JUDGMENT Initially this appeal was filed by the first accused Sri Dita Seetha Ramalingeswara Sarma [D.S.R.L. Sarma], Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Sub-Division, Officer's Squad, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, against his conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE and AC Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by the judgment dated 19.92005 in CC No.12 of 1999. 2. The appellant, Prohibition and Excise Inspector and the Head Constable, Prohibition and Excise by name Mahankali Muthyalu, were tried by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A2 Mahankali Muthyalu was acquitted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while the appellant-A1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences of imprisonment of the appellant-A1 were directed to run concurrently. 3. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him, A1, Sri Dita Seetha Ramalingeswara Sarma [D.S.R.L. Sarma], Prohibition and Excise Inspector, preferred the present appeal. 4. Pending appeal he died. His wife and son made an application seeking permission of this Court to prosecute the appeal on his behalf and with the permission of the Court they are prosecuting the appeal after coming on record as the legal representatives of the deceased-appellant. 5. Heard Sri T. Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Suresh Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-A1 and Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel representing ACB Cases. 6. 5. Heard Sri T. Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Suresh Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-A1 and Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel representing ACB Cases. 6. The brief facts of the case under appeal may be stated as follows : A1 and A2 surprised the toddy shop of Gundla Yellaiah [PW5] in Gangupally Village, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District along with the staff on 24.9.1997 and demanded him to pay monthly mamool. As PW5 did not oblige they took him and his relative Ramaiah into custody and brought them to the Excise Station and kept them in wrongful confinement. PW 1 the son of PW5 having come to know about the detention of his father by the Excise Officials approached A1 on 24.9.1997 and requested him to release his father and another. Then it is said that the appellant-A1 demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for releasing PW5 the father of PW1 and another and also for not booking any case against them. PW1 who was unwilling to pay the bribe amount, approached PW9 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB on 25.9.1997 and gave a report against A1 and A2. On the strength of the said report, a case in Crime No.14/ACB-HR/1997 was registered and was investigated into by PW9. In the course of the investigation, PW9 along with PW1, mediators and staff laid a trap against A1 and A2 on 25.9.1997 at about 2:45 p.m. According to the prosecution, in the course of the said trap, A1 received an amount of Rs.4,000/- from PW1 and whereas A2 received Rs.1,000/- from him and the chemical test conducted on the fingers of both hands of both the accused yielded positive result. Subsequently the tainted amount was recovered from both the accused under a cover of mediator's report. 7. The defence version of the appellant-A1 was that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe, PW1 came to his residence and kept the amount underneath the mosquito coil in the almirah. However, according to the prosecution such explanation was not given by the appellant-A1 spontaneously when he was questioned by PW9, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB soon after the trap was laid against him. 8. However, according to the prosecution such explanation was not given by the appellant-A1 spontaneously when he was questioned by PW9, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB soon after the trap was laid against him. 8. PW1 stated in his deposition before the trial Court that he went to the office of the appellant-A1 at about 10 O' clock and enquired him about his father and requested him to release his father. For that according to PW1, the appellant demanded him to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- for releasing his father. Therefore, he categorically spoken to the fact of the demand made by the appellant in his chief examination itself. 9. However as regarding the receipt of tainted amount during the course of the trap, PW1 stated that he and PW2 went to the house of the appellant-A1 where they found A1 and A2, he paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- to A2 and kept the remaining amount of Rs.4,000/- underneath the mosquito coil box in the almirah. Thus, conveniently PW1 did not state that the appellant asked him to pay the bribe amount and also that he received the bribe amount. However, in the cross-examination, he stated that A1 demanded him to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- for releasing of his father. He also stated in the cross-examination that when he requested the appellant to release his father, he told him if he did not pay the amount before 1:00 p.m., on 25.9.1997 he would book a false case against his father. 10. He further admitted in the cross-examination that when he was about to give cash to the appellant he told him to give the amount of Rs.1,000/- to A2 Mahankali Muthyalu and the remaining amount of Rs.4,000/- to him. This witness only did not support the prosecution story that the appellant received an amount of Rs.4,000/- from him, counted the notes and kept them underneath the mosquito coil box in the almirah. In the cross-examination by the appellant's Counsel this witness denied the suggestion that the appellant never demanded any amount nor accepted any bribe amount from him. 11. This witness only did not support the prosecution story that the appellant received an amount of Rs.4,000/- from him, counted the notes and kept them underneath the mosquito coil box in the almirah. In the cross-examination by the appellant's Counsel this witness denied the suggestion that the appellant never demanded any amount nor accepted any bribe amount from him. 11. Coming to the evidence of PW2, he deposed before the trial Court that on 25.9.1997 PW1 met him in the bus stand at Hyderabad and told him that his father was taken away by the Excise Officials and that he came to Hyderabad to give a complaint to the A.C.B. authorities. According to PW2, PW1 requested him to accompany PW1 to the ACB Office and accordingly he followed him. The evidence of this witness regarding the demand of bribe is to the effect that when he and PW1 went to the house of the appellant on the date of trap, the appellant asked whether he brought the amount, when PW1 replied in the affirmative, the appellant asked PW1 to keep the amount of Rs.4000/- in the shelf and pay the amount of Rs.1000/- to A2 Mahankali Muthyalu, who was present along with the appellant. PW3 is a mediator. His evidence discloses that on receiving prearranged signal, the trap party rushed into the house of the appellant-A1, when the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB questioned A1 whether he received cash from PW1, PW1 became shocked, kept quiet for sometime and thereafter he nodded his head indicating that he took the cash from PW1. The evidence of this witness further discloses that the chemical test conducted on the fingers of both hands of the appellant yielded positive result. It is also the evidence of PW3 that when the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB asked the appellant to produce the tainted amount, he took out the cash from the shelf, which was kept under the mosquito coil box and produced the same before PW9, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB. The evidence of PW9, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB is to the same effect. The evidence of these two witnesses indicates that the numbers of the currency notes were noted down in the pre-trap proceedings and the numbers of the notes were tallied with the numbers of the currency notes recovered from the appellant-A1. 