JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---When the matter was called out nobody appeared for the accused. I therefore heard the learned A.P.P., for the State. 2. The accused is convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge, Solapur by judgment dated 29-8-1992 and is sentenced to R.I. for two years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and is also convicted under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is awarded same sentence. 3. Accused was a Police Constable attached to Barshi Police Station. Complainant Subhash Chavan was called by him in the Police Station regarding a complaint lodged against Subhash Chavan by Jagdale and his family to the effect that Subhash Chavan and his family members were harassing the said Jagdale. 4. Enquiry in the said complaint of Jagdale was entrusted to the accused, he therefore sent message to complainant Subhash Chavan to come to the Police Station along with his wife. This message was given in the morning. Complainant Subhash Chavan was to attend his duties, therefore he asked the messenger that he would be coming at 5.30 p.m. Accordingly, he went to the police chowky along with his friend Zalate. At that time Jagdale, his wife, two Constables who gave the message were also present. It is at this juncture that the accused told Subhash Chavan that he will have to pay Rs. 500/- in order to escape being put behind the bar. Subhash Chavan had no money, the matter was settled at Rs. 200/-, out of which Rs. 100/- was paid on that day and Rs. 100/- were to be paid on the next day. At about 10 O'clock Subhash Chavan was allowed to go from the police chowky. 5. Thereafter on the next day complainant Subhash Chavan went to Solapur and approached Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption. His complaint was recorded, a trap was arranged wherein accused was caught raid-handed while accepting Rs. 100/- i.e. 2 notes of Rs. 50/-. Ultra Violet rays test proved positive against the accused and he came to be prosecuted. 6. 5. Thereafter on the next day complainant Subhash Chavan went to Solapur and approached Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption. His complaint was recorded, a trap was arranged wherein accused was caught raid-handed while accepting Rs. 100/- i.e. 2 notes of Rs. 50/-. Ultra Violet rays test proved positive against the accused and he came to be prosecuted. 6. The accused in his defence admitted that complaint of Jagdale was entrusted to him for enquiry that he had called the complainant Subhash Chavan in the police chowky on that day but according to him he merely warned Subhash Chavan and Jagdale not to quarrel and the matter ended and that there was no question of his demanding amount of bribe and therefore the entire case is false. This defence is rightly rejected by the trial Court on the ground that if the matter was really settled amicably by warning issued by the accused then there was no reason for the complainant to go to Anti Corruption Department on the next day and lodge complaint. The second aspect that the trial Court has considered is that the complaint lodged by Jagdale was found not in the Police Station but in the house of the accused and the trial Court has rightly questioned this conduct of keeping the complaint at his home is an indication of demand of bribe. 7. Even the accused has not challenged the sanction seriously and those observations of the Judge are to be accepted in that regard. Out of the seven witnesses examined by the prosecution the important evidence is that of the complainant Subhash Chavan, his colleague P.W. 1 Tulsidas Zalate, panchas, P.W. 5 Dharmesh Pamanani- Anti Corruption Officer. The trial Court has considered all these evidence and found that the statement of complainant Subhash Chavan is strongly corroborated by Zalate. It was the defence of the accused that P.W. 1 Zalate had not come to the Police Station along with Subhash Chavan but the trial Court has rejected this defence. In his complaint the complainant has given history and background as to why Jagdale had a grudge against him. According to them the complainant was working in Maharashtra Vidyalaya in 1987, a vacancy of Assistant Teacher arose and it was to be filled in out of the candidates from backward community. Complainant belonged to backward community. However, one Deshmukh was appointed in the said post. According to them the complainant was working in Maharashtra Vidyalaya in 1987, a vacancy of Assistant Teacher arose and it was to be filled in out of the candidates from backward community. Complainant belonged to backward community. However, one Deshmukh was appointed in the said post. Jagdale was serving as a peon in the said Institute and he was related to the said Deshmukh. Subhash Chavan filed civil suit challenging appointment of Deshmukh and the Civil Court granted stay to the implementation of order of appointment of Deshmukh. Deshmukh worked in the school for six months and then resigned. It was on this count that Jagdale had a grudge against Subhash Chavan and therefore he was raising quarrels with Subhash Chavan and in that background he lodged the aforesaid report. Of these important aspects there was no fruitful cross-examination and Subhash Chavan's evidence was rightly accepted by the Court. Further, lodging of complaint by Jagdale is also not disputed, calling of Subhash Chavan by accused in the Police Station is also not disputed and therefore the entire case depends upon the demand of bribe and its payment. 8. As rightly observed by the trial Court if the matter was settled amicably there was no necessity for the complainant to lodge false complaint in that regard against the accused. Secondly, laying of trap, giving of two marked currency notes of Rs. 50/- smeared with anthracene powder and finding of those notes from the accused have all been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 9. It appears from the judgment and the grounds of appeal that accused wanted to capitalise out of some contradictions and omissions because according to the accused story of demand of Rs. 200/- by him is contradictory and that there are certain omissions. However, the Court found that the omission is in respect of figure only and therefore it is not material at the place where the money was to be handed over, also there was demand by the accused. The place was hotel Ambarish where the accused was trapped and the trial Court rightly held that there was no reason for the accused to go to Ambarish Hotel sit in a family room and then to be get at caught in the said family room. The place was hotel Ambarish where the accused was trapped and the trial Court rightly held that there was no reason for the accused to go to Ambarish Hotel sit in a family room and then to be get at caught in the said family room. It appears that the defence of the accused was that there is contradiction in the prosecution case about the place where bribe was accepted. According to the prosecution bribe was accepted by the accused near the counter and therefore accused tried to contend that if he was alone with the complainant in family room of the hotel he would have accepted bribe in the family room i.e. secretly and not openly near the counter. 10. Accordingly to the panchanama complainant with panch No. 1 Rathod (P.W. 3) went to the chowky. Thereafter the accused came, they had a talk and then they went towards Ambarish Hotel. When the amount was given by complainant to the accused he gave signal to the raiding party and caught the accused. It is therefore clear that story of the prosecution is absolutely clear and consistent with the important document the panchnama. 11. In this case therefore, the demand of bribe is amply proved. Circumstances leading to the demand have also been proved, lodging of complaint, laying of trap, preparing pre-trap panchanama, actually catching the accused raid-handed, preparing post-trap panchanama, finding of complaint lodged by Jagdale at the house of the accused, all undoubtedly go to prove the guilt of the accused. The trial Court has appreciated all these facts in proper perspective. Sanction is not seriously challenged and there are no errors in appreciation of evidence or application of law. Hence, criminal appeal is dismissed. Accused to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks from today. His bail bond stands cancelled after he so surrenders. Office to communicate this order to the accused. Appeal dismissed. -----