( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the accused in C. C. No. 26 of 1995 on the file of the Special judge for S. P. E. and A. C. B. Cases-cum-lll additional District and Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam. The appellant was charged for the offences under Sections 7, 11 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1 ) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) THE appellant worked as a Mandal deputy Surveyor in the office of the Mandal revenue Officer, Tallarevu, East Godavari district. P. W. 1 is the de facto complainant. He retired as an Officer of the Life Insurance corporation of India. The wife of the de facto complainant owned Ac. 2. 75 cents of land at bapanapalli village and The sold away Ac. 1. 50 cents to one Muggulla Ramarao of Yanam. The said Ramarao wanted to purchase another extent of Ac. 0. 50 cents from the wife of the de facto complainant and requested him to get the land measured through a surveyor. On 2-5-1992 P. W. 1 went to the mandal Revenue Officer s office at Tallarevu and met the appellant at his office. P. W. 1 requested the appellant to measure the land on payment of the required fee. The appellant stated that it takes several months if all the formalities are observed to measure the land and suggested that the land will be measured if he pays Rs. 500. 00 to him towards bribe. When the appellant suggested the date as 11-5-1992, P. W. 1 insisted the appellant to measure the land on 4-5-1992 itself therefore the appellant demanded Rs. 200. 00 towards part payment of the bribe amount and when p. W. 1 paid the said amount, he accepted the same. On 4-5-1992 the appellant measured the land of the wife of P. W. 1 in the presence of P. W. 3 and P. W. 6 P. W. 1 requested the appellant to issue a certificate, but the appellant stated that the certificate will be issued only after receipt of the balance amount of Rs. 300. 00. P. W. 1, who was not willing to pay the amount, sought for a week s time for arranging payment. He approached the inspector, A. C. B. , Kakinada and presented ex. P-1 complaint. 300. 00. P. W. 1, who was not willing to pay the amount, sought for a week s time for arranging payment. He approached the inspector, A. C. B. , Kakinada and presented ex. P-1 complaint. It was registered as a crime by the A. C. B. officials and a trap was arranged against the appellantthrough P. W. 1. On 13-5-1992 at about9. 00p. rn. the appellant accepted Rs. 300. 00 from the de facto complainant at his residence and paid the said amount to P. W. 2. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of both the hands of the appellant proved positive. The appellant had shown P. W. 2 to whom he paid the amount. P. W. 2 on questioning produced rs. 300. 00 before the A. C. B. Officials stating that the appellant paid the said amount to him towards discharge of the debt due to him. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of both hands of P. W. 2 also proved positive and the said money was received by the A. C. B. Officials. After completion of the investigation, the A. C. B. Officials filed the charge-sheet. ( 3 ) THE Special Judge after taking cognizance of the offences and after securing the presence of the appellant, framed two charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1 ) (d) (ii) read with Section 13 (2) of the act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined p. W. 1 to P. W. 12 and marked Ex. P-1 to ex. P-18 and M. O. 1 to M. O. 10. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. The Special Judge after considering the evidence found the appellant guilty of the charges and accordingly convicted the appellant for the offence under section 7 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 , in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under section 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 , in default, to suffer simple imprisonment forthreemonths. 1,000. 00 , in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under section 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 , in default, to suffer simple imprisonment forthreemonths. The appellant, being aggrieved by the convictions and sentences imposed by the Special Judge through the Judgment dated 15-3-1997, preferred this appeal challenging the validity and legality. ( 4 ) THE prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 500. 00 towards bribe for measuring the lands of the wife of P. W. 1 and received Rs. 200. 00 towards advance and when he further demanded and received rs. 300. 00 , he was trapped and the amount of rs. 300. 