scrap iron materials of the complainant. Therefore, in order to take revenge the complainant lodged a complaint against the appellant on 20th January, 2004 with the CBI. It is further argued by Mr. Maitra that when the relation between the defacto complainant and the appellant is such that false implication of the appellant may not be ruled out, it is the duty of the court to consider the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution with due care and circumspection. Mr. Maitra submits that that prosecution came up with the story against the appellant that Inspector Sujit Kr. Pandey demanded a sum of Rs.5000/- as bribe from PW1. He also insisted him to pay the said money to another appellant, named, constable Sunil Kumar Shaw and only after payment of such amount, Inspector Sujit Kumar Pandey would record his presence at RPF post as a condition for bail. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that illegal demand of money and acceptance of the sum are the two basic ingredients of offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act. In other words, demand of bribe and acceptance thereof by the accused shall be in course of the same transaction. According to Mr. Maitra mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
