Smt. S.R. Waghmare, J. -- 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant Shravan Kumar under S. 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the judgment dated 27.1.2000 passed in Special Case No. 4/93 convicting the accused appellant for offence under S. 161 of the IPC and sentencing him to one year's RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and for offence under S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to one year RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that 10 years previously PW 1 Devlal had obtained a loan from the Regional Gramin Bank, Branch at Sandalpur for Rs. 3,000/- to run a small business of daily articles of Kirana, etc. (Manihari). The formalities were completed and accused appellant had demanded illegal gratification for release of said amount of loan and hence the complaint had been filed before the LokAyukta Police, Ujjain. The appellant was arrested on20.8.87 and released on grant of bail. The arrest memo is Ex. P 4 and 10 Jugal kishore Sharma PW 4 filed challan in the competent Court.

3. Considering the details and a brief history of the case we find that on 16.6.83 Shri R.S. Naigaonkar PW 5 was the staff officer of the Gramin Bank at Shajapur. Shri P.M. Joshi was the Chairman of the Bank in the year 1990 whereas Naigonkar was the secretary to Shri P.M. Joshi whereas accused Shravan Kumar was the Accountant and employee of the Bank and therefore a public servant. Inspector, Jagmohan Dhurve PW 7 had inspected the drawer of Shravan Kumar and recovered Rs. 2,050/- from his drawer as bank deposit and same amount was returned to the accused. Other concerned documents pertaining to transfer, appointment of the accused were recovered from the bank. The accused was identified by Shri R.N. Prasad PW 9. This witness has also been examined to prove that appellant Shravan Kumar Malviya was present at the bank on the date of incident i.e. 20.8.87. Rest of the proceedings have not been disputed.

4. The complainant has alleged that bank cashier had demanded Rs. 400/as illegal gratification for release of cheque for initial installment of the loan and complainant has alleged that Rs. 160/- were already paid to Shravan Kumar. When complainant visited the bank on 18.8.87 for release of second installment, accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 240/-. Since the complainant did not want to pay any illegal gratification, he filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta and upon receiving said complaint. offence was registered against appellant according to provision of law and a preparation was made to lay a trap. Preliminary Panchnama was duly prepared and complainant was duly instructed by the department and as already noted above, the trap was laid by the department and an amount of Rs. 240/- was recovered from the drawer of the accused Sharavan Kumar Malviya in the bank. During the investigation the statement of various witnesses were recorded and upon completion of investigation, the accused was charged for offence under Ss. 161 and 420 of IPC and under S. 5 (1) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused abjured his guilt and stated that he was falsely implicated. The trial Court on considering the evidence, however convicted and sentenced the accused as herein mentioned above; hence the present appeal.

5. Counsel for appellant has attacked the impugned order mainly on the ground that demand of the illegal gratification as required under provisions of law has not been established. Complainant has turned hostile in the Court. Moreover, the demand was not specific and changed at times as alleged by the complainant first for Rs. 160/-. He stated that this amount was paid at home of the complainant then there is demand of Rs. 240/- and alleged sum has been received in the bank itself. The complainant is not steadfast in his testimony, the demand is not specific and the witness is shaky and t