JUDGMENT : VIMLA JAIN, J. The appellant preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-12-2005 passed by Special Judge, Sagar in Special Case No. 14/2004 whereby he had convicted and sentenced him as mentioned below under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'), Provision Sentence Under section 7 of the Act Rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Rameshwar Kurmi (P.W.2) was running a Shoe Shop in village Patna Bujurg, Teshil, Rehli. On 19-12-2002 at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant along with other staff members had come to the shop of Kamlesh, a handicapped, and registered a case against him under Gambling Act and arrested him. He was released on bail later on. The appellant also arrested the complainant Rameshwar Kurmi and took him to the police station. The appellant kept him in police custody for about 3 hours, demanded Rs. 1500/- and threatened that on failure to pay, he would implicate him under Gambling Act and section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. On receiving information Santosh, friend of complainant, reached there. The complainant informed him that appellant T.I. demanded Rs. 1500/- but he did not have money. Santosh promised to arrange the money in a day or two. Thereafter, Rameshwar was released from the police custody. 3. The complainant Rameshwar did not pay bribe money to the appellant and filed a written complaint (Ex. P/3) in the office of Special Police Establishment (SPE) Lokayukt, Sagar. SPE, Lokayukt had given Mini Tape Recorder with Cassette to the complainant for recording the conversation of appellant and prepared a panchnma (Ex. P/4). Thereafter complainant recorded the conversation regarding demand of illegal gratification and handed over it to the SPE, Sagar. After listening the recorded conversation, Dev Vrit Mishra (P.W.10) made a transcript panchnama (Ex.P/1) and registered the First Information Report (Ex. P/8). Complainant had given repeat application (Ex. P/5) for red-handed trapping of the appellant along with Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter, trap party went to Rehli along with complainant and his friend Santosh (P.W.1) for trapping the appellant. But red-handed trapping of the appellant could not be made because appellant/accused got the information that the trap party had come in this regard. P/8). Complainant had given repeat application (Ex. P/5) for red-handed trapping of the appellant along with Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter, trap party went to Rehli along with complainant and his friend Santosh (P.W.1) for trapping the appellant. But red-handed trapping of the appellant could not be made because appellant/accused got the information that the trap party had come in this regard. Therefore, the trap failed and panchnama (Ex.P/2) of such failure was prepared. After completion of investigation and sanction from the Government, challan was filed against the appellant in the competent Court. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and innocence. He claimed to be tried with the prayer that he had been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant with the intention to prevent the appellant/accused from registering any case under Gambling Act in future after getting the advice of an Advocate. 5. In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his defence. 6. The learned Court below, after scanning the evidence found the charges proved against the appellant. Therefore, it convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. 7. This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Court below has committed grave error of law in holding the appellant/accused guilty for the offences under the Act, because the shop owner was Kamlesh therefore, demand should have been made from him and not Rameshwar, an employee. Demand of bribe in Police Station appears to be unnatural. He further submits that there are contradictions in the statements of Santosh Kumar (P.W.1) and that of Kamlesh (P.W.11). The complainant had concocted a false case against the appellant with the help of Ashish Jain, Advocate. He further argues that challan was filed against the complainant under the Gambling Act on 23-12-2002, therefore, there was no reason for demand. The evidence of tape recording of the conversation was itself disbelieved by the trial Court, as no intelligible sound was found in the tape recorder, when played before the Court. He places reliance on State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 and Ramesh Thete vs. State of M.P., (2010) (1) MPHT 408 (DB). The evidence of tape recording of the conversation was itself disbelieved by the trial Court, as no intelligible sound was found in the tape recorder, when played before the Court. He places reliance on State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, (2009) 15 SCC 200 and Ramesh Thete vs. State of M.P., (2010) (1) MPHT 408 (DB). He prays that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the finding of conviction and order of sentence. 9. On the other hand, Shri Aditya Adhikari learned counsel for the S.P.E. Lokayukta, supported the findings of the Court below. He contended that the statements of complainant Rameshwar (P.W.2) and witnesses namely Santosh Kumar (P.W.1) and Kamlesh (P.W.11) are reliable. The findings of the Court below/ recorded on a proper appreciation of the evidence, did not suffer from any infirmities or irregularities, to call for any interference. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The question for decision is whether the prosecution has proved the charge beyond all the reasonable doubts. 12. It is not disputed that appellant was posted as T.I. at Police Station, Rehli District Sagar, M.P. at the time of incident. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the validity of the sanction order (Ex. P/10) before us. 14. On examining the evidence, in respect of demand of bribe, complainant Rameshwar Kurmi (P.W.2) stated that he had been working in the Shoe Shop of Kamlesh for last 2 ½ years. He knew accused Banjare Saheb present in Court. When he was working in the shop of Kamlesh, accused Banjare T.I. along with police party came there and took out a piece of paper from the roof (CHHAPPAR) and registered a case of gambling against him and Kamlesh. Accused left. Kamlesh at his shop as he was handicapped and took complaint to the police station. Accused Banjare demanded Rs. 1500/- and threatened him in the police station that if he did not fulfil his demand, he would implicate him under section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code. Appellant/accused kept him in the police custody. After sometime, Santosh (P.W.1) had come to the police station and made some discussion with accused Banjare regarding transaction. As he did not have money at the relevant time, he requested accused to give time. Appellant/accused kept him in the police custody. After sometime, Santosh (P.W.1) had come to the police station and made some discussion with accused Banjare regarding transaction. As he did not have money at the relevant time, he requested accused to give time. Accused permitted him to bring money next day and released the complainant. 