V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 20-2-1996 made in CC No. 42 of 1992 on the file of the special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, vijayawada in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months under each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts to the case are that the appellant herein Kalukuri Lingaiah (hereinafter referred to as the AO ), while functioning as ASI in Arundalpet Police station, Guntur District, demanded a sum of rs. 1,000/- from the complainant Muchipalli venkata Ramana Rao (PW1) as bribe on 14-9-1988 night at Arundalpet Police Station for not taking action against him on the complaint given against him by his wife smt. M Vasantha Rumari (PW4 ). On 15-9-1988, the AO repeated his earlier demand at the shop of PW1 at Guntur at 10. 00 AM and at the house of PW1 at guntur at 9. 30 PM. Again on 16-9-1988, the repeated the said demand at the shop of pw1 at 6. 30 AM and at his house at 9. 00 pm. Again on 19-9-1988 at 5. 30 PM, he repeated the demand at the shop of PW1. On 21-9-1998 at about 2. 30 PM, the AO demanded and accepted the bribe amount of rs. 1,000/- from PW1 at the place opposite to the Arundalpet Police Station, through nutalapati Adinarayana, Tea-cart boy (PW5 ). Tims, it is alleged that the AO committed offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act ( 3 ) IN support of the prosecution case, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. Pl to P11 and MOs. 1 to 7 were marked. On behalf of defence, none was examined and no documents were marked. ( 4 ) PW1 deposed that he married PW4 on 3-7-1988 in Malleswara Swamy Temple at Pedavakadam. Thereafter, he set up a separate family along with his wife (PW4) in Guntur. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. Pl to P11 and MOs. 1 to 7 were marked. On behalf of defence, none was examined and no documents were marked. ( 4 ) PW1 deposed that he married PW4 on 3-7-1988 in Malleswara Swamy Temple at Pedavakadam. Thereafter, he set up a separate family along with his wife (PW4) in Guntur. After some time, his father on coming to know of his marriage, requested him to come along with his wife to his father s house. But, his wife resisted for the same. He convinced her and took her to his father s house. Thereupon, differences arose between him and his wife. All of a sudden, without informing him, his wife left the house and was not seen for 3 days. On 14-9-1988, she gave a complaint against him at Arundalpet Police Station alleging that he was demanding dowry. On the same day, the AO came to his shop at about 1. 00 PM, took him to the police station and put him in the police lock-up. Though he was protesting that he had not committed any offence, the accused, while abusing him in filthy language, put him in the lock-up. After putting him in the police lock-up, the AO asked his wife to go away and come again in the evening. ( 5 ) IN the evening his wife again came to the police station and requested the AO to take him out of the lock-up representing that she wanted to make an enquiry against her petition by calling her husband and that she never wanted her husband to be put in the lock-up. His father also came in the evening to the police station on 14-9-1988 and requested the AO to leave him stating that he never demanded any dowry and that the marriage between him and his wife is an inter-caste marriage. The AO also abused his father; so, his father also left the police station. Thereupon, the AO also left the police station. At about 9. 00 PM on the night of 14-9-1988, one B. Badrinath (PW3), who is the opposite shop owner, came to the police station and requested the Station writer Sri K. James to take him out of the lock-up. Accordingly, the said James took him out of the lock-up room. Thereupon, the AO also left the police station. At about 9. 00 PM on the night of 14-9-1988, one B. Badrinath (PW3), who is the opposite shop owner, came to the police station and requested the Station writer Sri K. James to take him out of the lock-up. Accordingly, the said James took him out of the lock-up room. At that time, the AO came there and talked to the said james in an angry mood as to why he took him out of the lock-up room. But, the said james represented some thing to the AO and adjusted. Thereupon, the AO prepared 3 statements by himself and got them signed forcibly by him and his wife and his father. After they signed those statements the AO called him aside and asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as bribe stating that unless that amount was paid, he would again put him in the lock-up. Ex. P1 is the statement drafted by the AO himself and he signed upon it. Thereupon, he represented to the AO that he was not having the money demanded by him as he was brought from the shop as he was and revested him to give time. The AO then asked him to get that amount on the next day, i. e. , on 15-9-1988. As 15-9-1988 happened to be Vinayakachavithi day and as the AO threatened him to put in the lock-up again, he had to agree to give that bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- stating that he would try for the said amount. Thereupon, he came out of the police station. ( 6 ) ON 15-9-1988, as usual, he opened his shop for business. At about 10. 