JUDGMENT :

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

This appeal takes exceptions to judgment dated 18.08.2008 passed in Special Case No.1 of 2000 by the learned Special Judge, Gr. Bombay, by which both the appellants who are original Accused Nos.1 and 2, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They are further convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. During the pendency of appeal, appellant No.1 died on 13.09.2018 and to further prosecute the appeal, his wife and three children by filing Criminal Application No.1751 of 2018 sought permission to prosecute the same, which application was allowed by order dated 29.11.2018.

3. Brief facts of case of prosecution can be stated as under: P.W.2 Abu Mohamed Maniyar, the complainant, at the time of incident was into purchase and sale of scrap, having a shop situated at Kurla (East), Mumbai. Both the appellants were posted as Police Naiks attached to Parksite Police Station. On 16.03.1999 both the appellants went to the shop of complainant along with one Rashid, who was accused in the Criminal Case registered against him for the offence of commission of theft. In the shop of complainant Abdul Rashid informed that he has sold the stolen scrap material to complainant, complainant denied to have purchase any such material upon which appellant No.2 raised his hand thereby applying force upon complainant, as he was denying the fact of purchase since stolen property. At the same time, appellant No.1 Laxman Banger said to complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- to them if he wanted to save himself from the criminal case. The above demand was negotiated and was reduced to Rs.13,000/- and complainant on the same day paid Rs.10,500/- to the appellants and balance amount of Rs.2,500/- was agreed to be paid and accepted on 19.03.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. at hotel Nityanand at Ghatkopar (West), however, as complainant was not interested to pay further amount as bribe, he attended office of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged report which was recorded by P.W.7 Ramesh Mahale, Investigating Officer.

4. It is the case of prosecution that immediately on receiving complaint two independent panchas were called in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau to act as Panch and upon complaint offence is registered vide Crime No.17 of 1999 vide Exh.21. Complainant than produced 25 currency notes of Rs.100/- each in denomination of which serial numbers were noted in the pre-trap panchnama. Complainant as well as both the panchas were given demonstration of effect of Anthracin powder when it was noted that when it is seen under the raise of ultra-violet lamp, it gives bluish colour shine. The staff from the Anti Corruption Bureau office thereafter applied anthracin powder to the currency notes and kept it in the shirt pocket of complainant with directions to not to touch the same and to pay to appellants on their demand. Complainant was further instructed to give signal by folding his sleeves. While P.W.3 Sachin Chavan was instructed to accompany complainant and to watch the conversation whatsoever may take place between the complainant and appellants. At the same time P.W.6 Ram Valecha, the second panch was instructed to watch the proposed signal to be given by complainant to the raiding party. After giving necessary instructions as above said, pre-trap pachnama is drawn as per Exh.23.

5. Trap came to be laid at Nityananad Hotel where at about 2.00 p.m. appellant No.1 arrived where complainant and P.W.3 Sachin were present and after having introductory talk, all of them entered Shalimar hotel situated nearby and while having tea appellant No.1 demanded amount of Rs.2,500/- which complainant paid and requested not to take action against him to which appellant No.1 agreed. Immediately, on complainant's giving proposed signal, members of the raiding team arriv