The primary requisite for an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is proof of a demand or request for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th September, 1997 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Criminal Case No.8/94, whereby and whereunder the appellant is held guilty of commission of offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and S.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. In default of payment of fine on both count, additional S.I. for 3 months.

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that while the appellant was posted and working as Dy. Ranger at Jatga Forest Range, he carried out search in the house of complainant -Babulal and recovered certain logwood and on the threat of registering a forest offence case against the complainant and number of other villagers, demanded Rs.400/- from each of the complainant and other residents of the village. In response to demand, the complainant expressed to give Rs.200/- and he was called by the appellant on 3.11.1992 with bribe money. As the complainant was not willing to give bribe, report in Ex.P-1 was lodged in the Vigilance Office at Bilaspur on 2.11.1992. Pre-trap proceedings were drawn under which demonstration of reaction of sodium carbonate with phynolpthelein powder was given in the presence of complainant and panch witnesses, phynolpthelein powder was smeared on two currency notes each of Rs. 100/-. It was given to complainant-Babulal for being handed over to the appellant. The number of currency notes were noted. A panchnama of pre-trap proceedings was prepared in Ex.P-2. Further case of the prosecution is that thereafter the trap party along with the complainant went to the house/office of the appellant and it is alleged that the complainant gave bribe money as demand by the appellant, which was accepted and soon thereafter trap party arrived in the house and on the memorandum (Ex.P-4) of co-accused Chhedilal, the currency notes were recovered from the platform of the house of the appellant vide seizure memo of Ex.P-5. Hands of the complainant and other witnesses were washed, which were collected and sealed in bottles. Currency notes were also seized. Papers relating to preparation of forest offence were seized vide Ex.P-6 from Chhedilal, the Beatguard. Other relevant documents relating to preparation of forest offence were also seized vide Ex.P-7 from the appellant. Trap panchnama in Ex.P-8 was prepared. After completion of trap proceedings, FIR in Ex.P-21 was registered. The sealed bottles, containing hand wash, wash of the currency notes were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P-24, in response to which, FSL report in Ex.P-25 was received. After obtaining sanction for prosecution vide order dated 25.2.1994 (Ex.P-26) and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused-Chhedilal. On the basis of charge sheet, learned Court below framed charges against the appellant and other accused namely Chhedilal on 15.12.1994 alleging commission of offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988. Appellant and other accused abjured guilt. They were subjected to trial. In order to prove its case; prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Appellant and co-accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them. The appellant denied having committed offence.

3. Vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, though learned Court below acquitted other co-accused-Chhedilal, the appellant was found guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described above, against which, this appeal has been preferr