( 1 ) ANTI-CORRUPTION Bureau, represented through its Inspector of Police, Sanga Reddy, medak district, Preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 28-2-2001 in C. C. No. 16 of 1997on the file of the Principal special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the respondent/sole accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the act' 1988' ). ( 2 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: the Respondent/accused Officer (A. O.)was working as District Supply Officer, sanga Reddy, Medak district, during the year 1996. The complainant one K. Veera Raju (P. W. 1) is the brother of one K. V. Ramana (P. W. 2), who is proprietor of N. I. C. T. , kakinada. P. W. 2 attended the work of computerization of ration cards in Medak district in the month of November, 1996. After completion of the computerization work, he submitted Ex. P-6 bill to the A. O. for payment. P. W. 2 requested his brother p. W. 1 to pursue the same with A. O. On 4-7-1996, when P. W. 1 contacted the A. O. over telephone and enquired about the payment of his brother's bill, the A. O. informed him that the Demand Draft was ready and asked him to meet the A. O. at sangareddy on 4-7-1996. P. W. 1 met the A. O. in his office. Then, A. O. demanded him to pay bribe of Rs. 4,000/- for issuing Demand Draft and stated that he would not issue Demand draft if the bribe is not paid. P. W. 1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount as bribe. Though, P. W. 1 initially agreed to pay the bribe amount for receipt of the demand draft, went back and changed his mind and approached P. W. 8, who is D. S. P. , A. C. B. , hyderabad and made Ex. P-1 complaint. P. W. 8, after making discreet enquiry, registered case in crime no. 2/acb-CIU/1996, under Sections 7, 11, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d)of the Act, 1988, on 5-7-1996 at about 2. 45 p. m. and took up investigation. P-1 complaint. P. W. 8, after making discreet enquiry, registered case in crime no. 2/acb-CIU/1996, under Sections 7, 11, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d)of the Act, 1988, on 5-7-1996 at about 2. 45 p. m. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, P. W. 8 secured services of P. W. 1 as decoy complainant, one n. Ramesh Babu, Senior Assistant, and p. Ram Mohan Rao, Assistant Director, office of Town Planning, Hyderabad (P. W. 3), to act as mediators. P. W. 3 also acted as accompanying witness. After completion of pre-trap proceedings at the office of the A. C. B. , sanga Reddy, Ex. P-8 first mediators report was prepared. Thereafter, P. W. 1 proceeded on a scooter and trap party followed him to the office-cum-residence of the A. O. at 5. 20 p. m. At about 6. 30 p. m. , P. Ws. 1 and 3 reached the residence-cum-office of the A. O. on seeing p. W. 1, the A. O. asked him to come to his residence. Accordingly, P. Ws. 1 and 3 went into the room in his residence, A. O. seated in his chair and P. Ws. 1 and 3 were made to sit in front of him. Then, P. W. 1 enquired A. O. whether the cheque was ready or not. A. O. informed that the Demand Draft was ready and demanded to pay bribe of Rs. 4,000/ -. P. W. 1 took out the tainted bribe amount with his right hand and paid to the A. O. , who received the same with his right hand and gave the cheque to P. W. 1 Thereafter, P. W. 3 went outside and relayed the pre-arranged signal to the trap party. Immediately, the trap party entered into the premises of residence of A. O. P. W. 1 was sent out. Ex. P-10 is the second mediator's report. Phenolphthalein test was conducted on both hand fingers of A. O. , which proved positive. A. O. did not give any explanation during post-trap proceedings except shivering at that time. The ration card kept in the drawer of the table of A. O. from where A. O. himself produced the tainted amount and which came into contact with tainted amount, when subject to phenolphthalein test it gave positive result. All the relevant documents were seized. Ex. P-10 was conducted at 8. The ration card kept in the drawer of the table of A. O. from where A. O. himself produced the tainted amount and which came into contact with tainted amount, when subject to phenolphthalein test it gave positive result. All the relevant documents were seized. Ex. P-10 was conducted at 8. 15 p. m. at the office-cum-residence of A. O. After obtaining sanction from the competent authority, P. W. 9 laid the charge sheet. ( 3 ) THE charges leveled against the accused are as follows: "firstly: that, you being a public servant, employed as District Supply Officer, sangareddy, Medak District, on 5th day of July, 1996 at about 6. 40 p. m. at House no. 4. 8. 130, office-cum-residence of you a t Sanga Reddy, as per your earlier demand, demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) from K. Veera Raju, r/o. Musarambagh, Hyderabad, as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing official favour for issuing the demand draft for Rs. 19,800/- to him towards the charges for the computerization of ration cards of medak district and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988, and within my cognizance. Secondly and Lastly: that you being a public servant employed as District Supply Officer, sangareddy, Medak District on 5th day of July, 1996 at about 6. 40 p. m. at House no. 4-8-130, Office-cum-residence of you at Sangareddy, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing your position as such public servant obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) from k. Veera Raju, R/o. Musarambagh, hyderabad for showing official favour for issuing the Demand Draft fir rs. 19,800/-to him towards the charges for the computerization of ration cards of Medak District and you thereby committed an offence specified under section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988, publishable under Section 13 (2) of that Act, and within my cognizance. " When the charges were read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) TO substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-19, besides case properties M. Os. 1 to 8. No oral evidence was adduced, but Exs. " When the charges were read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) TO substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-19, besides case properties M. Os. 1 to 8. No oral evidence was adduced, but Exs. D-1 to D-3 were marked, on behalf of the A. O. ( 5 ) THE trial Court, did not place any reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and came to conclusion that there was no demand and acceptance as alleged by the prosecution, and that there was no misconduct on the part of the A. O. , and accordingly found him not guilty of the charges leveled against him and acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present criminal Appeal is preferred. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant/a. C. B. contended that, there was official favour pending with the A. O. because as the work order for computerization of ration cards was completed by P. W. 2 and payment was to be made; that, when P. W. 1, who is brother of P. W. 2, went to collect the Demand draft, A. O. demanded illegal gratification; that, the evidence of P. W. 1 would clearly go to show that A. O. received tainted currency notes from P. W. 1 and the said currency notes were taken out from his table drawer; that, phenolphthalein test conducted by the investigating officer gave positive result; that, there is no other reason for P. Ws. 4 and 5 to implicate the accused falsely; that, it is not a case where two views are reasonably possible from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and so the question of giving benefit of doubt to the A. O. does not arise; that, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and came to wrong conclusion. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order of acquittal. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order of acquittal. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that, after the work done by P. W. 2, entire file has been transferred to Civil Supplies Corporation office and he becomes functus officio in the matter, and so, the question of demanding illegal gratification does not arise; that that, p. W. 2 has to collect Demand Draft from the corporation Office i. e. from P. Ws. 4 and 5; that, the other view which is available to the accused is also reasonably possible, because by the time P. W. 1 entered the house of A. O. , he saw the A. O. standing in the compound, and P. W. 1 entered into his office room and kept the money in the table drawer after verifying the same, and when the accused entered into the office, P. W. 1 shook his hands with the A. O. and therefore, phenolphthalein powder came into contact with the hands of the A. O. ; that, the A. O. allegedly handed over the Demand Draft after receiving bribe amount and police also seized the Demand draft during the course of post trap proceedings, but the Demand Draft was not subjected to chemical test; that, though the a. C. B. officials, who can conduct raid and investigation, are available at Sanga Reddy, p. W. 1 has not given any report to those officials, but he gave report to the officials at hyderabad, which shows his conduct to implicate the A. O. falsely; that, the trial Court, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly acquitted the a. O. and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to set aside the findings of the trial Court, which are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal appeal. ( 8 ) NOW, the point for determination is, whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the charges