The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the elements of the alleged offences, including demand and acceptance, and the significance of witness testimony in supporting the prosecution's case.

ORDER

1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 16.12.1986 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.30/79, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 109, 120-B, 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) P.C. Act. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants reads as under:-

U/s 120-B IPC-

One years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

U/s 5(1)(d) r/w (2)

P.C. Act r/w Section 109 IPC- One year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

U/s 161 IPC r/w u/s 109

IPC- One years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Prosecution story in brief is that Subhash Chandra Mittal lodged a written report Ex.P-3 on 25.10.78 to the Additional Superintendent Of Police Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur alleging that Mohanlal SHO, Police Station, Khandela called him at Anand Hotel. When he reached there, he told that he would arrest him if he will not handover the tractor No. RJV 1962. He told the SHO that he had delivered the tractor to Ram Pratap, who resides in village Lunkaransar. SHO took him to the village Lunkaransar, where Ram Pratap told that he had sold the said tractor to Nand Ram. SHO seized the tractor and kept it at his residence and told that to pay Rs.11791/- to Mukti Lal towards his account and Rs.5500/- as bribe to him. Appellant Mukti Lal tried to obtain money for himself by exercising the pressure tacties. Trap proceedings were conducted and Mohan lal caught red handed with Rs.5500/-.

4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant and co accused Mohan Lal and Babu Lal.

5. Charges were framed under Sections 120-B, 161 IPC and Sections (5)(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act against the co-accused Mohanlal and under Sections 120-B, 161 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 109 IPC against the appellant-Muktilal. Co-accused Babu Lal was discharged by the learned trial Court.

6. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 29 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent. Appellant examined one witness in his defence.

7. Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1986, ordered the conviction and sentence of appellant under Sections 120-B, 161 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 109 IPC.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant and also submitted that the trial Court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no criminal conspiracy is made out against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that slip-Ex.P-2 was written by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that no handwriting expert was examined, during the trial. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that prosecution fails to prove any demand and acceptance against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that witnesses namely Subhash Chandra (PW-2), Prabhu Singh Devada (PW-3), Satya Narayana Dutt Mathur (PW-4), Sunita (PW-5), Nand Ram(PW-6), Rammohan (PW-7), Moti Ram (PW-10), Jagdish (PW-16), Panna (PW-17), Ram Pratap (PW-18), Gauri Shankar (PW-19) had not supported the story of the prosecution.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per