- (1.)The appellant assails his conviction in Special Case No.1 of 2011 at the hands of Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, on being charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the PC Act"). By the impugned judgment delivered on 24/5/2012, the appellant, on his conviction, has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fne of Rs.5,000.00, in default to suffer S.I. for six months, on both the counts i.e. on conviction under Sec. 7 and for conviction under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
(2.)The prosecution case is sought to be established through fve witnesses.
The starting point of the implication of the appellant is a complaint fled by the complainant-Rajendra Shankar Mahangade (PW 1) on 21/12/2009 with the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, "the ACB"), Satara. He allege that he purchased landed property as well as house property on 29/11/2008 in village Sartale, Taluka Javli, belonging to one Smt. Hausabai Navale through a registered Sale Deed for consideration of Rs.9,55,000.00. The Sale Deed was registered in the Sub-Registrar's offce, Medha and an application was fled to Talathi for entering his name in 7/12 th extract in the month of January, 2009. The Talathi informed him that 7/12th extract would be furnished to him after 15 days and Smt.Hausabai should also be brought to the Talathi since her thumb impression was required to be obtained in the Register. The complainant accompanied with Hausabai, visited Talathi's offce after two days and the necessary formalities were completed and he was assured about the 7/12 th extract being furnished.

After 15 days, when the complainant approached the Talathi for obtaining the corrected 7/12th extract, he was informed that one Tushar Ganpat Navale has fled an objection and, therefore, the matter was now referred to the Circle Inspector of Kudal, Shri Gosavi (the appellant) and he was directed to meet him. On meeting, the complainant was informed by the appellant that he will have to record the statement of Hausabai, Tushar and the complainant and for that purpose, he will issue notices to all concerned, who should remain present on that date. Since the complainant was summoned on 20/5/2009 by the notice, he presented himself in the offce of the Circle Offcer, Kudal. On that date, the objector was present, but Smt.Hausabai was not present. No statement was recorded by the appellant and the matter was adjourned. The complainant allege that the case was adjourned from time to time, but he was particular in attending all the dates. When he approached the appellant on 16/12/2009 in his offce at Kudal and sought response about progress of his work, the appellant demanded Rs.20,000.00 for entering his name in 7/12 th extract, by disposing all the objections. Unwillingly, the complainant agreed to his demand and thought it ft to report the matter to the ACB. Accordingly, he lodged his complaint on 21 st December, 2009 with the ACB.

(3.)On receipt of the complaint, PW 4 -Uday Aaphale, working as P.I. in the ACB offce at Satara, typed it on his computer and after obtaining the signature of the complainant, on reading of the complaint, he called two panchas from the District Employment Offce at 11.30 a.m., who are examined as PW 2 and PW 3 respectively. The panchas were introduced to the complainant and were supplied the copy of the complaint. In order to verify the complaint, the complainant was asked to make phone call to the appellant, who told the complainant to come with an amount of Rs.10,000.00, which the complainant had managed to collect. On such verifcation, it was decided to lay a trap. The complainant produced amount of Rs.10,000.00 in the currency notes of Rs.500.00 and after completing the necessary formalities and on applying the anthracene powder on the said notes, the notes were placed in left shirt pocket of the complainant and the paper on which the powder was applied to the currency notes and the cotton swab by which it was applied as well as the box of the anthracene powder was kept in one packet and it was sealed and kept in the drawer of the ACB offcer, after obtaining signature of the complainant and the panch witnesses. The complainant was handed over a tape-recorder by the ACB offcer with one cassette of 90 minutes inserted in it and the sample of his voice was recorded on 'A' side of the cassette. He was directed to switch on the tape-recorder before entering the offce of the appellant. Panch No.1 (PW 2) was asked to accompany the complainant so as to listen the conversation and take note of the activities whereas panch No.2 was instructed to accompany the members of the raiding party and to keep watch about the signal. This is how, the trap was laid involving panch Nos.1 and 2.