V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-AO. l against the judgment dated 12-09-1996, passed in C. C. No. 12 of 1993 on the file of the III Additional District and sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Visakhapatnam, in convicting him for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") and Section 201 IPC, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec. l3 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act. Both the sentences of imprisonment imposed under the above two counts are ordered to be run concurrently. No separate sentence is passed insofar as the offence under Section 201 IPC is concerned. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the accused, by name, M. Pydi Raju (for short ao-1 ), was working as Typist-cum-incharge Senior assistant in the office of the District Registrar, vizianagaram. On 06-07-1991,mr. S. Kasinath- p. W. 7, who is the president of the "sairam vikalangula Samchema Sangham", went to the Registrar s Office, at Vizianagaram, to register the said Sangham, and therefore, approached A. O. 1 and paid an amount of rs. 50/ - towards registration fee. He obtained a receipt to that effect from A. O. 1, after he signed in the application form for registration of the same. After receiving the application, according to P. W. 7, A. O. 1 demanded an amount of Rs. 200. 00. As bribe, for issuing the certificate of registration and stated him to come on 08-07-1991 for receiving the same. However, P. W. 7 pleaded his inability to pay the bribe amount, but A. O. 1 did not agree. Aggrieved by the same, P. W. 7 gave a complaint to P. W. 9 Inspector of Police, on 19-07-1991. On 20-07-1991, at 11. 30 a. m. , ao. However, P. W. 7 pleaded his inability to pay the bribe amount, but A. O. 1 did not agree. Aggrieved by the same, P. W. 7 gave a complaint to P. W. 9 Inspector of Police, on 19-07-1991. On 20-07-1991, at 11. 30 a. m. , ao. 1 was trapped in his office , when he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 200. 00 towards illegal gratification, other than the legal remuneration. A. O. 1 after accepting the said bribe amount from P. W. 7, issued registration certificate and thereafter he kept the same in his table drawer and further he called A. O. 2 and handed over the same to him. ( 3 ) A. O. 1, who is the appellant herein, was working as Typist-cum-incharge Senior assistant; P. W. 1, G. Pullaiah, is the District registrar; P. W. 2, B. Narasimha Murthy, is thejointsub-Registrar;p. W. 3,p. Ramakrishna, is the attender working in the office of the district Registrar, Vizianagaram. It has come in the evidence of P. W. 7 that in the year 1991 physically handicapped persons of cheepurupalli village have formed into an association in the name and style of "sairam vikalangula Samchema Sangham", for which p. W. 7 is the President and that on 06-07-1991, he went to the office of the District registrar, with an intention to register the said Sangham, and met one Mr. Krishnam raju, who is the Office Assistant in charge of registration of Society, working in the place of A. O. 1. He also met A. O. 2 and purchased the registration form (Ex. P-4) by paying an amount of Rs. 50. 00 towards registration fee and submitted the same of P. W. 2. He obtained a receipt-Ex. P-5, and handed over the said application form to A. O. 1. It has further come in the evidence of P. W. 7 that a. O. 1 demanded a sum of Rs. 200. 00 as bribe, for registering the said Sangham and asked him to pay the same on 08-07-1991. But, on 08-07-1991, P. W. 7 did not go to the registration office, as he was suffering from diarrhea. Again on 19-07-1991, P. W. 7 went to the District Registrar s office, and met a. O. 1 and enquired about registration. It is further stated that A. O. 1 asked him whether he has brought Rs. 200. But, on 08-07-1991, P. W. 7 did not go to the registration office, as he was suffering from diarrhea. Again on 19-07-1991, P. W. 7 went to the District Registrar s office, and met a. O. 1 and enquired about registration. It is further stated that A. O. 1 asked him whether he has brought Rs. 200. 00, as demanded by him earlier and also informed him that the said Sangham was registered with registration No. 138/91, which is marked as ex. P-10. P. W. 7 further informed A. O. 1 that he will bring the money next day, and came out of the office. ( 4 ) ON the same day i. e. , 19-07-1991, at 1. 00 p. m. , P. W. 7 lodged a complaint-Ex. P-27, with P. W. 8-the Deputy Superintendent of police, ACB, Warangal. P. W. 8 sent the complaint for verification to one Rama krishna Rao, Inspector of Police-P. W. 9. Thereafter, P. W. 9 submitted a report on the same day after 1. 00 p. m. Subsequently, p. W. 8 registered a case in crime No. 8/rc- acb-VZM/91. On 20-07-1991, at about 8. 