( 1 ) THESE appeals are preferred by the appellants - A-1 and A-2 respectively against the judgment dated 27-07-2001 passed in C. C. No. 13 of 1996 by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada, wherein A-1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, under two counts, i. e. , for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), while A-2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, under two counts, i. e. , for the offence under Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act and Section 12 read with 15 of the Act. ( 2 ) AS both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and the point involved is the same, this Court has taken up the matters together and is disposing of the said appeals by this common judgment. ( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) A-1 was working as Mandall Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, at Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District and A-2 was working as Village Administrative Officer of Timmapuram and lingaraopalem villages. PW-1 is an agriculturist owning about Ac. 40-00 of land and Mango garden etc. in R. S. No. 31/1 and 50 of Lingaraopalem and about 40 years back he planted teak 1rees around the said garden. In the year 1995 PW-1 sold 55 teakwood tees to PW-6 for an amount of rs. 80,000/- and in that connection as a no Objection Certificate is required from the Mandal Revenue Office, he visited the said office along with PW-2 and gave Ex. P3, application on 01-08-1995. On receipt of ex. P3, the Mandal Revenue Officer, who was examined as PW-8, sent the same to A-1 for necessary action. 80,000/- and in that connection as a no Objection Certificate is required from the Mandal Revenue Office, he visited the said office along with PW-2 and gave Ex. P3, application on 01-08-1995. On receipt of ex. P3, the Mandal Revenue Officer, who was examined as PW-8, sent the same to A-1 for necessary action. On 03-08-1995, PW-8 received the file from A-1 and then he made an endorsement directing A-1 to enquire into the matter and submit a report. On 04-08-1995, A-1 and A-2 in the presence of PWs. 5 and 6 inspected the place and at that time the son of pw-1, who was examined, as PW-4 was also present. During the course of inspection it appears A-2 found the said teak trees falling in government Poramboke lands and hence the said lands were got measured through a Surveyor at the instance of PW-6, the alleged purchaser, and PW-1. Two days later A-2 met PW-1 and informed him that A-1 was demanding an amount of Rs. 1,500/- towards bribe for issuance of no Objection Certificate for which PW-1 expressed his inability to pay the said amount and stated that he will pay only an amount of Rs. 500/ -. Three days thereafter A-2 again met PW-1 and told him that a-1 is insisting payment of Rs. 1,000/ -. While so, on 16-08-1995 PW-1 along with PW-2 went to A-1 and told him that he will pay Rs. 1,000/- for issuance of no Objection Certificate and that then A-1 directed him to pay the said amount on or before 18-08-1995. (ii ). It is further alleged that as PW-1 was reluctant to pay the said amount went to the Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Eluru and met the deputy Superintendent of Police, who was examined as PW-11 and gave ex. P1, report. On the foot of Ex:. P1, report, PW-11 registered a case in crime No. 3/acb-RC (T)-EWG/95 and issued copies of First Information reports to all the concerned. The said F. I. R. was marked as Ex. P14. On the next day that was on 18-08-1995 PWs. 1 and 2 went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police with an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as advised, and found PW-3, one of the mediators and other staff members. The said amount of Rs. The said F. I. R. was marked as Ex. P14. On the next day that was on 18-08-1995 PWs. 1 and 2 went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police with an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as advised, and found PW-3, one of the mediators and other staff members. The said amount of Rs. 1,000/- was given to the Deputy Superintendent of police and after completion of the formalities such as pre-trap proceedings etc. , the trap party proceeded to Dwaraka Tirumala and reached the said place at 1-00 P. M. The mediators report regarding the pre-trap proceedings was marked as Ex. P5. On the advise of the Deputy superintendent of Police, one Head Constable followed PWs. 1 and 2 and while the said Head Constable was staying outside, PWs. 1 and 2 went into the Mandal Revenue Office. As PWs. 1 and 2 did not find A-1 and they were informed that he went for lunch, they came out of the said office and informed the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and on his instructions they went to the house of A-1. At the house of A-1, PW-1 told him that he brought the necessary amount and requested him to issue the required no Objection Certificate, for which A-1 asked them to meet him in the office at 2-00 P. M. , by which time both the accused were present. (iii ). It is also alleged that on seeing PWs. 1 and 2, A-1 asked them to sit down and took out a file and gave the same to A-2 and A-2 wrote something on that file and that thereafter A-1 asked the money and when pw-1 offered the said money A-1 asked PW-1 to go out of his room and pay the same to A-2 in the verandah. Accordingly, PW-1 and A-2 went out of the office room of A-1, where the said amount was paid to A-2. Later when they both entered the room on the signals given by A-1 the said amount was put in the drawer belonging to A-1 by A-2. As advised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW-2 came out of the office and gave the required signal, pursuant to which the trap party