JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is at the instance of Dr. N.K. Seetharama Sharma, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Rapthadu, Anantapur district against his conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.C.No.7 of 1994 for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. The appellant/accused was tried for the charges under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Act indicting him for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.200/- on 09-05-1993 at about 11.30 a.m. from one Uppara Chandrayudu of Rapthadu village for issuing death certificate in respect of 2 sheep for claiming insurance amount. At the conclusion of the trial he was found guilty for the said offences and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He was further sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w. Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence the appellant preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard Sri A. Diwakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ganiya Mosa, learned Standing Counsel for A.C.B. Cases. 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as follows: Mr. Uppara Chandrayudu (LW1) the defacto complainant was sanctioned loan by Anantha Grameena Bank in IRDP scheme for the purchase of sheep. He purchased 16 sheep under the said scheme. The sheep which were purchased under the scheme were tagged with ear tags. The sheep purchased under the scheme by LW1 died at different times and two of them died about two months prior to 09-05-1993. LW1 who wanted to claim the insurance amount approached the appellant Dr. N.K. Sitarama Sharma who was the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Live Stock Unit, Rapthadu Mandal for issuance of death certificate in respect of two sheep. It is said that for issuing the death certificates the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.200/- from LW1 as illegal gratification. LW1 who wanted to claim the insurance amount approached the appellant Dr. N.K. Sitarama Sharma who was the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Live Stock Unit, Rapthadu Mandal for issuance of death certificate in respect of two sheep. It is said that for issuing the death certificates the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.200/- from LW1 as illegal gratification. Again when LW1 met the appellant on 08-05-1993 the appellant reiterated his earlier demand, directed LW1 to pay amount of Rs.200/- to him and take certificates. LW1 who was not willing to pay the bribe amount approached PW8 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ananthapur range on 08-05-1993 and lodged complaint. Basing on which a case in Crime No.3/ACB-ATP/93 was registered against the appellant. Thereafter a trap was laid against the appellant on 09-05-1993 by PW8 the DSP, ACB with his team consisting of mediators. According to the prosecution, on 09-05-1993 at about 11.00 a.m. LW1 went to the residence of the appellant and asked him to issue the death certificates of the sheep, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.200/- from LW1. LW1 gave the amount to the appellant and the appellant kept the said amount (two hundred rupee notes) in the fold of his lungi. Thereafter he prepared the death certificates and autopsy certificates of two sheep on the spot and handed them over to LW1. Thereafter LW1 came out and relayed the pre-arranged signal. On receiving the same, the raiding party rushed in to the house of the appellant. Thereafter it is said that PW8 recovered the tainted amount from the appellant. Sodium Carbonate solution test conducted on the fingers of both hands of appellant was found to be positive. PW8 also seized the death certificates issued by the appellant to LW1. 5. In this case before the commencement of the trial LW1 the defacto complainant died and could not be examined by the prosecution. The prosecution by examining PWs.2 and 3 who are the residents of Yerragunta village of Rapthadu mandal proved that the defacto complainant (LW1) was no more. PW4 is the Manager of Anantha Grameena Bank at the relevant time and PW6 the Manager of the Anantha Grameena Bank, Bandameedipalli branch at relevant time spoke about sanctioning of loan to LW1 under IRDP scheme for purchasing 16 sheep with the said loan amount. PW4 is the Manager of Anantha Grameena Bank at the relevant time and PW6 the Manager of the Anantha Grameena Bank, Bandameedipalli branch at relevant time spoke about sanctioning of loan to LW1 under IRDP scheme for purchasing 16 sheep with the said loan amount. In fact in this case there is no serious dispute about purchasing sheep by LW1 with the loan granted under IRDP scheme to him. 6. The important witnesses in this case are PW1 Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Ananthapur who was taken as one of the mediators and PW8 the trap-laying officer. Both of them have categorically stated in their depositions that before proceeding to trap, the two currency notes numbers produced by LW1 were noted down, LW1 was directed to give his signal only on demand made by the appellant. They also stated that after receiving the pre-arranged signal they rushed into the house of the appellant and found the appellant holding the said currency notes and some papers in his right hand and kept the bunch of the notes and papers in the fold of his lungi on seeing the members of the raiding party. All these facts have been recited in the pre-trap and post-trap mediators reports respectively. 7. The defence version of the appellant is that he did not receive any bribe amount and LW1 thrusted the amount into the fold of his lungi. It was also the contention of the appellant that the sheep was not brought by LW1 but were sent through same person known to him. The appellant examined one S. Yerrappa as DW1 a resident of the village of LW1. He stated in his evidence before the trial court that LW1 had sent two dead sheep through him to the Veterinary Hospital and requested him to obtain the certificates from the hospital, the appellant conducted post mortem examination over the two dead sheep and thereafter gave certificate and two year tags of the dead sheep to him. According to this witness he went to LW1 who was at mutton shop and handed him over the post mortem examination certificates and year tags. According to this witness he went to LW1 who was at mutton shop and handed him over the post mortem examination certificates and year tags. The evidence of this witness was rightly disbelieved by the trial court for the reason that his name was not at all referred by the appellant to PW8 in the post trap panchanama and the defence taken by the appellant was that LW1 thrusted amount of Rs.200/-into the fold of his lungi. In view of the inconsistent stands taken in the defence theory by the appellant no reliance can be placed on the evidence of DW1. 