Statement: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) receives a complaint that an officer is taking a bribe to perform an official duty. Courses of Action: I. Arrange a trap to catch the officer red-handed and take strict action as per law. II. Wait for a few more complaints about the officer before acting so as to be sure.

Introduction / Context:When a credible bribery complaint reaches an anti-corruption agency, the immediate question is whether to proactively verify and act (trap, recording, surveillance) or to delay action pending additional complaints. Public-interest, deterrence, and evidentiary standards guide the proper course of action.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• There is a specific allegation of demand/acceptance of bribe by a public servant.
• CBI has legal tools to verify and prosecute (e.g., trap proceedings with independent witnesses).
• No contrary facts indicating a frivolous or anonymous, unverified tip are stated.

Concept / Approach:The legally sound response is to verify promptly through a trap laid with due procedure. This both preserves perishable evidence (tainted currency, phenolphthalein test results, recordings) and prevents continuing harm. Waiting for “more complaints” does not strengthen a case as much as professionally collected primary evidence and risks alerting the accused or enabling more corruption episodes.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Assess prima facie credibility of the complainant and specifics (time, place, demanded amount).2) Plan a trap with independent panch witnesses; document and video/audio record where permissible.3) Execute arrest/recovery; register FIR; proceed per the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Verification / Alternative check:Trap cases, properly documented, typically provide stronger, contemporaneous evidence than collating multiple delayed complaints with hearsay value.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Waiting for “more complaints” (II) delays justice, risks destruction of evidence, and is not necessary for legal sufficiency once a verifiable demand is recorded.

Common Pitfalls:Acting without proper documentation or independent witnesses can weaken prosecution; conversely, inaction emboldens misconduct.

Final Answer:Only I follows.