00 was recovered at his instance from p. W. 2, therefore the Special Judge was right in convicting and sentencing the appellant and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Special Judge. ( 5 ) THE appellant while denying the offences in general took a defence that due to professional jealousy P. W. 2 got the case foisted against him with the support of P. W. 1. ( 6 ) IN the light of the contentions of the respective parties, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt? And whether the convictions and sentences imposed against the appellant are liable to be set aside or modified? ( 7 ) POINT:- The A. C. B. Officials moved its machinery at the instance of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 wanted the assistance of a Surveyor to measure the land of his wife in connection with a sale transaction with one Ramarao. P. W. 1 while expressing urgency to get the land measured within two days prevailed on the appellant to visit the land on 4-5-1992. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 in his evidence stated that his wife owned an extent of Ac. 2. 75 cents of land in Bapanappalli village of Tallarevu Mandal. They sold away Ac. 1. 50 cents to one ramarao of Yanam village. Adjacent to that there is another extent of Ac. 0. 50 cents, which was developed by them. The previous purchaser Mr. 2. 75 cents of land in Bapanappalli village of Tallarevu Mandal. They sold away Ac. 1. 50 cents to one ramarao of Yanam village. Adjacent to that there is another extent of Ac. 0. 50 cents, which was developed by them. The previous purchaser Mr. Ramarao expressed his readiness through P. W. 5 to purchase Ac. 0. 50 cents of developed land on measurement by a Surveyor. On 2-5-1992 he went to the mandal Revenue Office, Tallarevu and ascertained about the Surveyor. One person told him that he himself is R. V. Subba Rao (appellant) and he is the Surveyor and enquired as to why he came to the M. R. O. Office. He told the said person that he wanted to get him land surveyed through the Surveyor by paying the required charges. He cannot identify the person whom he met in the M. R. O. Office and who told to him that he is the surveyor. His power of remembrance was also reduced on account of his suffering with paralysis. He further stated that the said person told him that it would take long time if he follows the procedure and if he pays rs. 500. 00 he will measure the land and issue the certificate. When he told the said person that the land be measured on 4-5-1992, the said person demanded Rs. 500. 00 towards bribe and to pay Rs. 200. 00 towards advance and the remaining amount on 4-5-1992 after measuring the land. He paid the advance of rs. 200. 00. On 4-5-1992 he went along with p. W. 6 to the house of the said person. P. W. 3, the chainman, proceeded in advance to the field. The land was measured and thereafter they came to a conclusion that the land sold to Ramarao was Ac. 1. 50 cents, that they retained Ac. 1. 00 cents and the remaining land which was said to be Ac. 0. 50 cents was only Ac. 0. 21 1/2 cents and the same was informed to him by the said person by name subbarao. Afterwards he demanded the said subbarao to issue certificate to that effect and the said person demanded for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 300. 00 as per his ealier demand. He told the said person that the balance amount of Rs. 300. Afterwards he demanded the said subbarao to issue certificate to that effect and the said person demanded for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 300. 00 as per his ealier demand. He told the said person that the balance amount of Rs. 300. 00 was not available and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs. 300. 00 one week thereafter. The said Surveyor told him that he will issue certificate only after payment of the balance amount. Thereafter all of them returned to their respective houses. As he was not willing to pay the balance bribe amount of rs. 300. 00 , on 12-5-1992 he presented Ex. P-1 complaint to the Inspector, A. C. B. and it was registered as a crime. The Inspector asked him to come on 13-5-1992 at 2. 00 p. m. along with the demanded amount of Rs. 300. 00. Accordingly, on the next day at about 2. 00 p. m. he went to the office of the Inspector, a. C. B. , Kakinada, along with the amount to be paid to the Surveyor. The Dy. S. P. called him inside the office and introduced him to the mediators and others. After all the instructions of the Dy. S. P. , P. W. 1, mediators and A. C. B. Officials left the A. C. B. Office at about 6. 30 p. m. and reached. Tallarevu at about 8. 00 p. m. Later, Dy. S. P. asked him to go to the house of Subha Rao and also instructed a constable to follow him in close proximity. He reached the house of Subbarao, but he was not available. He was informed that Subbarao would return at about 9. 00 p. m. He waited for Subbarao on the road in front of his house. At about 9. 