The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented must inspire confidence.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - The State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Thane in Special Case No. 20 of 2001. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 (for short 'PC act'), whereas respondent No.3 was acquitted for the offence under Section 12 of the PC act.

2. The prosecution case is as under :-

(a) The complainant (PW-1) purchased flat consisting three rooms bearing Nos. 401, 402 & 403 on 4th Floor of building known as arafat Mahal, B-Wing, in the year 1994. He was occupying the said premises. He did not pay municipal tax from 1998 onwards.

(b) PW-1 was at his native place in Uttar Pradesh for a period of about one and half year from 1998. During his absence, the flat was sealed by Municipal Corporation for default in payment of tax. When he returned to the premises in the year 2000 he came to know about sealing of premises.

(c) In view of resolution of standing committee of Municipal Corporation passed in June, 2000 it was decided to deliver possession of flats to defaulters on payment of arrears.

(d) The complainant (PW-1) met accused No.1 in his office showing his willingness to pay the tax with a request to remove the seal.

(e) The accused No.1 told him to bring accused No.3, secretary of arafat apartment. On 29th June, 2000, the complainant met accused No.1 along with accused No.3. The tax was calculated and the accused told him to pay Rs.8,200/-towards tax and additional sum of Rs.3,000/- to him for performing work. The complainant returned without parting money.

(f) The complainant met accused on 4th July, 2000 at his office along with accused No.3 and requested to reduce the amount. On negotiation, the accused agreed to accept Rs.2,000/- for removing the seal of flat and the accused was told to give the amount to accused No.3 on 5th July, 2000.

(g) Since the complainant was not willing to give bribe, he lodged the complaint against accused No.1 with anti-Corruption Bureau, Thane. Complaint was recorded by Inspector Devade. Trap was arranged. Panch witnesses were called. The complainant produced amount of Rs.2,000/- for trap. Procedure for trap was completed.

(h) as per plan, the complainant met accused No.1 at his office. He was supposed to handover the tainted notes, if demand is made and thereafter, give signal to the raiding party. One of the panch was to accompany complainant and watch the events.

(i) The complainant and panch went to the Municipal Office at Kausa Mumbra. Raiding party waited outside. They met accused No.3 at Wasim Hotel. He told the complainant to give money to him as the accused No.1 will not accept money from him. The complainant gave trap notes to accused No.3. The amount was kept in pocket. They went to the Municipal Office. accused No.1 was not present in the office. accused No.2 was present in the office. He informed that the accused No.1 has proceeded to Sagar apartment. Hence, they went to Sagar apartment. accused was not found. They returned to Municipal Office and waited for accused No.1.

(j) accused No.1 reached the office at about 4.45 p.m. The complainant informed him that he paid Rs.2,000/- to accused No.3 and requested to accept the said amount and remove the seal.

(k) The accused ascertained this fact by questioning accused No.3. accused No.1 instructed accused No.3 to handover Rs.5,00/- to accused No.2 and obtain key of the flat from him. accused No.2 was instructed to receive the tax amount and handover the key of the flat.

(l) The complainant handed over the tax money to accused No.2. With the help of clerk receipt of Rs.7,100/- was prepared. Receipt of Rs.1,000/- was also prepared and was given to complainant. accused No.3 gave note of Rs.500 out of trap note to accused No.2. The complainant was told