JUDGMENT: 1. Rule, heard finally with consent of parties. 2. These two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment, since the facts are almost identical. The applicants seek to quash the F.I.R. registered against them. 3. The applicant in Criminal Application No.589/07 is serving as Sub-Inspector at Sakkardara Police Station. At the relevant time he was working as Sub-inspector at Tahsil Police Station. On 29/1/2006, the applicant was on petrolling duty along with Head Constable Naik and few other constables. They received an information that one Santro Car bearing No.MH31 CM 4954 is carrying illicit liquor. They intercepted that Car. In presence of panchas, search of the said car was taken. Two cartons containing liquor bottles were found in the Car and they were seized in presence of panchas. The Car and two cartons containing illicit liquor bottles were seized. The car was being driven by respondent no.3 Chandrakant Bhagchandai. He was produced before the Magistrate. The magistrate released him on bail. Later, it is alleged that, the learned magistrate also passed an order to release the Car seized, on Supratnama. On 18/2/2006, while the applicant was at Gitanjali Chowk on duty, Chandrakant/NA no.3 met him with a view to release the Santro Car. The applicant told Chandrakant to meet the Police Inspector Shri Mundewadikar of Tahsil Police Station, since the Car has been deposited in Malkhana. NA no.3 . Chandrakant told that he will meet Mundewadikar at 7.00 p.m. and he then went away. On the same day at 7.00 p.m. the applicant was on duty at Central Avenue Police Chowky. A.S.I.Raut and constable Narendra were on duty along with him. The NA 3- Chandrakant came there. The applicant told him that he is himself going to Tahsil Police Station and he should come there. Nonapplicant Chandrakant met P.I.Shri Mundewadikar in his cabin at 7.30 p.m. Since Malkhana incharge Shri Raut was not present, the NA 3 was asked to come on the next day. It is alleged that in the meanwhile, N.A.3 Chandrakant had approached the Anti- Corruption Department. They laid a trap as there was an allegation that the applicant had demanded sum of Rs.5000/- as a bribe. The applicant contends that he never demanded any bribe. The owner of the vehicle never came to the Police Station to collect the Car. It is alleged that in the meanwhile, N.A.3 Chandrakant had approached the Anti- Corruption Department. They laid a trap as there was an allegation that the applicant had demanded sum of Rs.5000/- as a bribe. The applicant contends that he never demanded any bribe. The owner of the vehicle never came to the Police Station to collect the Car. Since the trap itself was unsuccessful, no offence was committed and, therefore, F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. It is also contention of the applicant that the F.I.R. is registered after ten months of the alleged incident. 4. A few undisputed facts, which can be gathered from the petition itself, however, may be stated thus - The applicant was at the relevant date i.e. on 29/1/2006 attached to Tahsil Police Station as P.S.I. He received an information that illicit liquor was being carried in Santro Car. He along with other police, intercepted the Car and upon search seized two cartons containing illicit liquor and they were seized, since there was no licence with the driver of the Car. The liquor and Car were seized under panchanama. The Judicial Magistrate (FC) had passed an order to release the Car on Supratnama. It is also not in dispute that on 18/2/2006 the Non-applicant Chandrakant met the applicant at 12 in the noon and he requested the applicant to release the Car. Further it is not in dispute that on the same day Chandrakant Bhagchandai came to Central Avenue Chowk and applicant was present there. 5. The F.I.R. discloses that after the magistrate passed an order on 14/2/2006, Chandrakant met the applicant on 15th, 16th and 17th but the applicant and the Police Inspector avoided to release the Car. It is also alleged that Chandrakant met the applicant at 12 in the noon. He demanded Rs.5000/- for releasing the Car and for not making his brother an accused in the said case. It further discloses that, therefore, Chandrakant lodged a complaint with the Anti-corruption Bureau. The F.I.R. also discloses that at about 18.15 hrs., complainant Chandrakant was asked to make a phone call to the applicant as to where the money should be brought and he told that it be brought at Central Avenue Police Chowky and trap was laid there. Accordingly, the complainant Chandrakant and panch went to the Chowky and applicant demanded Rs.5000/- by signalling five fingers of the hand. Accordingly, the complainant Chandrakant and panch went to the Chowky and applicant demanded Rs.5000/- by signalling five fingers of the hand. It is further alleged that applicant said to the complainant that amount of Rs.5000/- was excessive and he should accept something less and he accordingly agreed to accept Rs.4000/-. The complainant again asked if the money should be given immediately and upon this constable Narendra, who was present, said to wait for two minutes and he would have a look out side - and when Narendra came, the applicant left and asked Chandrakant to come to the Police Station (Tahsil). 