00 AM, the AO came to his shop and asked him for the demanded amount of Rs. 1,000/ -. He then represented to him that he would try for it. The AO left his shop threatening that if he did not arrange the money by 4. 00 PM on that day, he would again put him in the lock-up. He deposed that on 16-9-1988 and 17-9-1988 the AO came to his shop and house and demanded him for the bribe amount. On 19-9-1988 at about 5,00 PM, the AO came to his shop and gave a last warning to him that if he could not give the money by 21-9-1988 by 2. He deposed that on 16-9-1988 and 17-9-1988 the AO came to his shop and house and demanded him for the bribe amount. On 19-9-1988 at about 5,00 PM, the AO came to his shop and gave a last warning to him that if he could not give the money by 21-9-1988 by 2. 00 PM, he would definitely keep him in the lock-up. So saying, the AO went away. ( 7 ) AS he was not inclined to give bribe to the AO, he went to the DSP, ACB, vijayawada and gave a report (Ex. P2) on 20-9-1988. Then, the DSP asked him to come to the guest-house on 21-9-1988 at 11. 30 with the proposed bribe amount He pledged his gold ring with a Marwadi and raised the amount of Rs. 1,000/ -. As instructed, he went to the guest house by 11. 30 AM on 21-9-1988. Then, he was called inside a room, where there were two mediators and the officers of ACB department. When asked by the DSP, he produced the amount of Rs. 1,000/- consisting of 10 notes of hundred-rupee denomination. He noted down the numbers of those notes and prepared 1st mediators reporte (Ex. P6) by observing all the formalities. Then, the DSP instructed the complainant (PW1) to pay the tainted money to the AO on his demand only and to give a signal by taking out his spects and wiping his face and also glasses with a handkerchief to convey the acceptance of the tainted money to the remaining members of the trap party. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, at about 1. 00 PM, all of them left the guest-house. He came to his shop on his scooter, while the ACB people came in a jeep and car. All of them took their respective positions in the surrounding places of his shop. At about 1. 30 PM, he was in his shop. At about 2. 00 pm, he received a phone call from the AO and the AO asked him as to whether he arranged the amount or not. Then, he replied that he arranged the money and asked him to come to his shop. But, the AO asked him to come to the Police Station. Thereupon, he informed the same to the dsp. Then, the DSP instructed him to go to the police station stating that they would also follow him. Then, he replied that he arranged the money and asked him to come to his shop. But, the AO asked him to come to the Police Station. Thereupon, he informed the same to the dsp. Then, the DSP instructed him to go to the police station stating that they would also follow him. Accordingly, he went to the police station on his scooter followed by the ACB people and the mediators. At the shop near Raymonds Show Room, the DSP, staff and the mediators remained and he proceeded to the police station. At the gate of the police station, the AO was present. He got down the scooter. Then, the AO asked him as to whether he brought the amount or not. When he said yes, the AO took him to a tea stall, which is 30 yards away opposite to the police station on the other side of the road. The AO placed an order for two teas and paid the amount. Then, the AO asked him to take out the amount. As per the demand of the AO, he took out the amount. Then, the AO asked the tea stall boy by name Adinoroyona (PW5) to take that amount and count. PW5 counted the amount. The AO then asked him to keep that amount with him stating that he would take that amount in the evening while going to his house. Accordingly, pw5 kept that amount in his right side pocket of his knicker. Thereupon, the AO was returning to the police station. At that time, he gave the pre-arranged signal. Then, the DSP and his staff, after receiving the signal, came to the police station and joined the accused in the threshold of the police station. ( 9 ) PW1 was not cross-examined immediately either on the same day or on the next day; and his chief-examination was over on 29-6-1990. The AO retired on 30-4-1993. PW1 was recalled for the purpose of cross-examination only on 21-9-1995, i. e. , after 5 years of the chief-examination. ( 10 ) IN the cross-examination, PW1 stated that his statement was not recorded, but he was simply asked to sign on a statement already recorded. The AO retired on 30-4-1993. PW1 was recalled for the purpose of cross-examination only on 21-9-1995, i. e. , after 5 years of the chief-examination. ( 10 ) IN the cross-examination, PW1 stated that his statement was not recorded, but he was simply asked to sign on a statement already recorded. He also stated that he cannot say who were present in the police station, but he can say that one James, who was a constable, was present He stated that for the first time he mentioned in his report given to the DSP that the AO made a demand on him to pay a bribe of Rs. 1,000/-; and till then, he did not inform to any body that the AO made the said demand. He stated that he was instructed by the DSP to pay the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- only to the AO; and the ACB proposed to lay the trap only in the police station and not in his shop. He denied the suggestion that PW5 was a worker in his shop. ( 11 ) PW2, the father of PW1 stated that he was working as Assistant Engineer, pulichintala at Sattenapally. On 14-9-1988 at about 5. 