00 a. m. , P. W. 7 along with the mediators assembled in the office of Deputy superintendent of Police and he was informed about production of the amount of rs. 200/-, in the denomination of fifty rupee currency notes, to be given to the A. 0. 1, on demand. After explaining about the phenolphthalein test to the mediators and p. W. 7 etc. , all of them left for the office. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 7, when he went into the office of the District Registrar and enquired about the registration certificate, a. 0. 1 asked him whether he has brought the amount as demanded by him. When P. W. 7 replied that he has brought the money, a. 0. 1 handed over the registration certificate and memorandum of Society to P. W. 7. Thereafter, P. W. 7 took out the money from his left shirt-pocket and paid to A. 0. 1, who received the amount with his right hand, counted and placed the same in the drawer in the right side of the table. A. 0. 1 obtained the signature of P. W. 7 in the concerned register. Immediately , P. W. 7 came out of the room and gave a signal at 11. 1, who received the amount with his right hand, counted and placed the same in the drawer in the right side of the table. A. 0. 1 obtained the signature of P. W. 7 in the concerned register. Immediately , P. W. 7 came out of the room and gave a signal at 11. 35 a. m. , and on receiving the signal, the trapping party proceeded into the room of A. 0. 1 at 11. 40 a. m. and conducted Phenolphthalein test on the fingers of A. 0. 1. When questioned, A. O. 1 stated that he did not demand any money and also did not receive any money from p. W. 7. Then Deputy Superintendent of police-P. W. 8, searched the pockets of pant and shirt of A. O. 1, but he did not find any money, and the accused replied that P. W. 7 wanted to give some money to him and that he pushed the money with his both hands. Then, P. W. 8 instructed the attender to call a. O. 2. At about four-and-half hours after the trapping, A. O. 2 was brought to the office, who stated that he received money from A. O. 1 towards repayment of loan given by him to A. O. 1. When the fingers of A. O. 2 were tested, the white colour solution turned into pink colour. After completing the formalities, Ex. P-24-second mediators report was drafted. On 07-08-1991, P. W. 9 recorded the statements of witnesses and obtained ex. P-26-sanction order and filed the chargesheet. ( 6 ) IN support of the case of the prosecution, p. Ws. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs. P-1 to p-31 were marked. On behalf of defence, d. W. 1 was examined and Exs. D-1 to D-19 were marked. ( 7 ) LEARNED senior counsel, Sri T. Padma nabha Reddy, appearing for the accused, submitted that, admittedly, A. O. 1 and p. W. 7 have appeared for the examination when the recruitment that took place in the year 1985, but A. O. 1 alone was selected and p. W. 7 could not be selected. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that A. O. 2 was supplying the household articles to the officers of the Registrar s office and used to collect the amount in monthly installments. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that A. O. 2 was supplying the household articles to the officers of the Registrar s office and used to collect the amount in monthly installments. It is not the case of the prosecution that a. O. 2 was mediating among the officers and the customers for the purpose of bribe. A. O. 2 and his father were document writers and he was also supplying the household articles to the officers. Even according to p. W. 7, the registration form was submitted on 06-07-1991 by paying Rs. 50. 00 towards registration fee. P. W. 7 himself stated that a. O. 1 asked him to collect registration certificate on 08-07-1991, as the Registrar was not in the station and he is the competent authority to issue the registration certificate. Admittedly, P. W. 7 could not go to the office on 08-07-1991. He went to the office only on 19-07-1991, on which date A. O. 1 asked the bribe amount of Rs. 200. 00. Thenp. W. 7stated that he could not arrange the money and he will get it on the next day i. e. , 20-07-1991. Thereafter, P. W. 7 went to the ACB office on 19-07-1991 and lodged a complaint. He further stated that as per the instructions of ; the ACB officials he gave the money to A. O. 1. Then, A. O. 1 called the attender in the presence P. W. 7 to call A. O. 2. In the official mediators report-Ex. A-24, P. W. 7stated that he saw A. O. 2 coming into the room of a. O. 1 and gave signal at 11. 