00 p. m. when he went to the house and ascertained, he was told that Subbarao was available. At that time there was power failure and when somebody came out he paid the amount to that person thinking that he is Subbarao. He could not identify that person, as it was dark. He gave the amount of Rs. 300. 00 to Subbarao and the said Subbarao handed over Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3 certificates to him. At that time there was power failure and when somebody came out he paid the amount to that person thinking that he is Subbarao. He could not identify that person, as it was dark. He gave the amount of Rs. 300. 00 to Subbarao and the said Subbarao handed over Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3 certificates to him. He came out of the house of Subbarao and gave signal to the A. C. B. officials by lighting a match stick since it was dark. The two certificates given by Subbarao were available with him by that time. He waited for half an hour. Thereafter, dy. S. P. asked him to go inside the house. The Dy. S. P. entered and enquired him as to what had happened from the time he left the raid party till he gave the signal. He narrated what all happened and it was reduced to writing. In the cross-examination, he stated that by the time he went to the house of subbarao forthe record, there was no power supply. It was dark and persons cannot be identified in that darkness. There were three or four persons available in the house of subbarao. Subbarao and himself never worked together and never met prior to the incident. He cannot identify the signatures or the handwriting of said Subbarao. He denied a suggestion that he gave a false statement at the instance of A. C. B. Officials. He also denied a suggestion that the appellant never demanded any amount from him as bribe and he did not pay Rs. 200. 00 on 2-5-1992 and rs. 300. 00 on 13-5-1992. He further denied a suggestion that with an intention to sell the waste land, which does not belong to him, after getting a certificate from the Revenue surveyor he foisted a false case against the appellant. He further stated that he cannot say whether the said Subba Rao was present in the Court or not. He had seen all the persons present in the Court, but he cannot identify the said Subba Rao. ( 9 ) THE above evidence of P. W. 1 indicates that he entered the witness box half heartedly and expressed a doubt about the identification of the appellant, while saying that he paid the amount to Surveyor Subbarao. There are no witnesses forthe demand of Rs. 500. 00 towards bribe and receipt of Rs. 200. ( 9 ) THE above evidence of P. W. 1 indicates that he entered the witness box half heartedly and expressed a doubt about the identification of the appellant, while saying that he paid the amount to Surveyor Subbarao. There are no witnesses forthe demand of Rs. 500. 00 towards bribe and receipt of Rs. 200. 00 on the same day. In the light of the above evidence given by P. W. 1, it is essential to go through the evidence of the other witnesses. ( 10 ) P. W. 2 Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records at Kakinada, deposed that he worked as a Mandal Surveyor, at gajuluru from September 1989 to October 1992. He knows the appellant, who worked as a Mandal Deputy Surveyor in M. R. O s office, at Tallarevu. His house was at about three kilometers away from the house of the appellant. On 13-5-1992 at about 9. 00 p. m. the appellant came to his house and paid rs. 300. 00 towards part payment of the loan borrowed by him, on an earlier occasion to a tune of Rs. 1,000. 00. One month prior to 13-5-1992 the appellant borrowed rs. 1,000. 00 from him. After paying the amount of Rs. 300. 00 to him the appellant went away. Twenty minutes later, the appellant and four others knocked his door when he opened the same, the appellant asked him to return the amount of Rs. 300. 00 paid by him about fifteen minutes back, stating that it was trap money. He handed over the said amount to another person, who accompanied P. W. 1 and who disclosed his identity as Circle Inspector, a. C. B. In cross-examination, P. W. 2 denied a suggestion that there are financial dealings between himself and P. W. 1. He kept the amount received from the appellant on the table, on which the Television was kept in his house. P. W. 1 never met him in connection with the survey of his land. He denied a suggestion that due to professional jealousy, he got a case foisted against the appellant. The evidence of P. W. 2 is helpful only to the extent of the appellant bringing Rs. 300. P. W. 1 never met him in connection with the survey of his land. He denied a suggestion that due to professional jealousy, he got a case foisted against the appellant. The evidence of P. W. 2 is helpful only to the extent of the appellant bringing Rs. 300. 