( 1 ) THE first accused in CC No. 7 of 1997, on the file of the Special Judge for ACB Cases, visakhapatnam, is the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1510 of 2001 and the second accused in the said case is the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1500 of 2001, and as they filed these two appeals against the same judgment, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE appellants were tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act) and Section 120-B IPC. On trial, the learned Special Judge, having found them guilty of the said offences, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 120-B ipc and Section 7 of the Act and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The court below, while awarding the said sentences, observed that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. As against the said judgment, these appeals are preferred. ( 3 ) THE charges framed against the appellants are as follows: "firstly: That A1 and A2 of you, on 27th day of January, 1994 at about 9 a. m. , in the mandal Revenue Office, Narasannapeta, agreed to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means viz. , both of you conspired together with a view to extract bribe amount from one Booragana Mallesu for grant of property certificate and in pursuance of your conspiracy, A1 of you demanded Rs. 400/- (Rs. 300/- is meant for A1 of you and Rs. 100/-is meant for A2 of you) from the said mallesu and accepted the same as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration to show official favour to Mallesu on 31-1-1994 at 10. 400/- (Rs. 300/- is meant for A1 of you and Rs. 100/-is meant for A2 of you) from the said mallesu and accepted the same as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration to show official favour to Mallesu on 31-1-1994 at 10. 30 a. m. , through one G. Venkata ramanamma, Senior Assistant of your office, to commit the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and thereby both of you committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance; secondly: That A1 of you, Geddam Mutyala rao, being a public servant i. e. , Mandal revenue Officer of Narasannapeta, on or about the 31st day of January, 1994 at about 10. 30 a. m. , in Mandal Revenue Office, narasannapeta, accepted or obtained a sum of Rs. 300/- from one Booragana Mallesu, resident of Satyavaram Village of narasannapeta Mandal through one G. Venkata Ramanamma, Senior Assistant of your office, for yourself as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing official favour in granting property certificate, in the exercise of your official functions and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 and within my cognizance; thirdly: That A2 of you, being a public servant i. e. , Head Clerk of Mandal revenue Office, Narasannapeta, on or about the 31st day of January, 1994, at about 10. 30 a. m. , in Mandal Revenue Office, narasannapeta, accepted or obtained a sum of Rs. 100/-from one Booragana Mallesu, resident of Satyavaram Village of narasannapeta Mandal through one G. Venkata Ramanamma, Senior Assistant of your office, for yourself as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing official favour in granting property certificate in the exercise of your official functions and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 and within my cognizance; fourthly: That A1 of you, being a public servant i. e. , Mandal Revenue Officer of narasannapeta, on the same day, at the same time and place stated supra in Charge no. 2, by means of corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as such public servant obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs. 2, by means of corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as such public servant obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs. 300/- from one Booragana Mallesu through Smt. G. Venkata Ramanamma, senior Assistant of your office and thereby committed an offence specified under section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 punishable under section 13 (2) of that Act and within my cognizance; fifthly. That A2 of you, being a public servant i. e. , Head Clerk of Mandal Revenue office, Narasannapeta, on the same day, at the same time and place stated supra in charge No. 2, by means of corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as such public servant obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs. 100/- from one Booragana Mallesu through Smt. G. Venkata Ramanamma, senior Assistant of your office and thereby committed an offence specified under section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 punishable under section 13 (2) of the Act and within my cognizance;" ( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience the appellants are referred to as arrayed in the court below. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution as culled out during the course of trial is as follows: The first accused was working as mandal Revenue Officer of Narasannapeta mandal in Srikakulam District at the relevant point of time and the second accused was head Clerk attached to the said office. PW1, who was the complainant, was a resident of Satyavaram Village in narasannapeta Mandal and he wanted to get himself enrolled as a contractor to undertake irrigation works in Vamsadhara project. In that connection, as he was required to produce a solvency certificate valued at Rs. 50,000/-, he obtained the required adangal certificates from the Village administrative Officer and submitted an application in the Mandal Revenue Office for issuance of the certificate. After completion of the required formalities such as, enquiry by the Revenue Inspector, who was examined as PW2, and recording of the statements of mother and younger brother of PW1, the office of the Mandal revenue Officer was preparing the solvency certificate. On 27-1-1994 at about 9. After completion of the required formalities such as, enquiry by the Revenue Inspector, who was examined as PW2, and recording of the statements of mother and younger brother of PW1, the office of the Mandal revenue Officer was preparing the solvency certificate. On 27-1-1994 at about 9. 