00 PM, he learnt that his son (PW1) was kept in the police station in connection with the report given by his wife (PW4 ). Then, he went to the police station, met the AO and requested him to release his son. Then, the AO told him that if he pays him Rs. 1,000/-, he would release him; otherwise, he would file a case and implicate him also along with PW1. Then, pw1 stated that he would pay the amount within two or three days. Then, the AO took the signatures from him and his son separately on a white paper. Ex. P3 is the paper on which his signature was taken at that time, which was blank. He has put the date as 15-9-1988, as it was taken at 2 AM on the intervening night of 14/5-9-1988. In the cross-examination, he stated that at the relevant time, he was working at Sattenapally. As his family was at Guntur, he used to visit Guntur from sattenapally. He has not sent any report to the superiors of the AO about his demand for the amount. In the cross-examination, he stated that at the relevant time, he was working at Sattenapally. As his family was at Guntur, he used to visit Guntur from sattenapally. He has not sent any report to the superiors of the AO about his demand for the amount. ( 12 ) PW3, the shop owner opposite to the shop of PW1, stated that on 14-9-1988 at 9. 00 PM, he also went to the police station in connection with the complaint given by the wife of PW1 and saw PW1 in the lock-up; and as the AO did not turn up, he went away at about 10. 30 PM. On the next day, he came to know about the release of PW1. ( 13 ) PW4 is the wife of PW1. She stated that on 14-9-1988 at about 10. 00am, she gave a complaint (Ex. P4) against her husband (PW1) at Arundalpet Police Station; - and the AO was present at that time; and then, the AO sent for PW1 against her complaint and asked her to come in the afternoon. Then, she was called at 4. 00 or 5. 00 PM; and she went to the police station and saw PW1 and his father Nukaraju (PW2 ). Then the AO tried to effect compromise between them and also took a document on which herself, PW1 and PW2 signed for living amicably. Subsequently. she did not go to the station. In the cross- examination, she denied the suggestion that she stated before the Inspector, ACB as in ex. P5 to the effect that PW1 was retained in the lock-up in their presence at 12. 00 noon and that the AO told her that he would release him if they pay Rs. 1,000/- to him. She also denied the suggestion that the AO came to their shop on 15th and 19-8-1988 repeating his demand for the amount. She denied the suggestion that to help the accused, she was deposing falsely. ( 14 ) PW5, the supplier in the tea stall opposite to the Arundalpet Police Station, stated that he knew the AO, as he and other constables used to come to their tea stall for taking tea. He stated that on the date of incident at about 2. 00 PM, while he was alone managing the tea stall, the AO and another person came to the tea stall. He stated that on the date of incident at about 2. 00 PM, while he was alone managing the tea stall, the AO and another person came to the tea stall. Then, the AO ordered for two teas and he served tea to the AO and the other person, who accompanied him. After having some talk with the said person, the AO asked the said person to handover the money he brought to him. Then, the said person gave ten hundred rupee notes. The AO asked him to keep the said amount with him and he further told him that he would take the said money at about 8. 00 PM while returning to his house. Then, he kept the said money in his right knicker pocket. Then, after they gave the money, the AO and the said person went towards the police station. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not listen as to what the ao and another person talked in his tea stall. He did not know whether the AO did not want the bribe. He did not know the name of the person who came to his tea stall and asked him to go over to the police station. He has not stated either in the chief-examination or in the cross- examination that PW1 is the person who gave the money to him. ( 15 ) PW6 is a mediator to the trap proceedings. He stated that he did not remember whether there was any other person in the Photostat Copying Centre other than the complainant (PW1 ). He did not see PW5 Adinarayana in the Photostat copying Center before they proceeded towards the police station. The DSP specifically instructed the PW1 to pay the tainted amount only to the AO. At the time of writing the 1st mediators report, it was intended to lay the trap at the Photostat copying Center of PW1. PW1 gave a prearranged signal after he went few yards from the tea bunk towards police station. The trap party did not stop the AO on the road. The AO was stopped at the gate of the police station. ( 16 ) PW7, the DSP, ACB, stated that he instructed PW1 to pay the tainted amount to the AO on his further demand only and give signal by wiping his glasses with his hand-kerchief. The trap party did not stop the AO on the road. The AO was stopped at the gate of the police station. ( 16 ) PW7, the DSP, ACB, stated that he instructed PW1 to pay the tainted amount to the AO on his further demand only and give signal by wiping his glasses with his hand-kerchief. PW1 went into the shop and other members of the trap party took vantage positions in the vicinity of the shop. At 2. 00 PM, PW1 came and informed him that the AO phoned him and asked him to come to the police station. Then all the members of the trap party proceeded to the raymonds Show Room situated in the 9th line, Arundalpet. He reiterated the instructions to PW1 and he proceeded towards Arundalpet Police Station. The AO was standing at the entrance of the police station. On seeing PW1, the AO came forward and had a talk with PW1 and led pw1 to the tea-cart in 10th line, Arundalpet opposite to the police station. The AO and pw1 had tea; and after about 10 minutes, pw1 moved towards the road and gave the pre-arranged signal. Then, the fingers of both hands of the AO were subjected to test, but proved negative. Then, he questioned the AO about the tainted money and his version was recorded. (No such recorded version is produced before the trial Court ). In the cross-examination, he stated that according to the complainant, the AO was expected to come at 2. 00 PM at the shop of the PW1, ie. , at the Photostat Copying center; and they reached the Photostat copying Center by 1. 10 PM. He did not instruct the complainant ,to telephone and call the accused to the Photostat copying center. ( 17 ) PW8 was the Range Inspector-I, ACB, Vijayawada at the relevant time. He stated that he was also a member of the trap parry. Initially, they wanted to lay the trap on the AO at the institute of PW1 because the accused was expected to come there. They also waited there for some time. He denied the suggestion that PW5 was an employee of PW1. He did not examine the owner of the tea push-cart. He did not examine any employees or students or customers of PW1 s institute. They also waited there for some time. He denied the suggestion that PW5 was an employee of PW1. He did not examine the owner of the tea push-cart. He did not examine any employees or students or customers of PW1 s institute. He did not verify the entry book or lock-up register of arundalpet Police Station. He did not go into the aspect whether the AO tried to compromise between PWs. 1 and 4; and his investigation revealed, as per the version of the witnesses, that he never tried to effect compromise between PWs. 1 and 4. He did not verify antecedents or confidential reports relating to the AO. ( 18 ) AFTER the evidence on behalf of the prosecution was over, the AO was examined under Section 313 Cr. PC to explain the incriminating evidence available against him. Then, the AO stated that he came to know about the complaint issued by PW4 on 14-8-1988 to the SI of Police. But, the said complaint was not given to him. He also stated that PWs. 1, 2 and 4 themselves compromised the matter at about 4. 00 or 5. 00 PM on 14-9-1988 itself and they themselves gave the statement compromising on their own voluntarily. PW1 was never put up in the lock-up on that night. He also stated that he never took signatures on the blank paper on the intervening night of 14-9-1988 and they themselves gave the statements voluntarily on their own. He also stated that he did not know whether pw3 came to the police station on that day or not; and it is not true to say that he put pw1 in the lock-up and James, Writer of the Police Station released PW1 out of the lock-up. As per the orders of the SI of police and CI of Police, he had taken the signatures of PWs. 1, 2 and 4 on the statements, but he did not ask them to sign or give the statements and he never threatened PWs. 1, 2 and 4. He did not know PW5 at all and he came to know that pw5 was working in the Photostat Copying center of PW1. When the ACB people came to the police station, he was only in the police station and he did not know any thing about the trap proceedings. He did not know about the marriage of PWs. He did not know PW5 at all and he came to know that pw5 was working in the Photostat Copying center of PW1. When the ACB people came to the police station, he was only in the police station and he did not know any thing about the trap proceedings. He did not know