6. Now, these contents of F.I.R. clearly show that on 15 to 17th, the vehicle was not released though requested. On 18th, admittedly, the applicant met the complainant Chandrakant at 12 noon and the applicant was also present at the Police Chowky at Central Avenue at 7.00 p.m. The contents of F.I.R. are supported applicant's own allegation in his application. His presence while demand was allegedly made is undisputed. The places are undisputed. The contents of F.I.R., therefore, prima facie go to show that a demand of Rs.5000/- was made for release of the Car and not to make the complainant's brother an accused in the case. They further show that the applicant had agreed to accept Rs.4000/-. 7. In Criminal Application No.4026 of 2006, the facts are not very different. Yet it would be necessary to narrate a few. P.S.I. Changdeo Jumnake was posted at Police Station, Sonegaon. One Ranjana Joshi had filed a complaint against one Ghatole. Ghatole had, therefore, obtained an anticipatory bail and he was directed to report at the Police Station, as one of the conditions. When he had gone to the Police Station, Sonegaon, it is alleged that P.S.O.Jumnake and Police Head Constable Mendule took Ghatole to lock up, took his search and gave him a threat of taking his finger prints and informing his office about his arrest. At that time, the present applicant Jumnake said to have demanded sum of Rs.15000/- for not informing the office and for not arresting him. When Ghatole said that he cannot pay that much amount, Mendule said that at least Rs.11000/- should be paid. On 12/12/2006 Ghatole met Mendule and told him that he cannot even make arrangement of sum of Rs.11000/-. When Ghatole said that he cannot pay that much amount, Mendule said that at least Rs.11000/- should be paid. On 12/12/2006 Ghatole met Mendule and told him that he cannot even make arrangement of sum of Rs.11000/-. Upon this, it is alleged that, Mendule said that he should pay Rs.5000/- and rest after some time and if does not he should be ready to face the consequences. Ghatole, therefore, approached the Anti-corruption Department. Accordingly, it was decided to lay a trap. Ghatole was, therefore, asked to contact applicant Jumnake on mobile phone and confirm as to whether the money should be paid. Accordingly, Ghatole had a talk with Jumnake on phone. Applicant Jumnake told that he should bring Rs.5000/- at Police Station, Sonegaon. It was decided that Jumnake should be asked to come at Eskimo Point Hotel. Ghatole, therefore, went to the Police Station, Sonegaon but Jumnake was not present there. Therefore, Ghatole left the Police Station and was going towards Bank of Maharashtra. When Ghatole was coming back along with the panch from Police Station, Sonegaon towards Bank of Maharashtra, the applicant Jumnake met him near Coco Cola Factory. When Ghatole asked him and told him that he had come as asked by him, applicant Jumnake said that he has forwarded the case to the office and he does not want any money and he does not want to loose his job. 8. In both these cases, the raid was unsuccessful. The leaned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the raid was unsuccessful, there could be no offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submitted that for commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption, there must be demand, delivery and acceptance. It would be necessary to reproduce here Section 7 of the Act. 7. Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. He submitted that for commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption, there must be demand, delivery and acceptance. It would be necessary to reproduce here Section 7 of the Act. 7. Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. - Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation:- (a) ...... (b) ....... (c) ...... (d) ..... (e)..... 9. The provisions of Section are very clear. The important words are .agrees to accept or attempts to obtain.. Thus, when a Government servant agrees to accept an illegal gratification that also becomes an offence. The contents of F.I.R. in application of Kokare's case show that the vehicle was seized by Shri Kokare and it was his job to release the vehicle as per order of the court. It shows that he had agreed to accept in the evening Rs.4000/- instead of Rs.5000/-. These two ingredients, to my mind, are enough to make out an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 10. In the second case, P.S.I.Jumnake was an Investigating Officer. F.I.R. shows that Ranjana Joshi had lodged a report against Shri Ghatole. The applicant Jumnake had, therefore, gone to the house of Ghatole and enquired with his wife about the whereabouts of Shri Ghatole and asked her to send him to the Police Station. Shri Ghatole, therefore, had obtained anticipatory bail and he was directed to report to the Police Station and therefore he reported to the Police Station. The applicant Jumnake had, therefore, gone to the house of Ghatole and enquired with his wife about the whereabouts of Shri Ghatole and asked her to send him to the Police Station. Shri Ghatole, therefore, had obtained anticipatory bail and he was directed to report to the Police Station and therefore he reported to the Police Station. He was taken by Jumnake . the applicant . and constable Mendule near the lock-up. His search was taken, his finger prints were taken and he was given a threat that they would inform his office and thus demanded Rs.15000/- from him. It is also alleged that on 12/12/2006 Ghatole met Mendule and told that he cannot pay Rs.11000/- and he was asked to pay Rs.5000/- or face the consequences. Shri Ghatole lodged report with Police i.e. Anti-corruption Department and a trap was laid. In order to confirm Ghatole was asked to talk on the phone with applicant Changdeo Jumnake. The conversation is said to be heard