leveled against the A. O. and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? ( 9 ) GENERALLY, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with, because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. ( 9 ) GENERALLY, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with, because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in a criminal case is that if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence adduced in a case-one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of a guilt, is no less than from conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering an appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. ( 10 ) UNDER Section 7 of the Act, 1988, taking gratification other than legal remuneration by a public servant in respect of an official act, is an offence punishable. Similarly, under section 13 (1) (d), a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, if he, (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. ( 11 ) THE case of the prosecution is that, p. W. 2 was entrusted the work of data entry of ration cards by way of computerization, by the District Supply Officer, Medak district. ( 11 ) THE case of the prosecution is that, p. W. 2 was entrusted the work of data entry of ration cards by way of computerization, by the District Supply Officer, Medak district. According to him, in the month of April, 1996, the work was entrusted to him and in the first week of May, 1996, he completed the work and submitted a bill, to the District supply Office, Medak; that, as he is residing at Kakinada, he entrusted the work to his brother P. W. 1, who was residing in hyderabad. It is the evidence of P. W. 1 that when he contacted the accused on 4-7-1996, who was the then District Supply Officer, for release of the Demand Draft, the accused stated that Demand Draft was ready and asked him to pay money by way of bribe, otherwise, the Demand Draft will not be given; that, he expressed his inability to give the amount, but later, he went to the office of p. W. 8 and lodged Ex. P-1 complaint on 5-7-1996; that, in pursuance of Ex. P-1, p. W. 8 laid the trap. It is his further evidence that, P. Ws. 1 and 3 went to the office of the accused and handed over tainted money to the accused, and thereafter, P. W. 3 went outside and gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap party; that, the accused took out the currency notes from his table drawer and handed over to the investigating officer. ( 12 ) P. W. 3 was working as Assistant director in the office of the Director, Town planning at the relevant point of time of the incident. It is his evidence that, as per the instructions of his higher officials, he accompanied the A. C. B. officials to go to Sanga reddy. He admitted that one person was found walking in front of the house of the a. O. in the compound. In his earlier statement, he stated that the accused was standing in the compound, which is marked as Ex. D-2. Therefore, from the evidence of P. W. 3 coupled with Ex. D-2 statement, it is clear that the accused was not inside his house at the time p. W. 3 went there. In his earlier statement, he stated that the accused was standing in the compound, which is marked as Ex. D-2. Therefore, from the evidence of P. W. 3 coupled with Ex. D-2 statement, it is clear that the accused was not inside his house at the time p. W. 3 went there. It is his evidence that, sodium Carbonate solution was prepared in two glass tumblers and the accused was asked to rinse his fingers of both hands in the two separate tumblers. Both the hand fingers showed positive result as the solution in the tumblers turned into pink colour; that, the accused took out M. O. 1 currency notes, from the drawer of his office table and produced before the trap party; that, police seized the cash and they also found ration card in the drawer which was also subjected to chemical test, which showed positive result. ( 13 ) P. W. stated that, he along with P. W. 3, entered into the house of the A. O. and the a. O. invited them into the house. He also categorically stated that the A. O. was found in the compound. He admitted that, he was having friends in A. C. B. office prior to the incident, and added that, all of them were transferred at the time of the trap. Further, when the investigating officer enquired p. W. 1 as to where the tainted money was, he informed the investigating officer that the amount was in the table drawer. So, from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3, it is clear that, the a. O. was not present inside his house at the time when P. Ws. 1 and 3 went there, and so the possibility of P. W. 1 putting the currency notes in the table drawer of the A. O. cannot be ruled out. ( 14 ) THE other circumstances alleged is that, after receipt of the bribe amount, the a. O. gave