00 and handing over the same to him towards part discharge of the loan amount due to him and he was not a witness either to the demand or receipt of the bribe amount by the appellant. ( 11 ) P. W. 3,achainman of M. R. O s Office, supported the prosecution version only regarding the appellant proceeding to the village of P. W. 1 on 4-5-1992 and measuring of the land. He denied a suggestion that he did not go to the land of P. W. 1 and no measurements were taken. ( 12 ) P. W. 4, who worked as Mandal revenue Officer, Tallarevu, stated about the procedure that was being followed for getting the land surveyed by any person requiring the services of a Government Surveyor. He did not say anything regarding the complicity of the appellant. ( 13 ) P. W. 5, a resident of Yanam, deposed that about three or four years prior to his evidence in 1997, P. W. 1 approached him and told him that adjacent to the land sold to m. Ramarao of Yanam, there is some more land measuring Ac. 0. 13 cents along with some poramboke land and he wanted to sell the same and he was informed by P. W. 1 that the Surveyor did not measure the land in spite of his repeated requests. He approached the appellant and requested to survey the land. The appellant told him that unless the required amount is paid to the government through challan he will not survey the land. He informed the same of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 asked him to convince the appellant to survey the land without payment of challan to the government and later the appellant told him that he will measure the land on Sunday without payment of challan. The evidence of this witness is only to the effect that he informed the same to P. W. 1 who asked him to convince the appellant to survey the land without payment of challan to the government. The evidence of this witness is only to the effect that he informed the same to P. W. 1 who asked him to convince the appellant to survey the land without payment of challan to the government. The evidence of this witness is also silent regarding the demand of bribe and receipt of the demanded amount by the Appellant. ( 14 ) P. W. 6, an agricultural cooly, deposed that he knows the appellant. About four years prior to his evidence, P. W. 1, the appellant, another person and himself went to bapanapalli village during morning hours to measure the land of wife of P. W. 1. The land was measured by the appellant and after measuring the land, the appellant demanded rs. 500. 00 towards cooly charges. P. W. 1 paid rs. 200. 00 to the appellant towards charges of the coolies. In the cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that he is cultivating the land of P. W. 1 on lease. He denied a suggestion that he was falsely saying that rs. 200. 00 was paid towards wages to the coolies only to help the appellant. ( 15 ) P. W. 7, a resident of Yanam, stated that he has no knowledge about the appellant surveying the land of P. W. 1. ( 16 ) P. W. 8 is one of the mediators who spoke about the transaction from beginning to the end. ( 17 ) P. W. 9 spoke about the issuing of sanction order to prosecute the appellant. ( 18 ) P. W. 10 stated that he did some investigation by recording the statement of one K. Sarveswara Rao and later, when he was on leave, the further investigation was done by another officer. ( 19 ) P. W. 11 was the Inspector of Police, a. C. B. , Kakinada in 1992. He spoke about p. W. 1 approaching him giving Ex. P-1 complaint, laying trap etc. ( 20 ) P. W. 12, the then Dy. S. P. , A. C. B. , kakinada, also spoke about the investigation done by him. ( 21 ) AFTER going through the above evidence, it is made clear that except P. W. 1 there was no other persons who witnessed the demand made by the appellant towards bribe. The evidence of P. W. 1 is shaky. He stated that he is not in a position to identify the appellant. ( 21 ) AFTER going through the above evidence, it is made clear that except P. W. 1 there was no other persons who witnessed the demand made by the appellant towards bribe. The evidence of P. W. 1 is shaky. He stated that he is not in a position to identify the appellant. Though there is no deviation in the evidence of P. W. 1 with the contents of ex. P-1, the evidence given by him that he cannot identify the appellant is creating doubt about the truthfulness of the version given by p. W. 1 regarding the sequence of events relating to this crime. Ex. P-2 is said to be written by the appellant in Telugu. In the said document, he mentioned that the extent of first item is Ac. 0. 47 cents and the extent of second item is Ac. 0. 32 cents, total extent of ac. 0. 79 cents. He arrived at those extents after measuring the land as per the bunds of the land shown by the parties. Ex. P-3 dated 13-5-1992 is also in the handwriting of the appellant. In the said document, he mentioned the extent of the lands of the wife of P. W. 1. 