came to the spot and asked PWs. 1 and 2 to go cut. As advised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW-2 came out of the office and gave the required signal, pursuant to which the trap party came to the spot and asked PWs. 1 and 2 to go cut. Latter, the Deputy Superintendent of police, who was examined as PW-11 prepared S. C. solution and the hands of A-1 were subjected to phenolphthalein test, but there was no change. However, in the phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of the A-2 had proved positive. The tainted amount of Rs. 1,000/- was collected by PW-11 from the drawer and he conducted the required test by swabbing the drawer and the test. found to be positive. Later when questioned about the said money, A-1 denied having received any amount and expressed his innocence as to how the said amount was there in the drawer whereas A-2 stated that the said amount was received by him and kept in the drawer as instructed by A-1. The said explanations were recorded in the presence of the mediators and thus a second mediators report was prepared and the same was marked as Ex. P11. PW-11 seized all the incriminating material including Exs. P7 and P9 and prepared ex. P1o, sketch of the scene. After obtaining necessary sanction as provided under Section 19 of the Act, charge sheet was laid against A-1 and A-2. ( 5 ) ON appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge framed a charge under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act against A-1 and a charge under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) and Section 12 read with 15 of the Act against A-2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 6 ) TO bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined pws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P14 and M. os. 1 to 5. None were examined and no document was marked on behalf of defence. ( 7 ) ON an analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that A-1 and A-2 are guilty of the offences with which they were charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. 1 to 5. None were examined and no document was marked on behalf of defence. ( 7 ) ON an analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that A-1 and A-2 are guilty of the offences with which they were charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. Assailing the said judgment, the appellants - A-1 and A-2 have come up with these criminal appeals. ( 8 ) HEARD, Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for A-1, sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned Counsel for A-2, Sri V. Ravikiran rao, learned Standing Counsel far ACB and perused the impugned judgment and other material on record. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to Sri C. Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for A-1, there is absolutely no evidence establishing the demand of bribe insofar as A-1 is concerned. The learned Counsel further contended that the entire case of the prosecution is that from 04-08-1995 to 16-08-1995 it was A-2, who was demanding the! amount as if A-1 was demanding. According to him on 16-08-1995, on which day PW-1 alleged to have met a-1, A-1 was not at all in the office and was on another duty and as such the alleged payment on 16-08-1995 to A-1 cannot be accepted. In the absence of any proof about the alleged payment, according to the learned counsel, it is not at all safe to convict A-1 as if he is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act. It is his further submission that even according to the case of the prosecution when PWs. 1 and 2 did not find A-1 in the office they went to his house and it is the best place for A-1 to accept the said amount at his house, but in the instant case instead of accepting the said amount, A-1 asked them to meet him in the office at 2-30 P. M. , which appears to be somewhat unnatural. Similarly, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for A-1 that inside the room there was none except PWs. Similarly, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for A-1 that inside the room there was none except PWs. 1 and 2 and A-1 and A-2, and that is also the best place to accept the said amount, but in the instant case, A-1 directed PW-1 to go out and pay the said amount to A-2 in the verandah which also been appeans to be some what unnatural. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to some of the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thus submitted that it is a fit case for interference and A-1 is entitled for acquittal. ( 10 ) SRI Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, the learned Counsel appearing for a-2 submitted that the act of receiving bribe amount on behalf of A-1 by a-2 would not attract the provisions of Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) and section 12 read with 15 of the Act. He further contended that as A-2 was a subordinate to A-1 he was obliged to receive the said amount and that it is also not the case of the prosecution that A-2 is also hand-in-glove with a-1 and gets some share from out of the said bribe amount. ( 11 ) PER contra, Sri V. Ravikiran Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for ACB, submitted that there is clinching evidence spoken to by the prosecution witnesses such as PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 11 and absolutely there is nothing to discard their testimony. According to him, no doubt there are certain discrepancies, which are very common, and so long as the said discrepancies do not go to the root of the case and shatter the entire case of the prosecution, the Courts need not brush aside the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as if it is untrustworthy. ( 12 ) IN the light of the said submissions it is necessary to refer to the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 11. PW-1 is the de facto-complainant at whose instance the law was set in motion and a trap was arranged. From his evidence it is clear that from 04-08-1995 to 16-08-1995, it was only A-2, who was demanding the bribe amount on behalf of A-1 for getting the required no Objection Certificate. 