about the marriage of PWs. 1 and 4; and they themselves developed disputes and gave a report to the SI of police. On the said report, the SI enquired the matter and stated that as they are husband and wife and if any action is taken, the relationship between them would be strained; and therefore, his superior officer asked them to settle the matter; and accordingly they themselves voluntarily gave the statements, which were accordingly recorded on 14-9-1988 itself; and all of them went away on 14-9-1988 itself; and he did not know any thing about the subsequent events till the trap case was filed; and he has retired. ( 19 ) ON the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge held that the AO is found guilty and accordingly convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the act. With regard to the sentence, the AO stated that he retired from service three years back prior to the date of the judgment due to superannuation; and his wife died 18 years back; he got 4 daughters and 2 of them were married and the other two are yet to be married; and he does not have any movable or immovable properties and he has no support and he is innocent; and he is also having one son, who has been married and living separately, ( 20 ) THE question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the ao himself compromised the dispute between PWs. 1, 2 and 4 and whether the ao demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-? ( 21 ) PW1 stated that the AO obtained their signatures on the written statements; whereas PW2 (the father of PW1) stated that the AO obtained their signatures on blank papers. PW2 also stated that the blank paper on which his signature was obtained by the AO is Ex. P3, which was signed on 15-9-1988. 1,000/-? ( 21 ) PW1 stated that the AO obtained their signatures on the written statements; whereas PW2 (the father of PW1) stated that the AO obtained their signatures on blank papers. PW2 also stated that the blank paper on which his signature was obtained by the AO is Ex. P3, which was signed on 15-9-1988. The compromise statement said to have taken from PW1 is ex. Pl dated 14-9-1988. There is a clear contradiction in the statement of PW1, who has stated that on the recorded statements, his signature and the signature of PW4 were taken; whereas PW2 state that on blank papers, the signatures were taken. But, in fact, that was not taken on the blank paper as is evident from Ex. P3 dated 15-9-1988. When questioned as to why he has put the date as 15-9-1988, he (PW2) stated that as it was intervening night of 14-9-1988 and 15-9-1988, he has put the date as 14/15-9-1988. If at all, the aggrieved party for not taking action is only PW4, who is said to have given the complaint against pws. 1 and 2; and PW4 has not supported the case of the prosecution at all; and has stated that the AO never came to their shop and demanded the bribe amount; and they have voluntarily given the statement agreeing to live amicably. The evidence of pws. 7, 8 and 6 (the mediator to the trap proceedings) is specific that trap was planned to be made at the Xerox Copying Center of pw1 alone; but whereas PW1 stated that the trap was intended to be made at the police station alone. According to the ACB officials and mediators and even according to PW1, PW1 has been instructed specifically to give the bribe amount on demand to the AO alone, but not to any other person on his behalf. Admittedly, the money has not been accepted by the AO and the entire case is that the money was accepted on behalf of the AO by the tea stall boy (PW5); and even PW5 stated that he did not know whether the said amount is bribe amount and whether the AO demanded the money as bribe. Therefore, the evidence, on the face of it, does not prove that the so-called demand alleged to have been made according to PWs. 1 and 2, has been materialized. Therefore, the evidence, on the face of it, does not prove that the so-called demand alleged to have been made according to PWs. 1 and 2, has been materialized. Admittedly, the demanded amount has not been accepted at all and the money has not been recovered from the AO. It is the case of the AO that PW5 is a boy working under pw1 and he is not his agent and PW5 has not accepted the money on his behalf. PWs. 1, 2 and 4 never gave any complaint with regard to the alleged demand of money by the AO to any of his superior officers. There is a Sub-Inspector and Inspector of police at the Police Station and they never reported them about the so-called demand; and for the first time it is stated that PW1 gave a complaint on 20-9-1988 to the DSP; and even according to the instructions of the DSP, the money was directed to be paid by the PW1 on demand to the AO alone. But, the money was not given to the AO. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any acceptance of the bribe amount by the AO. ( 22 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is whether the charge under section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act is sustainable? ( 23 ) AS per the aforesaid section, if any public servant, by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any pecuniary advantage without any public interest, then he is said to have been committed the offence of criminal misconduct. ( 24 ) ADMITTEDLY, in this case, the AO has not obtained from any other person the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-, Even according to the trap proceedings, PW5 said that the money would be taken back while going to the house in the evening by the AO. If that be the case, the ACB officials should have waited till the evening so as to watch the conduct of the AO to take that money from pw5. Merely because PW5 took the money from PW1. If that be the case, the ACB officials should have waited till the evening so as to watch the conduct of the AO to take that money from pw5. Merely because PW5 took the money from PW1. It cannot be said that the said money is bribe amount, which is said to have been demanded by the AO; and also it cannot be said that he accepted the said money. When the AO has not at all accepted the said money for himself as bribe amount, then the question of drawing presumptiqn under Section 20 of the Act does not arise, as the AO has not accepted the so-called bribe amount. ( 25 ) UNDER Section 7 of the Act, if the public servant accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself any gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing any official favour or for rendering any service to any person, he is liable for punishment. ( 26 ) IN the instant case, the AO has not accepted any bribe amount; and in view of the discrepancies in the depositions of pws. 1 to 5, it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the AO accepted the bribe amount. It is difficult to hold, on the evidence available on record, that the AO committed the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. The so-called bribe amount has not been received by the AO; and according to the evidence of PW1, he pledged his gold ring to a Marwadi; and pws. 7 and 8 stated that they have not examined the so-called Marwadi; and therefore, it cannot be said that PW1 pledged his gold ring and made available the demanded bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/ -. 7 and 8 stated that they have not examined the so-called Marwadi; and therefore, it cannot be said that PW1 pledged his gold ring and made available the demanded bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/ -. It appears that having annoyed by the action of the AO in getting PW1 to the police station on the complaint given by his wife, he wanted to implicate the AO in a false trap case; and according to the ACB officers, the trap was said to be held at the Xerox copying Centre, but PW1 changed his version and made the ACB officers to believe that the AO asked him to bring the money to the police station; and at the police station also, the AO has not demanded or accepted the money and the money was not recovered from the person of the AO; and therefore, it cannot be said that the AO has taken the gratification amount of rs. 1,000/- other than the legal remuneration. According to the explanation given by the AO, he was not in-charge of the police station; there was a Sub-Inspector and also inspector; and the compromise was made at the instance of his superior officers; and therefore, it cannot be said that the AO did a favour in getting the compromise made in consideration of the bribe amount to be paid by PW1 only. The veracity of the prosecution story is tested. Having regard to the normal human behaviour and the preponderance of probabilities and the complainant s conduct without giving any complaint to the superior officials of the AO and straight away giving complaint to the DSP, ACB and the ACB officers without making any enquiry about the antecedents of the AO, straight away decided the trap, that too, at the shop of PW1, which was not materialised, and the so-called trap made at the police station has also failed, as the ao has not accepted the so-called bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-, and therefore, it cannot be said that the trap was successful and the ao has accepted the bribe amount of rs. 1,000/-; and when there was no acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-, the question of legal presumption under section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn. I, therefore, do not see any justification on the part of the ACB officials in filing the case. 1,000/-; and when there was no acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-, the question of legal presumption under section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn. I, therefore, do not see any justification on the part of the ACB officials in filing the case. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the AO for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the act. Accordingly, the AO is acquitted of the aforesaid charges and the judgment of the Court below is set side. The criminal appeal is allowed.