1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-06-1997 passed by Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988'), Rajnandgaon in Special Case No. 5/94. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Yugal Kishore has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, respectively. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 2 months and 3 months, respectively. The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

Accused/appellant Yugal Kishore was posted as a Lower Division Clerk in the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Rajnandgaon. Complainant Chhannulal (PW-4) was working in BMC Mills, Rajnandgaon as a labour. From 18-09-1993 to 17-01-1994, complainant Chhannulal (PW-4) was on leave. He was entitled to receive payment (money) for leave period. He received some amount but, sum of Rs. 2000/- was remaining to be paid to him. He approached Cashier Bharat. Bharat demanded a sum of Rs. 1200/- for payment of remaining amount. Since, complainant Chhannulal (PW-4) did not want to satisfy the demand of illegal gratification made by Bharat, he went to the office of Superintendent of Police Rajnandgaon and made a written complaint (Ex.-P/6). The complaint (Ex.-P/6) was forwarded to City Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon for necessary action. City Superintendent of Police R.K. Gandhi (PW-9) arranged a trap proceeding and called for two Panch Witnesses, namely, Deputy Collector Raj Kumar Tandon (PW-2) and Sanjay Tiwai SDO(P) (not examined). They were introduced with complainant Chhannulal (PW-4). They enquired about the complaint (Ex.P/6) from complainant Chhannulal (PW-4). Thereafter, a pre-trap demonstration was arranged. Complainant Chhannulal (PW-4) was asked to present currency notes of Rs. 1200/-. Numbers of the currency notes were recorded in Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex.-P/7). Complainant Chhannulal (PW-4) was instructed and guided as to how the trap would be arranged and as to the role which they were required to play in the trap proceeding. The trap-team proceeded for. The office of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Rajnandgaon. They reached near office of the accused/appellant. Complainant Chhannulal (PW-4) entered the office, met the appellant and handed over the currency notes of Rs. 1200/- to the appellant. Appellant kept the amount between two registers which were kept in the drawer. After receiving signal transmitted by complainant Chhannulal (PW-4), the trap-team rushed the spot immediately and caught hands of the accused. The trap-team seized the currency notes from the register which were kept in the counter of accused. Numbers of the currency notes seized from the accused were compared with the numbers mentioned in the Pre-Trap Panchnama (Ex.-P/7), which were found similar. Trap Panchnama (Ex.-P/8) was prepared. Documents were seized. First Information Report No. 185/1994 (Ex.-P/22) was registered.

After completion of the investigation, sanction for prosecution against the accused/ appellant was obtained vide Ex.-P/19 and charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court of Special Judge under the Act, 1988, Rajnandgaon. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act, 1988. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above.

3. Shri Neeraj Mehta, learned counsel for the accused/appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by reliable and cogent evidence. It is necessary for the prosecution to satisfy and establish that all the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 have been made out before convicting t