by Anticorruption department's people as well as panchas. The said conversation is reproduced in the F.I.R. itself. It is thus - Ghatole :- Whether Rs.5000/- would do ? Jumnake :- It is your wish. Ghatole :- When would you come to take money ? Jumnake :- For howmuch time you are in the office ? Ghatole :- I am to appear for examination till 2.30 p.m. Jumnake :- I am on duty at Police Station, Sonegaon, I will not be able to come there. You come to the Police Station. Ghatole :- All right. I will come after 2.30 p.m. It is also mentioned that applicant Jumnake was not available at Police Station and, therefore, panchas and Ghatole were coming back. While they were coming back, Jumnake came from behind and came across and stopped Ghatole and then said that he does not want money and he loves his service. The trap therefore failed. The contents of this F.I.R. also clearly go to show that a threat to put Ghatole in lock-up and to inform to his office was given and to avoid that he was asked to pay Rs.15000/-. The conversation as reproduced above also shows that P.S.I.Jumnake . the applicant . had agreed to accept Rs.5000/- from Ghatole. Thus, in fact, both the ingredients in this case are also proved. 11. The conversation as reproduced above also shows that P.S.I.Jumnake . the applicant . had agreed to accept Rs.5000/- from Ghatole. Thus, in fact, both the ingredients in this case are also proved. 11. The learned counsel contended that there must be demand, delivery and acceptance and he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in 2006(2) CRJ 618 (T.Subramaniam ..vs.. The State of T.N.). He also relied on the decision of this High Court reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 428 (State of Mah. vs. Manohar) and yet another decision in 2006(2) Acquittal 361 (Mathura Gupta .vs. State of Haryana). None of these cases has any bearing on case at hand. In all these cases, traps as laid were successful. In that context, it was held that the three ingredients must be proved. In the case at hand, there was mere demand and readiness to accept and the trap had failed. Therefore, the said decisions have no application. 12. Yet another decision in 2005 CRI.L.J.135 (State of W.B. ,.vs. Kailash) was cited. In this case also Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that what is material is acceptance of money. In this case, the trap was said to be unsuccessful. In that context, this ruling has also no bearing on the case at hand. Shri Moon, the learned counsel for the applicants, contended that uncontroverted allegations in F.I.R. and the evidence collected do not disclose commission of offence and, therefore, the proceeding/ the F.I.R. should be quashed. He relied on the decision of this court, reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri.)1350 Damodar .vs. State of Mah.). This decision is rendered relying on decision in Bhajanlal's case. I have pointed out the actual contents of F.I.R. and the panchanamas. The F.I.R. in first case does show that for showing favour and rendering service i.e. not to arrest the brother of the complainant and to release the vehicle, demand was made and agreed to be accepted. In second also for showing favour of not informing the office of the complainant and for not arresting him, a sum of Rs.15000/- was demanded and on phone the applicant had shown readiness to accept Rs.5000/-. In a decision reported in A.I.R.1955 Bombay 61 (Damodar .vs. State), it is held as follows - . In second also for showing favour of not informing the office of the complainant and for not arresting him, a sum of Rs.15000/- was demanded and on phone the applicant had shown readiness to accept Rs.5000/-. In a decision reported in A.I.R.1955 Bombay 61 (Damodar .vs. State), it is held as follows - . It is not necessary in order to bring home to the public servant the charge under S.161 to prove that he has actually accepted or obtained illegal gratification. It would be enough if it be shown that he had agreed to accept the said illegal gratification. In other words, if a proposal is made to the public servant in respect of payment of illegal gratification and the proposal is accepted by the public servant, he would be guilty under S.161, Penal Code. If that be the true position, it must follow that the making of the offer would itself constitute an offence under S.165-A in regard to the payment of illegal gratification although no money or other consideration is produced at the time of the offer. If a person who offers to pay the amount makes his proposal, that constitutes an offence under S.165A. If the proposal is accepted, that constitutes an offence under S.161, Penal Code.. 13. The ratio of this case squarely applies to the case at hand. If the ratio of this case is applied, it is obvious that even where the demand is proved, the offence is complete where the the trap may have failed. The learned counsel contended that in Kokare's case, the F.I.R. is registered after ten months and that shows malafides. The affidavit filed by the State shows that an open enquiry was conducted and the report of the said enquiry was sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and then the Deputy Commissioner directed to lodge report. The delay is thus properly explained. This is, therefore, not a case where F.I.R. does not disclose any offence. The F.I.Rs. do disclose offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption of Act and, therefore, there is no question of quashing them. The applications are, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged.