complainant visited the Police Station and again there was a demand of the amount, which was followed by the bribe money being handed over to the accused, which was corroborated by the evidence of witnesses. Although, there was no verification of complaint, the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not create any doubt and hence on that count the prosecution case cannot be discarded. It is also contended that the panch witness has acted as panch on several occasions. PW No.2 has indeed deposed that he has acted as a panch previously in 5-6 trap cases. The earlier trap were unsuccessful. However, the evidence of the said witness, in the present case, clearly support the prosecution case and there is nothing to doubt his version. He deposed that he cannot give details of earlier cases and he do not have any documents of those cases. He has also stated that the accused had asked complainant whether he had brought the money as he had demanded Rs.5,000/-. The complainant said that he had brought Rs.5,000/-. The complainant then asked, whether he would not take any action in respect of his work and the accused told that if he had paid the amount earlier, his labourers would not have been charge-sheeted. The accused then demanded money, which was handed over by the complainant. Thus, the evidence of PW No.2 corroborates the case of PW No.1 and establishes the
