JUDGMENT :

P.D. Naik, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2010 is preferred by the accused challenging the Judgment and order dated 11th March 2010, passed by Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai, Bombay in Special Case No. 19 of 2015, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act' for short) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, whereby he is sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Whereas Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2010 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra under Section 377(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) for enhancement of sentence passed by the Court in the aforesaid Judgment and order. For the sake of brevity, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2010 is hereinafter referred to as accused. The appeals were listed for direction/clarification on 1st July 2019 and after hearing parties again closed for Judgment.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:-

i. The accused was API attached to Malvani Police Station at the relevant time.

ii. In 2004, during off season, the complainant had started work of repairs of buildings. His friend Hasam Shaikh @ Khaja is a supplier of building material.

iii. On 10th March 2004, one Parvez Beig was brought by complainant's friend Hasam Shaikh and was introduced to the complainant. Parvez Beig was residing in Chawl No. 19, Gaikwad Nagar, Malvani, Bombay. He wanted to raise the height of his residential house.

iv. On 19th March 2004, the complainant visited the house of Parvez Beig and inspected the site. Complainant agreed to carry out work of repairs of house. The work commenced and continued for four to five days. On 22nd March 2004, complainant was called at beat no. 2 of Malvani Police Station. The accused was present. He questioned the complainant as to how he started the construction work without informing the Police. The complainant told him that it was a minor repair work and he thought that it is not necessary to report the same to Police. The accused then asked whether the permission was obtained from BMC for carrying out necessary work of the house. The complainant told him that no such permission was obtained from BMC as he was not raising the height exceeding the permissible height of the structure. Though, the complainant tried to convince the accused that it was a minor work, so that the action would not be taken against him, the accused demanded Rs. 5,000/- for not taking action against him. The complainant told the accused that he had taken the work which was of a minor nature and there would be no profit to him and the demand of Rs. 5,000/- was exorbitant. However, the accused insisted his demand. The complainant then sought time for payment.

v. On 24th March 2004, the accused took away five labourers with him from the construction site at the house of Parvez Beig to Malvani Police Station and imposed fine of Rs. 1,250/- per head on each labourer engaged by complainant. Complainant visited Malvani Police Station. The complainant paid Rs. 1,250/- for each labourer. After paying fine, the complainant again instructed the labourers to carry out work of repairs.

vi. The complainant was again called at Malvani Police Station at beat no. 2. The complainant visited Police Station. The accused was present. He was questioned as to how he restarted the construction work. The accused threatened the complainant that if he fails to pay him Rs. 5,000/- he will lodge a case against him under MRTP Act. The complainant showed his inability to pay the amount, but the accused warned him of the complaint. Hence, the complainant told him that he would meet him soon in that connection.

vii. On 26th March 2004, the complainant went to A