Judgment 1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 06.07.2005 in Calendar Case No.14 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the appellant/sole accused was convicted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with 13 (2) of the Act. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows: P.W.1-defacto complainant applied for a telephone connection to his residence and got connection bearing No.77308 in the month of August, 2001, but as he did not receive telephone bill, he did not pay the bill. It is revealed that as SDE did not send the advice note and data sheet to the Office of the General Manager, BSNL, Ongole for preparing and issuing bill to the complainant. Three months after getting telephone connection, outgoing call facility was stopped. On that, P.W.1 met the appellant, who was the SDE, at his office on 10.12.2001 and requested to restore the outgoing call facility to his telephone. The appellant demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-for restoring the outgoing call facility. When P.W.1 expressed inability, the appellant asked him to pay Rs.500/-before evening of 13.12.2001 at his office and the remaining Rs.500/-at a later date, and stated that unless the bribe is paid, he would not arrange the bill and also would not restore outgoing facility and threatened to disconnect the telephone connection. Unwilling to pay the bribe, P.W.1 lodged a written complaint to P.W.3-the then Inspector of Police, C.B.I. who was camping at Hotel Kalyani, Chilakaluripet on 12.12.2001. Unwilling to pay the bribe, P.W.1 lodged a written complaint to P.W.3-the then Inspector of Police, C.B.I. who was camping at Hotel Kalyani, Chilakaluripet on 12.12.2001. Basing on the same, a case in RC No.30 (A)/01 was registered, and after observing necessary formalities, the C.B.I. officials laid a trap on 13.12.2001 and the appellant was caught red-handed when he demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.500/-from P.W.1 in the presence of mediators. The numbers of the currency notes which were recovered from trouser back pocket of the appellant were compared with the numbers noted in the first mediators report and the same were tallied. Constable prepared the Sodium Carbonate Solution in two glass tumblers. P.W.3 got the accused to dip his right hand fingers in one solution and the solution turned into pink colour. The resultant solution was taken into M.O.2. Similarly, the inner side portion of the back side trousers pocket of the accused was subjected to the same test. As a result, the solution turned into pink colour. As per Ex.P7, Chemical Examiner detected phenolphthalein in glass bottle of right hand wash of the accused and glass bottle containing solution of back pocket wash of the trouser of the accused. P.W.6 registered a case and took up investigation. He examined P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and recorded their statements. He sent the material objects to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. P.W.5 obtained sanction to prosecute the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid by him. 3. The charges framed against the appellant are as follows: “That you on 13.12.2001 at the office of Sub Divisional Engineer (Groups), Bharat Sanchar Nigham Limited (B.S.N.L.), Martur, being a Public Servant employed as Sub Divisional Engineer (Groups), B.S.N.L., Martur, Prakasam District, demanded Rs.1000/-and accepted Rs.500/-from G. Nageswara Rao of Tativanipalem Village of Martur Mandal as first instalment as bribe for yourself as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for official function to arrange the bill and to restore outgoing call facility to the Telephone at the residence of G. Nageswara Rao and for not disconnecting the telephone connection, thereby you have committed an offence punishable under sec.7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. That you on 13.12.2001 at the office of Sub Divisional Engineer (Groups), Bharat Sanchar Nigham Limited (B.S.N.L.), Martur, being a Public Servant employed as Sub Divisional Engineer (Groups), B.S.N.L., Martur, Prakasam District, demanded Rs.1000/-and accepted Rs.500/-from G. Nageswara Rao of Tativanipalem Village of Martur Mandal as first instalment as bribe for yourself as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for official function to arrange the bill and to restore outgoing call facility to the Telephone at the residence of G. Nageswara Rao and for not disconnecting the telephone connection, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your official position as such Public Servant obtained for yourself a pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.500/-as bribe, and thereby you have committed the offence specified in Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the P.C. Act, 1988 punishable under sec.13 (2) of that Act and within my cognizance.” When the charges were read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19, besides case properties M.Os. 1 to 5. On behalf of the appellant/accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. 