Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate and scrutinize the evidence available on record in correct perspective. It is argued that there is mandatory provision for verification of the complaint against a public servant under the P.C. Act to protect the public servant from unnecessary frivolous and malicious criminal prosecution. However, in the present case, the ACD has done away with the said mandatory provision and upon receipt of the complaint from complainant Pema Ram, straightaway proceeded to undertake trap proceedings. It is further argued that the allegation against the appellant is that he demanded bribe for making mutation entries against the purchase of land by the complainant. The said FIR has been registered on 18.07.1995 whereas, as per evidence of PW/1 Abdul Ali, the then R.I, the mutation was already carried on 29.06.1995 by the appellant and he had verified the same and as per procedure, after the mutation having been made by the concerned Patwari, it is forwarded to the Panchayat for sanction. Thus, at the time of the alleged demand and registration of FIR, no work was pending with the appellant so as to place him in a position to raise a demand against the complainant. It is further argued that the prosecution in support of its case have examined PW/3 Shisha
