to whether he would get a receipt in respect of the said amount, whereupon the appellant answered in negative. Borade then realized that the appellant was demanding illegal gratification from him. Borade did not intend to pay any illegal gratification, and therefore, told the appellant that he would not be able to give money to him. The appellant then said that he would not make any inquiry into the application of Borade.

4. Borade did not want to pay the am