5. The trial Court, accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that there was every possibility for the appellant to receive the amount towards restoration charges for telephone connection and that in the presence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, P.W.1 requested the appellant to receive the amount and pay the same in BSNL Office at Ongole; that there was no demand as seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, P.W.1 requested the appellant to receive the amount and pay the same in BSNL Office at Ongole; that there was no demand as seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 so as to convict the accused for the offences alleged against him, and that the plea of the accused is more probable; that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is mutually contradictory; that their evidence does not inspire confidence of the court, and that these aspects have not been considered by the trial court in right perspective and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. 7. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for C.B.I. contended that recovery of tainted notes from the possession of the appellant has not been disputed, and that there was no need for the appellant to accept any amount from P.W.1 for the purpose of payment towards telephone charges payable in BSNL office at Ongole as it is not the duty of the appellant to receive any amount and pay at Ongole; that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was in the habit of receiving any amount from the customers for the purpose of remitting the same at Ongole Office; that there is no precise amount arrived at towards payment of telephone charges, and so, the question of P.W.1 paying Rs.500/-towards payment of telephone bill does not arise; that the trial court rightly accepted the evidence of prosecution and there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. 8. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant/accused for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court are liable to be confirmed or modified ? 9. The essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act are: i) that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant; ii) that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or dis-favour to any person. Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i) that he should have been a public servant; (ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 10. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant initially demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-and accepted Rs.500/-from P.W.1 as first instalment as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for preparation of telephone bill and for restoring the outgoing call facility to his telephone no.77308, and that by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position as such Public Servant obtained for himself a pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.500/-as bribe. When the bribe amount is demanded from P.W.1, the victim of corruption P.W.1 telephoned to the CBI office in Visakhapatnam. He was informed to meet the CBI officer Naidu who was camping in Hotel Kalyani at Chilakaluripeta. P.W.1 went to the hotel and met the said CBI officer and lodged a complaint Ex.P2. Thereafter, the services of panch witnesses are requisitioned. They were introduced to P.W.1 and posted with the information of the alleged demand of bribe by the accused officer. The trap was arranged where the currency notes were smeared with the phenolphthalein powder. Ex.P4-pre-trap mediators report was scribed duly noting down the numbers of currency notes. The raid party proceeded to the place where the appellant was to accept the alleged bribe money. P.Ws. 1 and 2 went inside the office. Appellant was not present at that time. After some time, the appellant came to the office on a motor cycle. All the members of the raid party were waiting nearby place for the pre-arranged signal to come from P.W.1 or P.W.2. On receipt of the signal from P.W.2, the trap laying party swiftly swung into action. There is evidence on record to show that the appellant received the amount of Rs.500/-with his right hand and kept the same in right side back pocket of his trouser. One of the mediators took out the tainted currency notes from the said pocket of the appellant and thereafter Ex.P6-mediators’ report was drafted. There is evidence on record to show that the appellant received the amount of Rs.500/-with his right hand and kept the same in right side back pocket of his trouser. One of the mediators took out the tainted currency notes from the said pocket of the appellant and thereafter Ex.P6-mediators’ report was drafted. The numbers of the currency notes as noted in Ex.P4 are tallying with the numbers of the currency notes seized from the possession of the appellant. When Sodium Carbonate solution test was conducted on the right hand fingers of the appellant and inside the right side back pocket of his trouser, it gave a positive result as the solution turned into pink colour. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the recitals in Exs.P4 and P6, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the tainted currency notes were seized from the possession of the appellant. Even the appellant did not deny or dispute about the seizure of the tainted currency notes from his possession. 11. Now, it has to be seen whether there was any demand made by the appellant so as to do official favour to P.W.1 to infer that he received the same towards illegal gratification ? 