1 st item is Ac. 1. 23 cents, 2nd item is Ac. 0. 40 cents, total an extent of Ac. 1. 63 cents. After deducting an extent of Ac. 1. 50 cents said to be sold by them to M. Ramarao, the balance of Ac. 0. 13 cents remained and an extent of ac. 0. 08 V2 is in excess. As per the title deed they are entitled to Ac. 1. 23 cents + Ac. 0. 40 cents, which is equivalent to Ac. 1. 63 cents and there is excess extent of Ac. 0. 80 cents. These two documents do not reflect whether the appellantfixed the boundaries or surveyed the land with reference to the Field measurements Book or other revenue records. He simply measured the land as per the boundaries shown by P. W. 1 and others and mentioned the extents he arrived at after measuring the land. These two documents would reflect thatthe appellant measured the land and noted the extent of the land after the measurement. P. W. 1 did not mention whether ex. He simply measured the land as per the boundaries shown by P. W. 1 and others and mentioned the extents he arrived at after measuring the land. These two documents would reflect thatthe appellant measured the land and noted the extent of the land after the measurement. P. W. 1 did not mention whether ex. P-3 dated 13-5-1992 was ready by the time he went to the house of the appellant or whether it was prepared by the appellant after his arrival at his house. The contents of ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3 disclose that the appellant did not promise to make any official favour except measuring the existing extent of the land. The tainted currency notes were not recovered from the appellant. They were recovered from P. W. 2. Though the prosecution placed evidence to show that the washing of fingers of the appellant and p. W. 2, gave positive results. P. W. 1 did not explain as to why he fell into the trap of the appellant without ascertaining from other employees as to what is the procedure that has to be followed and how much amount has to be remitted to the government for the purpose of surveying the land. The work attended by the appellant is not to identify the survey number or to fix any boundary between the land of two rival parties or subdividing the land at the request of the purchaser to mutate the same in the revenue records. He simply measured the land to verify its extent and to inform P. W. 1 about the same. P. W. 6, an agricultural coolly, who helped the appellant in measuring the land, stated that the amount of Rs. 200. 00 was paid to the appellant by p. W. 1 towards wages to the coolies and not towards bribe. ( 22 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no material to show that the appellant demanded the money towards bribe for doing any official favour and as the evidence of P. W. 1 is shaky, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. ( 22 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no material to show that the appellant demanded the money towards bribe for doing any official favour and as the evidence of P. W. 1 is shaky, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. ( 23 ) AFTER carefully going through the evidence placed by the prosecution and the judgment of the lower Court, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to place sufficient material to establish that the appellant demanded the money for doing an official favour and he received the amount of rs. 300. 00 for the said purpose. ( 24 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the supreme Court in Suraj Mal v. State Delhi administration wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: "in a case of bribery, mere recovery of money divulged from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. " ( 25 ) THE circumstances of the present case indicate that for the purpose of measuring small extent of land the services of the appellant were taken and the amount was paid to him in that connection. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court is also lending support to the present case, since the prosecution failed to place the circumstances. In the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is a doubt lingering in the mind of this Court whether the appellant demanded Rs. 500. 00 towards bribe to do any official favour. Since the appellant did not do any official favour by measuring the land of p. W. 1, I am inclined to give the benefit of doubt to him. ( 26 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Special Judge for S. P. E. and A. C. B. Cases-cum-lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 15-3-1997 in C. C. No. 26 of 1995, is set aside. Consequently the convictions and sentences imposed against the appellant by the said court are also set aside. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant, shall be refunded to him.