8. DW3 another witness examined on behalf of the appellant was an attender in Veterinary Hospital in Rapthadu. He gave evidence before the trial court to the effect that DW1 brought two dead sheep on 09-05-1993, the appellant conducted post mortem examination over the two dead sheep and issued post mortem examination certificate to DW1. The evidence of this witness was also rightly disbelieved by the trial court on the ground that he being an attender working under the appellant is an interested witness and normally would speak in favour of the appellant. 9. The crucial question requires to be determined in the present appeal is since LW1 Uppara Chandrayudu the defacto complainant died prior to the commencement of the trial and he could not be examined by the prosecution whether a finding can be recorded basing on the evidence adduced by the prosecution to the effect that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe from LW1. 10. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was that as LW1 the defacto complainant was not examined and no other person witnessed receiving bribe amount by the appellant, it is not possible to record a finding that the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.200/- and received the same from LW1 as bribe. The basis of the said argument seems to be that what all stated by LW1 in the complaint lodged by him with PW9 the Inspector of Police, A.C.B. and what he spoke to PW1 the mediator and PW8 trap laying officer, is hearsay, there is no substantive evidence in this case showing that the appellant received bribe amount from LW1 and therefore, the order of conviction passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 11. 11. Sri Ganiya Mosa, learned Standing Counsel for A.C.B. Cases would contend that even though the defacto complainant died prior to the commencement of the trial the court can record a finding as to demand and acceptance of bribe basing on the circumstantial evidence which was rightly done by the trial court. In support, he relied on a decision reported in Kishan Chand Mangal v. State of Rajasthan (1983 CRI.L.J.1(1)), wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: “When the numbers of the currency notes recovered from the appellant were tallied with the memorandum already prepared the appellant having failed to explain the grievance subsequent and prior to demand it could not be said that there was no evidence of prior demand. Death of complainant prior to the commencement of the trial is of no consequence. Accused could not be said to be unwilling victim, nor a fence sitter.” 12. In Hazari Lal v. The State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 873) the Supreme Court held that when there is evidence as to arranging trap for giving bribe, the proof of acceptance of money may be direct or indirect. It was further held that the evidence of police officer who laid the trap is found to be reliable can be considered for recording a finding without corroboration. 13. In M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 691 the Supreme Court held as follows: “The Supreme Court found the finding of the High Court that even in the absence of a direct evidence, the rest of the evidence and circumstances were sufficient to establish that the accused had accepted the amount and that gave rise to a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that he had accepted the same as illegal gratification.” 14. With regard to the facts of the present case, it is established from the evidence of PWs.1 and 8 that the appellant received the tainted amount of Rs.200/- from LW1 Uppara Chandrayudu. No martial was brought on record showing that LW1 the complainant was in any way inimical to the appellant. The evidence on record does not reveal that there was any prior acquaintance between the both. LW1 was residing in a remote village. Therefore, it is most unlikely to involve the appellant in a false charge of taking bribe. No martial was brought on record showing that LW1 the complainant was in any way inimical to the appellant. The evidence on record does not reveal that there was any prior acquaintance between the both. LW1 was residing in a remote village. Therefore, it is most unlikely to involve the appellant in a false charge of taking bribe. The evidence of PW8 discloses that LW1 approached him and voluntarily made a report with him that the appellant was demanding bribe. The circumstances under which the F.I.R. came to be filed would clearly reveal that the report was genuinely lodged. PW1 was Secretary in Agricultural Marketing Committee, Ananthapur. Nothing was attributed to him for giving evidence against the appellant to the effect that he had seen him while he was holding the tainted amount. There was no mention in Ex.P3 post trap proceedings that the appellant at the earliest stated before the mediator and trap laying officer that the money was thrusted into the fold of his lungi by LW1. It is merely mentioned in Ex.P6 post trap proceedings as the appellant stating that he did not demand any bribe from the complainant and the allegations made against him are false. 15. The evidence of PWs.1 and 8 disclosed that when compared the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in pre-trap proceedings were tallied with those recovered from the possession of the appellant. The prosecution in this case, therefore, could be able to successfully establish that the appellant voluntarily accepted an amount of Rs.200/- from LW1. In such an event, the court is bound to draw a legal presumption under Section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act that it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the appellant accepted or obtained the said amount as a motive of reward as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. The presumption though rebuttable, the appellant could not be able to displace the said presumption by adducing any convincing or cogent evidence even though by the standard of preponderance of the probability. 16. The defence put-forth by the appellant is highly unconvincing and rightly rejected by the learned trial court. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court do not call for any interference in this appeal. 17. 16. The defence put-forth by the appellant is highly unconvincing and rightly rejected by the learned trial court. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court do not call for any interference in this appeal. 17. For the forgoing reasons, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant is confirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.