35 a. m. , and after five minutes thereafter ACB officials entered into the room of A. O. 1 and searched the pockets of pant and shirt of A. O. 1. But, they could not find the money said to have been received by him towards bribe from P. W. 7. After one hour thereafter, they called p. W. 7 inside the room and questioned him as to what had happened. Then P. W. 7 narrated as was stated in the first mediators report. When they were writing Ex. P-24 second mediators report, at about four-and- half hours of the alleged trap, P. W. 9- inspector, brought A. O. 2. After one hour thereafter, they called p. W. 7 inside the room and questioned him as to what had happened. Then P. W. 7 narrated as was stated in the first mediators report. When they were writing Ex. P-24 second mediators report, at about four-and- half hours of the alleged trap, P. W. 9- inspector, brought A. O. 2. Then, they have subjected the hands of A. O. 2 to phenolphthalein test, which was found positive. ( 8 ) IT is stated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused that A. O. 1 at the earliestpoint of time stated thathe refused to receive the bribe amount and pushed P. W. 7, when he offered the amount of Rs. 200. 00 with his hands. It is relevant to extract the statement of A. O. 1, as was recorded in ex. P-24-mediators report No. 2, which reads as follows:-". . . . . . . . ON seeing the DSP and ACB party he perturbed and shivered and stated that the complainant took away the amount. When the DSP questioned A-2, as to he admitted and accepted the bribe amount from P. W. 7 and asked him to produce the said amount if he has accepted, the Pydi Raju, perflexed and confused and denied to have taken the bribe from the complainant and further stated that he refused the said amount and rejected to take and left the same with the complainant. ""sri Pydi Raju then stated that when p. W. 7 was offering some amount with his right hand he refused to take that amount by pushing away the amount with both his hands and then P. W. 7 has takenaway that amount and went away. ""a-L again stated that he has not received any amount from P. W. 7. Then, the DSP, acb conducted through search with the assistance of the staff. The person of m. Pydi Raju, the records available on the table of A-l, and also the two desks and the surroundings of typistand record room, but the tainted amount is not traced. " ( 9 ) THOUGH in the second mediator s report, a. O. 1 said to have admitted the visit of p. W. 7 on 19-07-1991, there is no proof to show that P. W. 7 visited the office of A. O. 1 on the said date. " ( 9 ) THOUGH in the second mediator s report, a. O. 1 said to have admitted the visit of p. W. 7 on 19-07-1991, there is no proof to show that P. W. 7 visited the office of A. O. 1 on the said date. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that A. O. 1 called A. O. 2 through attender and the amount was handed over to A. O. 2, without disclosing him as to whether it is a bribe amount or not. A. O. 2 stated that he has received the said amount towards the installment amount. Therefore, the trial Court held that A. O. 2 was not having any knowledge about the said amount whether it was a bribe amount, or the repayment of the loan amount, and therefore, the case was ended in acquittal as against A. O. 2. ( 10 ) THE question that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of A. O. 1, as to whether he demanded the bribe amount of rs. 200/- from P. W. 7 on 06-07-1991 and on 19-07-1991 for registering the said Sangham, and whether A. O. 1 accepted the amount of rs. 200/- as bribe on 20-07-1991 from P. W. 7? ( 11 ) THE first charge framed against A. O. 1 was that, he being the public servant i. e. , typist-cum-Incharge Senior Assistant in the officeof the Districtregistrar, Vizianagaram, on20-07-1991ataboutll. 30a. m. ,athisoffice he demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 200. 00 from the complainant - P. W. 7, president of the said Sangham, for himself, as gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive for doing an official act i. e. , for registering the said Sangham, and thereby committed an offence under section 7 of the Act. ( 12 ) THE second charge was that he accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 200. 00 for himself, by corrupt or illegal means, in their way committed an offence under Sec. 13 (2) read with Section 13 (i) (b) of the Act. ( 13 ) P. W. 1 is the Registering Authority. A. O. 1 is a clerk, who acts as per the instructions of the Registering Authority. 200. 00 for himself, by corrupt or illegal means, in their way committed an offence under Sec. 13 (2) read with Section 13 (i) (b) of the Act. ( 13 ) P. W. 1 is the Registering Authority. A. O. 1 is a clerk, who acts as per the instructions of the Registering Authority. When P. W. 7 went into the office of the district Registrar, Vizianagaram, the presence of A. O. 1 was not there, but, one krishnam Raju was there, and later, he met a. O. 2 and obtained the registration forms. Registration forms were submitted only on 06-07-1991; and as the Registrar was not in the office, the Joint Sub-Registrar-P. W. 2 received the registration forms and made an endorsement on it and directed to receive the registration fee of Rs. 50. 