00 a. m. , PW1 went to the office of the mandal Revenue Officer, met the first accused and enquired about the certificate, at which point of time, it is alleged that the first accused demanded an amount of rs. 400/- towards bribe stating that an amount of Rs. 300/- is meant for him and Rs. 100/- is to be paid to the second accused. So saying, A1 called the second accused and directed him to get the certificate ready. It appears that he further instructed the second accused to issue the certificate only on payment of the bribe amount. ( 6 ) AS PW1 was not willing to pay any bribe amount, he approached the inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, who was examined as PW5, and reported the matter on 30-1-1994. The said report was marked as Ex. P1 and forwarded to the deputy Superintendent of Police, vizianagaram Branch, for further action. Pursuant to the said report, a case in Crime no. 1/rc/acb/vzm/1994 was registered against the accused on 30-1-1994 and FIR was issued to all the concerned. The FIR was marked as Ex. P18. ( 7 ) AS instructed by the Deputy superintendent of Police, who was examined as PW6, PW1 went to the office with the required amount of Rs. 400/- on 31-1-1994 and pre-trap formalities were conducted by PW6 in the presence of mediators including PW4. The pre-trap proceedings were marked as Ex. P11. Thereafter, the entire party proceeded to the Mandal revenue Office. As advised by PW6, pw1 proceeded to the Office of the Mandal revenue Officer by walk and the Sub-Inspector was following him at a close distance. He entered the chambers of the first accused and asked him about the solvency certificate for which the first accused asked him as to whether he brought the amount as demanded, for which pw1 replied in positive and picked out the tainted amount kept in his left side lalchi pocket. However, as instructed by the first accused, the amount was again kept in the pocket. However, as instructed by the first accused, the amount was again kept in the pocket. The first accused called a lady employee by name Ramanamma, who was examined as PW3, and enquired as to whether the file relating to the issuance of solvency certificate of PW1 was ready or not. On ascertaining the fact that the certificate was ready, the first accused asked PW3 to collect the bribe amount and keep it with her and issue the certificate to pw1. Thereafter, both of them i. e. , PWs. 1 and 3 went to the seat of PW3 where the amount of Rs. 400/- was paid to her, and she collected the same with her right hand, counted with both hands and kept it on the table underneath some papers in front of her. Thereafter, PW1 was asked to wait outside. He came outside the office and as instructed by the Deputy superintendent of Police i. e. , PW6, he gave the required signal, pursuant to which the trap-party rushed to the office of the mandal Revenue Officer. The Deputy superintendent of Police and others went into the chambers of the first accused, asked pw1 to go outside and later PW6 prepared two glasses of Sodium Carbonate solution separately and conducted the Phenolphthalein test on the first accused but the test proved negative. After recording the statement of PW1, the Deputy superintendent of Police went to PW3, conducted Phenolphthalein test on her and the said test proved positive. It is the further case of the prosecution that they conducted Phenolphthalein test on the second accused also but the test also proved to be negative. After recording the statements of the second accused and PW3, which were incorporated in the post-trap proceedings, they arrested accused 1 and 2 and also pw3 and immediately released them on bail. The post-trap proceedings were marked as Ex. P17. A rough sketch of the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer was prepared and the same was marked as ex. P16. During the course of investigation, the statement of PW1 was recorded under section 164 Cr. PC by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, and the same was marked as Ex. P2. Later, after a lapse of about three years, the statement of PW3 was also recorded under Section 164 Cr. P16. During the course of investigation, the statement of PW1 was recorded under section 164 Cr. PC by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, and the same was marked as Ex. P2. Later, after a lapse of about three years, the statement of PW3 was also recorded under Section 164 Cr. PC by another learned Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Srikakulam, and that statement was marked as Ex. P10. After obtaining the required sanction from the Government to prosecute the accused 1 and 2, charge-sheet was filed by PW6. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and got exhibited Exs. Pl to P20 and also produced mos. 1 to 12. During the course of the examination under Section 313 Cr. PC, the accused denied the incriminating material and stated that they are not guilty of any offence. As already stated, on the strength of the evidence, the Court below found the accused guilty of the alleged offences and sentenced them as stated supra. 7. Heard Mr. Kailashnath Reddy, learned Counsel for the first accused, mr. C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the second accused and the learned standing Counsel for A. C. B. Mr. Ravi kiran Rao. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the accused/appellants, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to base a conviction as the so-called witnesses were declared hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is further stated that at the instance of one Village administrative Officer by name Simma simmanna, whose patta land was cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer, a false case has been foisted against the appellants as if they demanded the bribe amount. It is further contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the second accused that neither demand nor acceptance was proved in the instant case so far as the second accused is concerned, and in the absence of any proof, it is not at all safe to base a conviction, and submitted that the accused are entitled to acquittal. ( 9 ) PER contra, the learned Standing counsel, with his usual vehemence, opposed the said submissions and submitted that the Court below, after weighing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused were guilty of the said offences, and thus, it is not a case for interference. ( 9 ) PER contra, the learned Standing counsel, with his usual vehemence, opposed the said submissions and submitted that the Court below, after weighing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused were guilty of the said offences, and thus, it is not a case for interference. ( 10 ) P. W. I is the complainant at whose instance the law is set in motion. P. W. 2 is the Mandal Revenue Inspector who conducted an enquiry regarding the solvency certificate to be issued to P. W. I. P. W. 3 was a clerk working in the office of the mandal Revenue Officer from whom the amount of Rs. 400/- was collected. P. W. 4 is a mediator in whose presence pre and post trap proceedings were conducted. P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the Investigating Officers. No doubt, P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 spoke as to how the things took place, but in trap cases the evidence of the de facto-complainant plays a vital role. Initially, though P. W. 3 was also shown as an accused, the prosecution, for obvious reasons, made her an accomplice and examined her as a witness. Thus, the entire case rests on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3. As already stated, P. W. 2 is a person who conducted the enquiry regarding the solvency certificate and his evidence is of no avail so far as the trap is concerned. When once the evidence of P. Ws. l and 3 is looked at, it is surprising to note that the prosecution has declared both of them hostile. In fact, P. W. 3 has not stated anything in favour of the prosecution and her evidence is in no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. Thus, there remains the evidence of P. W. I alone. As already stated, P. W. 1 also was declared hostile by the prosecution. However, when his evidence is looked at, definitely he stated certain things in favour of the prosecution during the course of his chief-examination. In his evidence, no doubt, he stated about the demand of Rs. 400/- by the first accused, his report to the ACB Officials i. e. , P. Ws. 5 and 6, pre-trap proceedings, acceptance of the tainted amount by P. W. 3 and post-trap proceeding. In his evidence, no doubt, he stated about the demand of Rs. 400/- by the first accused, his report to the ACB Officials i. e. , P. Ws. 5 and 6, pre-trap proceedings, acceptance of the tainted amount by P. W. 3 and post-trap proceeding. On the basis of his evidence only the Court below found the accused guilty of the offences. ( 11 ) NOW the point before me is as to whether the evidence of P. W. I can be accepted in coming to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the alleged offences. ( 12 ) WHEN the prosecution itself has no confidence in its own witnesses and declared them hostile, it is to be noted that the Courts also should reject their evidence. No doubt, it is true that his evidence, which is inconformity with the case of the prosecution, can definitely be accepted but it requires corroboration because of the hostility of the other witnesses. In fact, in a number of decisions, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the evidence of a hostile witness may not be rejected outright but the Court has at least to be aware that prima-facie a witness who made different statements at different times has no regard for truth, and hence, the Courts should, therefore, be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness, and normally, it should look for corroboration to the said evidence. When the evidence of P. W. 1 is looked at, keeping the principle of law in mind, it is clear that his evidence. is totally tainted with any amount of suspicion. In his Section 161 Cr. PC statements he stated one thing. Subsequently, when his statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr. PC, he stated some other thing. Of course, in the evidence, he confirmed as to what he stated in his Section 164 Cr. PC statements, but in the light of the said contradictions only the prosecution declared him hostile. As already observed, when the prosecution itself has not reposed confidence in him and declared him hostile, this Court is also of the view that the evidence of P. W. 1 is in no way of any help to the case of the prosecution. Further, as observed above, the evidence of P. W. 1 is not corroborated by any other evidence. Further, as observed above, the evidence of P. W. 1 is not corroborated by any other evidence. P. W. 3 stated something during the course of her Section 161 Cr. PC statements and subsequently, she resiled from what has been stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr. PC and in the Court she deposed everything as she had spoke in her statement under Section 164 Cr. PC and that is the reason why she was declared hostile. When her evidence is looked at, there is absolutely nothing to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Hence, this Court is of the view that, based on the testimony of P. W. 1, who was declared hostile by the prosecution and is not corroborated by any other evidence, it is not at all safe to base a conviction. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeals are allowed and the judgment under appeal in C. C. No. 7 of 1997, on the file of the Special Judge for A. C. B. Cases, Visakhapatnam, dated 21-9-2001, is hereby set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of the alleged offences. The fine amount, if any by the appellants, shall be refunded to them and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.