12. According to P.W.1, the appellant demanded the money for restoration of outgoing call facility to his telephone connection. Though P.W.1 applied for installation of telephone, Ex.P14-Report for details of bills issued (K-sheet), does not show about installation of the telephone connection to his house. Therefore, installation of telephone connection in the house of P.W.1 is without there being legal procedure. The evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that one Lineman Anjaiah installed the telephone at his house and the Junior Engineer did not visit the house prior to installation or after the date of installation i.e. 10.08.2001. It is also in his evidence that for some time, he used to receive incoming calls but at the same time, he was unable to make any outgoing calls. Therefore, for restoration of telephone connection with regard to outgoing calls, there was every possibility for P.W.1 to go to office of the appellant and make a request for the same. As a matter of fact, in the first instance, he met Junior Engineer and on his advice, he contacted the appellant. Therefore, for restoration of telephone connection with regard to outgoing calls, there was every possibility for P.W.1 to go to office of the appellant and make a request for the same. As a matter of fact, in the first instance, he met Junior Engineer and on his advice, he contacted the appellant. It is at that time, the appellant demanded Rs.1,000/-towards illegal gratification for the purpose of rectification of outgoing calls to the telephone connection. So, the evidence of P.W.1 on this aspect, is very clear. He has no other reason to speak false against the appellant. 13. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means, unless the witness has cause such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. When a witness has no reason or cause to falsely implicate the accused and he is not shown to have any ill-will or malice against the accused, evidence of such evidence deserves to be accepted and can be relied upon to base a conviction. The probabilities of a case are material test in judging of the credibility of a witness. 14. P.W.1 has no prior acquaintance with the appellant. Similarly, in the entire cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing has been elicited to infer that he entertained grouse or enmity against the appellant so as to give a false complaint. There was every possibility for P.W.1 to go to the office of the appellant especially when outgoing calls were barred from his telephone connection. In that connection, there was every possibility for the appellant for demanding some gratification for rectifying the defect, and precisely for that reason, the appellant demanded Rs.1,000/-in the first instance, and as P.W.1 told him that he could not pay the amount and came out of his room, the appellant called him again and told that if he pays atleast Rs.500/-by 13.12.2001, the restoration would be given effect. Then, P.W.1 told him that he would bring the amount on 13.12.2001. Unwilling to pay the amount, P.W.1 lodged the complaint Ex.P2. 15. In considering the question as to whether the evidence given by the witness should be accepted or not, the court has to examine whether the statement deposed by him is probable or credible, and whether it has shaken in the cross-examination. Unwilling to pay the amount, P.W.1 lodged the complaint Ex.P2. 15. In considering the question as to whether the evidence given by the witness should be accepted or not, the court has to examine whether the statement deposed by him is probable or credible, and whether it has shaken in the cross-examination. The totality of the evidence of a witness has to be taken into consideration for fixing the probative value. The evidence of a witness will have to be assessed by its intrinsic worth. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with commission of crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probability, its essential value and the grudge of the witnesses. 16. P.W.2 is an independent witness, who was working in State Bank of India. The evidence of P.W. 2 is very clear with regard to appellant asking P.W.1 to pay the bribe amount. There is no other reason to doubt the testimony of P.W. 2. Therefore, there appears to be a ring of truth in the evidence of P.W. 2 with regard to the purpose for which the appellant demanded money and there are no circumstances to infer that P.W.2 was having grouse or enmity against the appellant. 17. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that himself and P.W.1 went into the room of the appellant; P.W.1 informed the appellant that outgoing facility was not restored to his phone; the appellant told him that it would be done; then P.W.1 told the appellant that he has brought the amount as instructed by him. Whereas P.W.1 stated that the appellant enquired him whether he brought the amount as discussed earlier. No doubt, there is a minor discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as to whether P.W.1 enquired the appellant or the appellant enquired P.W.1. The witnesses were giving evidence about 4 years after the date of the incident. Human memory is not a videograph so as to reproduce the same as it is. Therefore, some discrepancies are bound to occur even in the case of truthful witnesses due to lapse of time. But, in Ex.P6-post trap proceedings, it is clearly mentioned that P.W.1 told the appellant that he brought the amount as he was asked to do so which is in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.1. 18. The appellant examined 3 witnesses D.Ws. But, in Ex.P6-post trap proceedings, it is clearly mentioned that P.W.1 told the appellant that he brought the amount as he was asked to do so which is in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.1. 