The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense plea need only be probable. Serious doubts in the prosecution's case can lead to acquittal.

P.K.BHASIN, J:

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 11.03.1999 and order dated 12.03.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. CC-169/1994 whereby he was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-with a default stipulation for his conviction under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) was awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.8000/-with a default stipulation.

2. The relevant facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant, who while posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police(ASI) at Preet Vihar police station was apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Branch officials accepting bribe from the complainant(PW-2), have been noticed by the learned trial court in para nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment and the same are being reproduced hereunder:-(2) On 9-5-1992, P.W.2 Brij Mohan went to the Anti-Corruption Branch and gave his complaining statement Ex. PW2/A. Brij Mohan alleged that his brother Ravinder Chhibbar had been married to Smt. Veena in 1990. Smt. Veena left the matrimonial home and went to her parents house in February, 1991. She lodged a complaint with the Crime against women Cell, Nanakpura upon which case F.I.R. No. 65/92 under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Preet Vihar. A.S.I. Pyare Lal was investigating the case. Even though Crime Against Women Cell had registered the case only against Revinder Chhibber, A.S.I. Pyare Lal had implicated his father, mother, two sisters and another brother in the case. His mother had died due to this shock. Two days after the death of his mother i.e. 2.4.92, accused A.S.I. Pyare Lal had come to their house. He had searched their house at NOIDA and had gone back after taking Rs.2000/-without arresting anyone. A.S.I. Pyare Lal asked the complainant to meet him in the police station. The complainant has further alleged that he met A.S.I. Pyare Lal at P.S. Preet Vihar on 8-5-92 at about 8.30 p.m. A.S.I. Pyare Lal demanded Rs. 1500/-as bribe and threatened that if this amount was not paid to him, he would get the bail of the entire family cancelled and would send them to jail. The complainant pleaded with the accused that his sister Chandra Kanta was seriously ill and orders for her anticipatory bail had already been passed by the court and the accused should accept her bail bond at their house. The accused had told the complainant that he should come to the police station with Rs.1500/-on the next day. The accused told the complainant to bring the signatures of Chandra Kanta on a blank paper and that the accused will accept the surety bond in the police station itself. (3) On the aforesaid complaint of Brij Mohan (P.W.2), a trap was arranged including panch-witness Kailash Chand (P.W.3). Pre-raid proceedings were conducted in the presence of the panch-witness. Numbers of the currency notes provided by the complainant were noted down and the phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes. Necessary instructions were given to the complainant and the panch-witnesses, as recorded in Ex.PW2/B. It is alleged that the complainant and the panch-witness went to P.S. Preet Vihar and met the accused in his Room No.30, which was the quarter allotted to the accused in the police station. The complainant knocked the door of the accused Pyare Lal. Pyare Lal opened the door of his room and complainant and the panch-witness went inside. The complainant gave the blank paper with the signatures of Chandra Kanta to the accused. The complainant introduced Kailash Chand, panchwitness as the surety for his sister. He told the accused that his sister was unwell and the accused should fill up the surety bond on the signed paper brought by him. The complainant also told the accused that he had brought Rs.1500/-