ORDER 1. The appellant was an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department at Kangeyam, Periyar district in Tamil Nadu. During the relevant period the appellant was in charge of releasing of water from LBP Dam at Bhavani Sagar Project at Chennanamalai division. The cultivators of that area had grievance that the accused was not releasing sufficient water for irrigation purpose and PW 1 M. Govindasamy alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs 1500 as bribe for releasing water to the cultivators. He made a complaint and a trap was laid on 16-3-1988. PW 1 gave Rs 500 to the appellant and the police party who were waiting thereby effected recovery of the alleged tainted amount from the appellant and a case was registered against him. The appellant admitted the receipt of Rs 500 from PW 1 but he contended that he had sold Indira Vikas Patras to PW 1 on 1-12-1987 and for which he had not paid the money and the amount which was paid on 16-3­1988 was the value of those Indira Vikas Patras. The appellant produced a Exhibit P-16, communication sent by him to his immediate superior. The trial court accepted the explanation of the appellant and acquitted him of all the charges framed against him. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court and the learned Single Judge set aside the acquittal and found the appellant guilty under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs 5000, in default to undergo RI for one year. The finding of the learned Single Judge is challenged before us. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent State. 3. The learned Single Judge reversed the acquittal passed by the Special Judge, firstly, for the reason that the appellant did not give a statement at the time of his arrest that the money he had received was towards the value of two Indira Vikas Patras sold by him to PW 1 and secondly, PW 2 who was allegedly present at the time of sale of Indira Vikas Patras did not depose that the appellant had been selling these Indira Vikas Patras on credit. It is important to note that the appellant relied on Exhibit P-16, communication sent by him to the office of the Executive Engineer. In Exhibit P-16 dated 1-12-1987 he stated that the Indira Vikas Patras were sold to PW 1 and the numbers of two Indira Vikas Patras were also mentioned. It is also mentioned in the letter that out of Rs 5000 he could collect only Rs 4500 and the balance would be paid later. According to the appellant Rs 500 received on 16-3-1988 was towards the value of two Indira Vikas Patras given by him. Exhibit P-16 probabilises the version given by the appellant. He also examined OW 1 and OW 2 to support his case. The statement given by OW 2 was to the effect that the appellant did not say to Govindasamy that Indira Vikas Patras were sold on credit. OW 2 stated that Indira Vikas Patras were sold to him and also was aware that PW 1 did not pay any consideration for the same. What was the understanding of the appellant and PW 1 was probably not known to OW 2. We do not think that the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the evidence of OW 2. Once Exhibit P-16 was found to be a true and genuine document, the case set up by the defence has to be accepted and in that view of the matter we do not think that the learned Single Judge was justified in reversing the acquittal passed by the Special Judge. 4. We set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal is allowed. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.