00. It is stated that a. O. 1 asked P. W. 7 to come and collect the registration certificate on 08-07-1991. Admittedly, P. W. 7 did not visit the office on 08-07-1991, but he alleged to have visited the office only on 19-07-1991. ( 14 ) ON the other hand, Sri Pedda Babu, learned counsel appearing for the ACB submits that there is. ample evidence on record to show that A. O. 1 demanded P. W. 7 to pay the bribe amount of Rs. 200. 00 for issuance of the registration certificate. Further, P. W. 7 visited the office of the registrar on 19-07-1991, and when A. O. 1 demanded bribe amount of Rs. 200. 00, P. W. 7 expressed his inability to pay the same and stated that he will give the amount on the next day, and on the other day he paid the said amount. It is evident through phenolphthalein test reports on the fingers of both the hands of A. O. 1 and phenolphthalein test over the fingers of a. O. 2 which were found positive, that a. O. 1 received the amount and passed on to a. O. 2, and thus, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of A. O. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 15 ) THERE is no other evidence except the oral evidence of P. W. 7 to prove that P. W. 7 visited the office of A. O. 1 on 19-07-1991. ( 15 ) THERE is no other evidence except the oral evidence of P. W. 7 to prove that P. W. 7 visited the office of A. O. 1 on 19-07-1991. Admittedly, P. W. 7 could not be selected for the job though he appeared along with a. O. 1 during the year 1985. Admittedly, p. W. 7 was involved in as many as two cases in Crime No. 10/1993, and C. CNo. 130/1994, which were marked as Exs. D-3 and D-4. Admittedly, P. W. 7 did not visit the office after 06-07-1991 to 19-07-1991. P. W. 7 also admitted that even if he has not visited the office, the certificate has to be dispatched immediately after a month. Had there been any evidence to prove the contention of the prosecution that P. W. 7 visited the office of the Sub-Registrar on 19-07-1991 and that a. O. 2 entered into the room of A. O. 1 on the day of trapping, it could have been a different thing, but absolutely there is no evidence to show that A. O. 2 entered into the room of a. O. 1 on the day of trap. At the earliest point of time A. O. 1 stated that he refused to receive the amount offered by P. W. 7, and when p. W. 7 wanted to give the amount of rs. 200/-, he pushed with his both hands. Therefore, obviously, as he happened to touch the money when P. W. 7 forcibly wanted to give him and refused to receive the same, the Phenolphthalein test was found positive. It is not the case of the prosecution that a. O. 2 has not taken any money. P. W. 7 knows A. O. 2 prior to the incident and he is acquainted with A. O. 2 in person. It is difficult to believe that P. W. 7 was not able to see a. O. 2 entering into the room of A. O. 1 immediately after the trap. Even the attender p. W. 3 also has not stated anything about a. O. 2 entering into the room of A. 0. 1. The prosecution have further developed the case after the trap has failed stating that P. W. 7 gave that tainted money to A. O. 1 and a. 0. 1 in turn gave the money to A. O. 2. 1. The prosecution have further developed the case after the trap has failed stating that P. W. 7 gave that tainted money to A. O. 1 and a. 0. 1 in turn gave the money to A. O. 2. Admittedly, the prosecution has not tested the drawer of the table of A. O. 1. P. W. 7 stated that the money was kept in the drawer of A. O. 1. Atleast they could have tested the drawer of A. O. 1 to prove their case. They have not subjected the drawer of the table of a. O. 1 to phenolphthalein test where money is said to have been kept. There is no proof that A. O. 2 has not washed his hands from 11. 40 a. m. , to 3. 30 or 4. 00 p. m. , and that he has not taken his lunch to believe the versions of the prosecution. What is, important in a criminal case is "link" which is missing in this case Therefore, it is very difficult to believe the version of the prosecution that p. W. 7 offered the money to A. O. 1 and that a. O. 1 demanded and received the said money. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 16 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Court below is unsustainable, and the same is accordingly set aside and the accused is acquitted for the offencepunishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act, and Section 201 ipc. The bail bonds executed by A. O. 1 stand discharged and fine amount paid by him may be refunded. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.