Vigilance Department, which makes whole prosecution case doubtful and further proves connivance of Vigilance Department with the complainant. He next contended that even as per statement of complainant in the Court, at the time of handing over the money, no demand was raised by the accused. Rather, accused had simply asked the complainant as to where he had gone and complainant handed over 4,000/- to him. The shadow witness has also not heard anything regarding the demand. Now, regarding demand, only evidence on record is earlier statement of the complainant that appellantaccused has demanded 5,000/-, which in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not believable. The complainant has enmity against accused-appellant, who had given him notice regarding encroachment. He further argued that at the time of raid, no matter was pending before the appellant as he had already given the notice. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) through his L.R. Vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (3) RCR (Criminal) 694 , in which, prosecution version was that, accused who was SHO, demanded 3,000/- from complainant to help in a criminal case. Complainant paid the amount and on completion of investigation, accused again demanded 2,000/-. A trap was laid. Complainant along with shadow witness entered the room of accused, who asked the complainant whether he had brought the money on which, complainant handed over currency notes of `2,000/- to accused, who kept notes in a box. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that this does not amount to demand and conviction of the accused was set aside. Learned counsel for