the Demand Draft. It is in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 that receipt of 40 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination, the A. O. counted the same and kept the same in the left side drawer of his office table, and thereafter, the accused handed over the demand Draft to P. W. 1. It is in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 that receipt of 40 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination, the A. O. counted the same and kept the same in the left side drawer of his office table, and thereafter, the accused handed over the demand Draft to P. W. 1. Therefore, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the demand Draft was with the A. O. and after counting the currency notes, the Demand draft was handed over to P. W. 1. It that be so, the chemical powder would come into contact with the Demand Draft when the accused handed over the same to P. W. 1. That circumstance is very strong circumstance against the A. O. with regard to the alleged official favour. In such a case, police would have subjected the Demand Draft also to phenolphthalein test and the investigating officer would have incorporated about conducting test on the Demand Draft in ex. P-10, which is post trap proceedings. The reason given by the investigating officer for not subjecting the Demand Draft for Sodium carbonate test is that it would be spoiled. But, that cannot be a reason for the investigating officer for not doing so. If at all it is spoiled, he can make a request to the concerned officials to prepare a duplicate one. This circumstance would clearly indicate that, original of Ex. P-3 was not handed over by the A. O. to P. W. 1 after receiving the tainted amount. ( 15 ) IT is also the specific case of the prosecution that, after receipt of original of ex. P-3, the tainted amount was given. But, in the evidence, P. W. 1 admitted that on 4-7-1996 in the evening at 5. 30 or 6. 00, when he asked the A. O. to get back the advance receipt as the Demand Draft was not handed over, the A. O. told him to collect the Demand draft from P. W. 4 after giving the advance receipt. Therefore, it is clear from it that, the demand Draft was not available with the a. O. ( 16 ) AS a matter of fact, the Collector (Civil supplies), Medak addressed Ex. P-13 letter dated 1-6-1996 to the District Manager, a. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, sangareddy to arrange payment of rs. Therefore, it is clear from it that, the demand Draft was not available with the a. O. ( 16 ) AS a matter of fact, the Collector (Civil supplies), Medak addressed Ex. P-13 letter dated 1-6-1996 to the District Manager, a. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, sangareddy to arrange payment of rs. 19,800/- in favour of K. V. Ramana (P. W. 2) in the shape of Demand Draft. Therefore, there is no occasion for the A. O. to collect the Demand Draft from the corporation. In pursuance of Ex. P-13, the corporation sent Ex. P-14 letter dated 4-7-1996 enclosing the Demand Draft in favour of P. W. 2. According to P. W. 4, his office received Ex. P-13 letter on 6-6-1996; that, as P. W. 1 did not turn up to the office, p. W. 5 handed over the D. D. to the A. O. at his house at 5. 30 p. m. on 4-7-1996 in his presence. According to P. W. 4, he simply handed over original of Ex. P-3 and he did not obtain any endorsement on Ex. P-14. It is not the case of p. Ws. 4 and 5 that the A. O. asked him to bring the Demand Draft to his house. Ex. P-14 covering letter with regard to preparation of original of Ex. P-3 was written after 4. 30 p. m. Therefore, there was in need for P. W. 5 to hand over the Demand Draft at the house of the accused at 6. 00 p. m. According to P. W. 5, he received the Demand Draft from the Bank at 3. 30 p. m. on 4-7-1996. According to P. W. 5, ex. P-14 covering letter was sent to dispatch section. If it was sent to the Section, the dispatch clerk will assign a dispatch number. But, there is no dispatch number on Ex. P-14. P. W. 5 is not the Dispatch clerk. Admittedly, he was working as Assistant Manager-Accounts in the Civil Supplies Corporation. Earlier version of P. W. 5 before police is that, though the Demand Draft was ready, they did not hand over the same to P. W. 1. The reason given by P. W. 4 was that as P. W. 1 did not turn up, P. W. 5 went to the residence of the A. O. at 5. Earlier version of P. W. 5 before police is that, though the Demand Draft was ready, they did not hand over the same to P. W. 1. The reason given by P. W. 4 was that as P. W. 1 did not turn up, P. W. 5 went to the residence of the A. O. at 5. 