1, 2, 3 and 11. PW-1 is the de facto-complainant at whose instance the law was set in motion and a trap was arranged. From his evidence it is clear that from 04-08-1995 to 16-08-1995, it was only A-2, who was demanding the bribe amount on behalf of A-1 for getting the required no Objection Certificate. According to him on 16-08-1995 he along with PW-2 went to the Mandal Revenue Office met a-1 and agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- for the purpose of issuance of no Objection Certificate. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for A-1 that on 16-08-1995 A-1 did not attend the office as he was on other duty cannot be accepted for the simple reason that he may be on other duty, but it cannot be said that he did not visit the office at all. The Mandal Revenue Officer who was examined as PW-8 has clarified that if any employee went out door duty on official work, the said employee can come back and work in the office after completion of the outdoor official duty. From the said evidence of PW-8 coupled with the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, it can be safely inferred that though A-1 was on other duty, he visited the office on 16-08-1995. When A-1 visited the office on 16-08-1995, PW-1 met him and A-1 demanded him to pay the said amount. Hence, the contention that there is absolutely no demand by a-1 cannot be accepted. ( 13 ) COMING to the question of acceptance of bribe amount, PW-1 has clearly stated as to how the things have taken place. No doubt, it is true that instead of receiving the bribe amount at the house, A-1 might have asked PW-1 to pay the same in the office and also in his room and that instead of accepting the said amount, A-1 might have asked PW-1 to go out of his room and pay the same to A-2. From this it cannot be said that it is totally unnatural. Psychology of individuals may differ from person to person. May be A-1 was timid and knows the consequence of the said acceptance of illegal gratification. On that score alone, this Court is unable to reject the said evidence of PW-1. In fact, the said evidence of pws. From this it cannot be said that it is totally unnatural. Psychology of individuals may differ from person to person. May be A-1 was timid and knows the consequence of the said acceptance of illegal gratification. On that score alone, this Court is unable to reject the said evidence of PW-1. In fact, the said evidence of pws. 1 and 2 lends support from the statement of A-2 recorded by the deputy Superintendent of Police, PW-11, which was marked as Ex. P11, wherein A-2 has clearly stated that as per the instructions of A-1 only, he received the said amount of Rs. 1,000/ -. Of course, he retracted from the said statement and stated that the said amount of Rs. 1,000/- was initially paid to him and when he refused to accept the same, the said amount was kept in the drawer of A-1, but as already observed as the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is acceptable, the earliest statement given by a-2 would only lends support the said evidence. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that A-1 is guilty of the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (o) of the of the Act. ( 14 ) AS rightly contended by the learned Counsel for A-2 it is not the case of the prosecution that A-2 is hand-in-glove with A-1 and also gets share out of the said bribe amount. ( 15 ) SECTION 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines what abetment is and according to the said definition they are three clauses and if an act of a person falls within the purview of any one of them, then it amounts to abetment and thus punishable for the said offence either under Section 107 of IPC or under Section 12 of the Act. The first and second clauses are not germane in this context and the third clause alone is required to be looked into, it is reproduced hereunder : "a person abets the doing of a thing, who Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing" The word aids has been clarified in Explanation 2, to Section 107 of IPC, which reads thus: "whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act". ( 16 ) FROM this it is clear that an act, which merely amounts to aiding the commission of an offence, cannot be said to be an abetment as defined under the provisions of law. When looked in that perspective it is clear in the instant case, A-2, who was a Village Administrative Officer and was subordinate to A-1 was simply obliged him and no doubt the said obliging would be aiding, but cannot be said to be intentional aiding as it is not the case of the prosecution and that the prosecution has not attributed any malice to A-2 and it has come forward with the theory that he was demanding the money on behalf of A-1. Hence this Court is of the view that A-2 is entitled to benefit of doubt. ( 17 ) IN the result, criminal appeal Nb. 1145 of 2001 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 in C. C. No. 13 of 1996 by the special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada, are hereby set aside, while criminal appeal No. 1165 of 2001 is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 in C. C. No. 13 of 1996 by the Special Judge for spe and ACB cases, Vijayawada, are hereby confirmed. The bail bond of A-2 shall stand cancelled and the fine amounts paid by him shall be refunded to him.