15. He further stated that he did not want to give bribe to the appellant therefore, he went to the office of SPE, Lokayukta, Sagar along with Santosh Kumar (P.W.1) and made a complaint (Ex.P/3). After that office of Lokayukta had given a tape recorder with instruction that he should record his conversation with the appellant/accused. He went to appellant's home and had a talk with him. Appellant asked him OTHER LANGUAGE . He also stated that he returned back to the office of the Lokayukt and returned the tape recorder to them and informed them accordingly. The police seized the cassette and prepared panchnama (Ex.P/6). After listening the recorded conversation, Deovrat Mishra, Inspector, (P.W.10) made a transcript Panchnama (Ex.P/1). He further stated that he filed another application (Ex.P/5) and went to his home, brought Rs. 1000/-and presented before Lokayukt Office. There phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency notes and placed in the pocket of his shirt with a specific direction that he would indicate after the payment. After entire proceedings, Panchnama (Ex.P/7) was prepared. He also stated that he went to Police Station, Rehli with Santosh and two other witnesses where appellant was present. The appellant got information about the trap party and went somewhere in jeep. The Lokayukta Police prepared panchnama (Ex.P/2) of failured trap. 16. Kamlesh (P.W.11) corroborated the statement of Rameshwar (P.W.2) and stated that he had been running a Shoe Shop in village Patna Bujurg for last six years and he knew accused Banjare. He also knew complainant Rameshwar Kurmi as he had been working in his Shoe Shop. He stated that 2/3 years ago, when he was at his shop with his worker Rameshwar Kurmi, accused along with police party came to his shop in the evening of Thursday at about 6:30 p.m. and took out a piece of paper from the roof (CHHAPPAR) and said that you used to perform gambling and registered a false case against him and his worker Rameshwar. He was granted bail at his shop but the police party had taken Rameshwar to Police Station Rehli. 17. Santosh Kumar Patel (P.W.1) also corroborated the statement of complainant Rameshwar (P.W.2) and stated that two years ago, Rameshwar had been working in the Shoe Shop of Kamlesh. In the evening, accused Banjare had come to the Shop of Kamlesh along with police party on the motorcycle. The police party took Rameshwar and Kamlesh to Rehli Police Station. Accused Banjare threatened them that as they were gambling, he would make a case against them and arrest them under section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code. He further stated that appellant/accused kept them in the police custody. As Kamlesh was handicapped, he was enlarged on bail but Rameshwar could not be released. He (Santosh) went to the police station in the evening for his release. When he reached the police station and requested that he had come for release of Rameshwar, the police party suggested him to talk to T.I. He requested accused Banjare, who demanded money of Rs. 1500/- for release of Rameshwar on bail. He requested that at present he did not have money but he would arrange it in a day or two. On this assurance, the appellant had released Rameshwar on bail and threatened him that if he fails to bring money, Rameshwar would be implicated by him under section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code. 18. These witnesses have been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination which resulted in few contradictions and omissions from their earlier statements. But those are not so material as to affect the credibility of testimony of such witnesses. 19. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that in this case, presumption cannot be made under section 20 of the Act. We reproduce section 7 and section 20 of the Act. "7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. 19. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that in this case, presumption cannot be made under section 20 of the Act. We reproduce section 7 and section 20 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 dis-service 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. S. 20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. - (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate." 20. The evidence is very clear that firstly appellant demanded Rs. 1500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant when complainant requested him that he was not in a position to pay this much amount and that too immediately at one time the appellant reduced the demand to Rs. 1000/-. The evidence is very clear that firstly appellant demanded Rs. 1500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant when complainant requested him that he was not in a position to pay this much amount and that too immediately at one time the appellant reduced the demand to Rs. 1000/-. The evidence is fully corroborated with FIR (Ex.P/8) and the evidence of Santosh Kumar Patel (P.W.1), who was a panch witness and who accompanied the complainant. We do not find anything in the evidence recorded during the cross-examination of these witnesses to suggest that it was at the instance of these witnesses that the appellant/accused had been falsely implicated. In this case it is proved beyond any doubt that appellant/accused demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for not implicating him in the case under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, we have come to conclusion that demand was made. Therefore, section 20 of the Act is attracted as the appellant had been charged for commission of an offence under section 7 of the Act. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the State/respondent that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant is accepted. 21. Although, in course of arguments, appellant counsel placed reliance on Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede and Ramesh Thete, (supra) but in the aforesaid circumstances, the same being distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, is not helping to the appellant. Therefore, contention advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted for the aforesaid reasons. 22. It is also argued on behalf of the appellant that there was an overwriting in the date mentioned in Ex.P/3 below signature of concerning officer. But in this regard there was no question put in cross-examination of the witnesses. It is well settled that if discrepancy is minor, it would not affect the substratum of the prosecution case or impact on the core issue. In such an event, the minor discrepancy could be ignored. Jugendra Singh vs. State of U. P., (2012) 6 SCC 297 . Similarly, non-examination of Ashish Jain, Advocate does not createan infirmity in the prosecution case. 23. For all these reasons, we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and we agree with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 24. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. Similarly, non-examination of Ashish Jain, Advocate does not createan infirmity in the prosecution case. 23. For all these reasons, we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and we agree with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 24. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed upon him is maintained. The appellant/accused is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled. 25. Appeal is dismissed.