The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the demand of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant as a primary requisite for the commission of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

1. By this appeal, the appellant assails legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-11-1998 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.9/93, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (In short "the Act") and sentenced to undergo R.I. of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the records of the case, FIR and the judgment of the trial Court is that the complainant-Dharmu, P.W.10 was granted lease for rearing fish in respect of two tanks. He had agree to sell grown fishes of the tank to one Yashoda Kewantin and in connection with that he approached the appellant for grant of permission, upon which, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.200/-. As the complainant was not willing to give bribe, he went to co-villager-Kartik Ram and then it is said that the complaint in EX.P-5 was prepared and submitted in the Vigilance Office at Raipur. Upon receipt of complaint, the Vigilance team prepared for trap by taking currency notes from the complainant which were chemically treated and then kept in his pocket with instructions. Chemical reaction of Sodium Carbonate with Phenolphthaiein Powder was also demonstrated in presence of punch witnesses and the complainant. The aforesaid proceedings were reduced in writing by recording Panchnama, EX.P-6. Further case of the prosecution that after that, the trap party along with the complainant went in search of the appellant, who was found in the market, where the complainant talked to him and handed over bribe money to the appellant, which is said to have been kept by the appellant in his pocket. At this juncture, the trap party arrived at the spot and according to the case of the prosecution, the chemically treated notes were recovered from the pocket of the appellant. Hands of the complainant as also the currency notes were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and it is said that the colour turned pink. The hand wash so collected were kept and sealed in separate bottles. The currency notes, shirt (wearing apparel) and other sealed bottles were seized vide Ex.P-8. A trap panchnama was prepared in Ex.P-9. Receipt book, Statement and Register were seized vide Ex.P-10. Spot map was prepared by Parwari vide Ex.P-11. Dehati Nalishi was also recorded vide EX.P-12. Lease documents and other receipts were seized vide EX.P-13. The statements were recorded in EX.P-13 & P-14. Another spot map in EX.P-16 was also prepared. FIR Ex.P-17 was registered. Sealed bottles containing hand wash and other solutions were sent for chemical examination vide covering memo dated 2202-1990 (Ex.P-18), in response to which, report in EX.P-19 dated 21-10-1993 of FSL was received Sanction for prosecution was also obtained vide Ex.P18. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. On the basis 9f material contained in the charge sheet the learned trial Court framed charges of commission of offence under Section 7 and 13(1)( d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act on 25-08-1993 against the appellant. The appellant abjured guilt and denied having received any bribe and he was put to trial.

4. In order to prove its case, in addition to submitting number of documents, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses namely B.B. Das, P. W.1, Ku. Yashoda Behra, P.W.2, Retram, P.W.3, A. K. Verma, P.WA, Sudama Ram Bariha, P.W.5, Kartik Ram, P.W.6, Ramakant Shukla, P.W.7, B.I.R. Naidu. P.W.8. Nand Kumar Singh, P.W.9, Dharmu, P.W.10. Gajadhar Prasad Patel, P.W.11 and O.P. Dubey, P. W.12. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing from th