30 p. m. on 4-7-1996 and hand over the same, which is contrary to his earlier version as in Ex. D-3. Admittedly, Ex. P-14 was not take along with P. W. 4 to hand over the same to the A. O. This raises any amount of doubt with regard to handing over of only original of Ex. P-3 by P. W. 5 at the house of the a. O. When Ex. P-14 covering letter would clearly go to show that the Demand Draft was enclosed to Ex. P-14 and it was sent to the dispatch clerk, how P. Ws. 4 and 5 took possession of the original of Ex. P-3 only? So, by the date of the incident, there was no official favour pending with the A. O. to be done to P. W. 1 or his brother P. W. 2. This aspect gives any amount of doubt that the a. O. , after receiving illegal gratification, handed over original of Ex. P-3 to P. W. 1. As already discussed, the Demand Draft was not subjected to chemical test and the explanation given by the investigating officer for not subjecting the original of Ex. P-3 to chemical test, is not convincing. ( 17 ) COMING to the phenolphthalein test, both hand fingers of the A. O. gave positive result, when rinsed in the glass tumblers. Now, it has to be seen whether the A. O. received the tainted currency notes which were subjected to phenolphthalein test. It is in the evidence of P. W. 1 that before reaching the house of the A. O. from the office of the a. C. B. , he verified the tainted money in his shirt pocket and on verification he found that the amount was in tact. It is in the evidence of P. W. 1 that before reaching the house of the A. O. from the office of the a. C. B. , he verified the tainted money in his shirt pocket and on verification he found that the amount was in tact. It means, he might have touched the currency notes after he left the office of A. C. B. before going to the house of A. O. It is also admitted by P. W. 1 that he offered Namaskarams in token of respect of the A. O. and shook hands with him after he entered into house of the A. O. Therefore, at that point of time, the chemical powder in the hands of the accused, must have come into contact with the fingers of hands of the A. O. and that possibility cannot be ruled out. Further more, while the A. O. was present in the compound, the possibility of P. W. 1 or P. W. 3 entering into the room of the A. O. and keeping the amount in the drawer of his table, without the knowledge of A. O. , cannot be ruled out. ( 18 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant also relied on a decision in Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1) AIR 1980 SC 873 wherein it is held thus: "where the evidence of the Police Officer who laid the trap is found entirely trustworthy, there is no need to seek any corroboration. There is no rule of prudence, which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. . . . " ( 19 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant also relied on a decision in State of U. P. v. Dr. G. K. Ghosh (2) AIR 1984 SC 1453 . "the court may therefore, depending on the circumstances of a case, feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. G. K. Ghosh (2) AIR 1984 SC 1453 . "the court may therefore, depending on the circumstances of a case, feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When therefore besides such evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case. " ( 20 ) SO, in the facts and circumstances of the case, finding of the currency notes in the table drawer of the A. O. alone cannot be a circumstance to infer that A. O. received the tainted amount from P. W. 1. Therefore, the explanation offered by the A. O. can also be possible as regards the phenolphthalein test. It is well settled that when two views are reasonably possible, the view in favour of the accused should be adopted. ( 21 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision in Girja Prasad (dead) L. Rs, v. State of M. P. (3) 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 135 (SC)= (2007) 3 SCC (Crl.) 475 wherein it is held thus: "in our judgment, the above proposition does not lay down correct law on the point. It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and truth worthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of the complainant or a police official but it is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence. " ( 22 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent/accused also placed strong reliance on a decision in State of U. P. v. Jagdish singh Malhotra (4) 2001 (1) ALT (Crl.) 224 (SC)= 2001 (1) Crimes 322 (SC) wherein it is held thus: "insofar as the phenolphthalein test is concerned, we find that the explanation given by the respondent for presence of crystals of phenolphthalein on his hands, which were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and the solution hand turned pink, is quite plausible. Categorically denying the handling or receiving of the tainted currency notes, he stated that he shook hands with the officers and the phenolphthalein crystals could have come on to his hands during that time. . . . " ( 23 ) THERE is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Apex court, because there is no rule of law that the evidence of police officials is to be viewed with suspicion. The credibility of evidence of p. W. 8 in this case is not being doubted. But, the credibility of evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 has to be doubted because no explanation is forthcoming as to how P. Ws. 1 and 3 went to the residence of A. O. It is not the case of the prosecution that P. W. 1, P. W. 3 and other officials went to Sanga Reddy from hyderabad in a jeep together. According to p. W. 3, he along with P. W. 1 proceeded to the house of A. O. in a scooter. 