18. The appellant examined 3 witnesses D.Ws. 1 to 3 in support of his defence. If the defence of the appellant/accused is found to be probable, then it can be said that it is not a case of demand and acceptance of bribe. If the defence of the appellant/accused is to be disbelieved, then, certainly it can be said to be a case of demand and acceptance of bribe from P.W.1. The court should assess the credibility of defence witnesses in the same manner as it should assess credibility of prosecution witnesses. It is not in dispute that the telephone charges or bill amount of the telephone connection have to be paid in the office of BSNL at Ongole. The said payments have to be paid by the telephone connection holders. It is not the legal or moral obligation or responsibility of the appellant/accused to receive the telephone charges. Hence, it is improbable to believe that the tainted amount received by the appellant from P.W.1 is towards payment of telephone charges. There was no other cause for P.W.1 to pay any amount to the appellant. The reason given by the appellant is that prior to the date of the trap, P.W.1 met the appellant in the shop of D.W.2 and at that time, P.W.1 requested the appellant to receive the amount for payment towards bill at Ongole. As seen from the evidence, the bill was not generated as on the date of the incident in view of the fact hat the telephone number of P.W.1 is not mentioned in Ex.P14. Unless the telephone number is mentioned in Ex.P14, bill would not be generated. Unless the bill is generated, it is not possible to know even for the appellant to ascertain the actual amount to be paid in the BSNL office at Ongole. In such circumstances, it is absurd to accept the defence that P.W.1 paid Rs.500/-towards telephone bill charges for remitting in the office of BSNL at Ongole. 19. Unless the bill is generated, it is not possible to know even for the appellant to ascertain the actual amount to be paid in the BSNL office at Ongole. In such circumstances, it is absurd to accept the defence that P.W.1 paid Rs.500/-towards telephone bill charges for remitting in the office of BSNL at Ongole. 19. If really the defence of the appellant/accused that he received the amount for payment of the same at Ongole office, is true, the immediate conduct of the appellant is to inform the same at the time when P.W.3 seized M.O.1-currency notes. He has not given any spontaneous explanation to the trap laying officer that he received the said amount for payment towards telephone bills due to the Department. Therefore, the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3 is an after thought so as to substantiate the defence of the appellant/accused. At the earliest opportunity, the appellant has not stated anything that the amount received by him is towards payment of the bill in the office at Ongole. It is not the case of the appellant that he used to collect the amounts from known or unknown persons for the purpose of payment of the same at Ongole Office. It is not his case that he had acquaintance with P.W.1 prior to the trap and in view of that acquaintance he accepted the amount from P.W.1. Therefore, the explanation given by the appellant is totally improbable and it cannot be said to be credible so as to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. When the plea of the accused has not been established beyond preponderance of probability, the only inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case is that the appellant demanded Rs.500/-for restoration of outgoing calls facility to the telephone connection of P.W.1 and for that purpose, he accepted the said amount. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision in C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2022 (1), wherein it is held thus: “It is against this background of principles we have examined the contention of the appellant that the charges under Section 7 of the Act have not been proved against him. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision in C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2022 (1), wherein it is held thus: “It is against this background of principles we have examined the contention of the appellant that the charges under Section 7 of the Act have not been proved against him. IT was argued by Shri U.U. Lalit, Senior counsel, that the circumstances found by the High Court in their totality do not establish that the appellant accepted the amount of Rs.1500/-as gratification. Having examined the findings of both the Courts, we are satisfied that the appellant has proved his case by the test of preponderance of probability and we accordingly reach the conclusion that the amount was not taken by the appellant as gratification. He was made to believe that amount paid to him was towards the repayment of loan taken by PW2 from Accused no. 1.” It is a case where the defene in that case was accepted as the amount has been repaid towards loan. That is not the case here. So, the said decision has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence in right perspective rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. None of the findings of the trial court is shown to be illegal or improper or not based upon the material on record. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 06.07.2005 in Calendar Case No.14 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.