The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe, and uncorroborated evidence from an accomplice is unreliable.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-4-1996 passed by learned Special Judge, Sehore in Special Case No. 1/ 95 convicting the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer R.I. of one year and fine Rs. 1000/-, in default, further imprisonment of three months under Section 7 and R.I. for two years and fine Rs. 1000/-, in default, further imprisonment of three months under Section 13(2) of the Act with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. In brief the case of prosecution is that a complaint dated 24-3-1994 was submitted by complainant Banshilal who is an agriculturist of village Uljhawan district Sehore in which it has been stated that appellant is serving on the post of Lineman and despite complainant had installed the electric meter to set the thrasher machine in motion by electric power even then appellant is demanding Rs. 1000/- from him and he has given threat that he will not permit complainant to operate the thrasher machine and has also given threat that a false case will be cooked against the complainant in which complainant would be required to incur Rs. 4000/-.

3. This complaint Exh. P-6 was submitted by the complainant to Superintendent of Police District Sehore who gave necessary instructions to SIX) (P) to arrange a trap. Thereafter on the request of SDO (P) N.K. Tiwari, Collector Sehore deputed two Government employees to include them in the trap party. Accordingly Shri M.D. Agrawal, DSO and one Shri Pandya, Dy. Director, Agriculture were made members of the trap party. Thereafter, SDO (P) along with complainant and witnesses came to police station Sehore where the witnesses were introduced to the complainant. Three currency notes of Rs. 100/- each were given to the complainant and a pre-trap 'Panchanama' was prepared in which the number of the currency notes were noted down. Thereafter trap party along with complainant proceeded to the village of complainant. At the outskirt of the village, the complainant was dropped from the jeep. Complainant told SDO (P) that appellant used to come to the shop of Devilal barber. Complainant was instructed that after giving the money of bribe to the appellant, he would rub his hands on his head which will be a signal to the trap party that appellant has taken the bribe. The SDO (P) and other members of the trap party hide themselves and on receiving the signal from the complainant, they caught the appellant and seized the currency notes from him. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied from the pre-trap Panchanama and they were found the same.

4. After the investigation was over, a charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge who framed charges punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act against the appellant, which he denied and requested for the trial.

5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and placed Exhs. P-1 to P-12 the documents on record. The defence of appellant is of false implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC.

6. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that the charges are proved against the appellant and eventually convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.

7. In this manner the present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

8. I have heard Shri Rajneesh Naveria, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri T.K. Modh, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed and appellant is entitled for acquittal.

In the present case, the foundation stone of t