1 and 3 went to the residence of A. O. It is not the case of the prosecution that P. W. 1, P. W. 3 and other officials went to Sanga Reddy from hyderabad in a jeep together. According to p. W. 3, he along with P. W. 1 proceeded to the house of A. O. in a scooter. According to p. W. 1, P. W. 4 showed him the residence of the A. O. That means, P. W. 1 did not know the residence of the A. O. According to P. W. 1, the amount was given at the office-cum-residence of the A. O. But, admittedly, as seen from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, office of the A. O. is located separately from the house at a distance of more than 1 k. m. When P. Ws. 1 and 3 went in a scooter to the house of the A. O. , where p. W. 4-Prabhakar met him, is not known. P. W. 5 was present in the A. C. B. office at sanga Reddy. According to P. W. 5, he handed over the Demand Draft at 6. 00 p. m. on 4-7-1996. According to P. W. 1, he reached the residence of the A. O. at 6. 30 p. m. Evenp. W. 3 also stated that he along with P. W. 1 reached residence-cum-office of the A. O. as P. Ws. 1 and 3 are strangers, how they went to the house of the A. O. is not known. On the other hand, their evidence is that, office and the residence of the A. O. is one and the same. But, as a matter of fact, it is not correct. When the a. O. himself directed P. W. 1 to go to P. W. 4 and receive the Demand Draft after giving advance stamp receipt, question of demanding bribe may not arise. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on a decision in Kanshi ram v. State of Punjab (5) (2005) 12 SCC 641 wherein it is held thus: ". . . . Evidence of Jugraj Singh and P. W. 5, the inspector, roved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the money and the money was recovered from his house and explanation offered by the appellant was neither reasonable nor satisfactory. . . . Evidence of Jugraj Singh and P. W. 5, the inspector, roved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the money and the money was recovered from his house and explanation offered by the appellant was neither reasonable nor satisfactory. Fact is that he had received the money and in the absence of a reasonable explanation as to how the tainted money came to his possession, there would be a presumption that he accepted the bribe and Section 20 of the prevention of Corruption Act is attracted. Hence, the explanation offered by the appellant was not sufficient to rebut that presumption. . . " ( 25 ) IN he case on hand, reasonable explanation has been offered that while the a. O. was present in the compound, p. Ws. 1 and 3 kept the amount in his table drawer and therefore, presumption under section 20 of the Act, 1988, cannot be applicable as receipt of money by the A. O. has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent/a. O. relied on a decision in raosaheb v. State of Maharashtra (6) 1996 (2)Crimes 80. ". . The accused would not have accepted the bribe amount in presence of Panch ravindra. The very fact that the accused did not enquire about the panch demonstrates his behaviour consistent with his innocence. Thus, the circumstances undoubtedly show that the acts attributed to the accused are against the normal course of human behaviour. . . . " ( 27 ) NO hard and fast rule can be laid down that the Officers would not take bribe before strangers. In the case on hand, no doubt, p. W. 3 is also stranger. This circumstance has to be considered along with other evidence. ( 28 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the A. O. beyond reasonable doubt for the charges leveled against him. The findings of the trial court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to set aside the said findings. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. The findings of the trial court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to set aside the said findings. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. ( 29 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 28-2-2001 in c. C. No. 16 of 1997 on the file of the Principal special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at hyderabad. Appeal is accordingly dismissed