It is further argued by the learned senior counsel that in the absence of any official favour pending with the appellant, the question of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant does not arise. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, who are examined as prosecution witnesses. In their evidence that too in the cross-examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, a question was posed to them that earlier, there was some oral altercation between the appellant and P.W.10. In this connection, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that though the said altercation was admitted by the complainant, he categorically deposed that the said altercation was in connection with issuance of notice for house tax and that is nothing to do with the change of name of complainant in the official records and he further argued that the date on which the alleged altercation took place is not supported by the witnesses concerned. It is argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the demand according to complainant was made only by the appellant, but whereas, in the trap proceedings, it is stated by the complainant that the said bribe amount of Rs.500/was given to the appellant in the presence of A.O.2 and that when A.O.2 introduced himself as Bill Collector of the said Ward and when requested for bribe amount, the appellant gave a sum of Rs.100/- to P.W.10-complainant, who in turn, gave the said Rs.100/- to A.O.2. The said A.O.2 was acquitted by the trial court.