12. The evidence of PW9, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB is to the same effect. The evidence of these two witnesses indicates that the numbers of the currency notes were noted down in the pre-trap proceedings and the numbers of the notes were tallied with the numbers of the currency notes recovered from the appellant-A1. 12. The evidence of PW5, the father of PW1 is also crucial in this case. He stated in his evidence before the trial Court about the appellant-A1 demanding monthly mamool of Rs.5,000/- and on his failure to oblige for the said demand, the appellant and his staff took him to the Excise Station and kept him there illegally. The evidence of this witness as well as that of PW9 Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB also reveals that after the trap was laid against the appellant, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB visited the Excise Station as part of the investigation and released PW5 from the wrongful custody under a panchanama. 13. It is basing on the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted A2 Mahankali Muthyalu for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but convicted the appellant (A1) for the same offence. 14. Sri T. Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-A1 contended that PW1 and PW2 did not support the basic version of the prosecution that the appellant received the amount of Rs.4,000/- from PW1 and kept it underneath, the mosquito coil box in the almirah. According to the learned Senior Counsel because of the inconsistencies in the version of PWs.1 and 2, the trial Court ought to have held that there is no voluntary acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant and the trial Court ought not to have drawn presumption against the appellant under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on a judgment in Suraj Mal v. The State [Delhi Administration], AIR 1979 SC 1408 . Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "It is well-settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses." 15. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "It is well-settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses." 15. On the other hand, Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for ACB Cases would submit that even though PWs.1 and 2 did not state directly that the appellant received the amount from PW1 and he kept the same underneath mosquito coil box in the almirah, their evidence has to be considered as a whole and it clearly reveals that the appellant demanded bribe and voluntarily accepted the same and therefore the trial Court rightly drew presumption envisaged under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment in Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P., 2004 Crl. LJ 884, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows : "Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts. While inferring the existence of a fact from another, the Court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning, which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. But it could as well be final, if it remains undisturbed later. Presumption in law or evidence is a rule indicating the stage of shifting the burden of proof. From a certain fact or facts, the Court can draw an inference and that would remain until such inference is either disproved or dispelled. Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted the Court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. Thus, presumption under Section 20 is a presumption of law and cast an obligation on Court to operate it in every case brought in. The presumption is a rebuttable presumption and it is rebutted by proof and not by explanation which may seem to be plausible." 16. We have to examine the respective contentions in the light of the evidence forthcoming in the present case. It is not the case wherein PWs.1 and 2 completely turned hostile to the prosecution. The presumption is a rebuttable presumption and it is rebutted by proof and not by explanation which may seem to be plausible." 16. We have to examine the respective contentions in the light of the evidence forthcoming in the present case. It is not the case wherein PWs.1 and 2 completely turned hostile to the prosecution. As referred in the foregoing paragraphs PWs.1 and 2 supported the prosecution version on material aspects. PW1 had categorically stated in his evidence in the chief examination that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- from him for releasing his father from custody. He specifically denied the suggestion put to him in the cross-examination that the appellant never demanded bribe from him. PW2 also stated in his evidence that the appellant on the date of trap when he and PW1 entered into his house asked PW1 as to whether he brought money and directed him to keep the amount underneath mosquito coil box in the almirah. PW5 stated in his evidence that on his denial to pay the monthly mamool he was taken away by the appellant and his staff to the Excise Station and he was kept in the Excise Station illegally and unlawfully. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 therefore it is clearly established that PW5 was brought by the appellant to the Excise Station as he refused to pay the monthly mamool. Thus, there is highly convincing evidence regarding the fact that on failure by PW5 to pay the monthly mamool he was brought to the Excise Station and the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.5,OOO/- ITom PW1 to release PW5. The evidence of PW3 a mediator and PW9 the trap laying officer reveals that no spontaneous explanation by the accused officer to the effect that he never received the amount from PW1 was offered. Their evidence further discloses that the chemical test conducted on the fingers of the appellant yielded positive result and when asked by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, the appellant himself produced the tainted amount taking it from the almirah at his residence. 17. Merely because a witness was treated hostile by the prosecution, it is wrong to presume that no part of the evidence of the hostile witness can be taken into consideration. 17. Merely because a witness was treated hostile by the prosecution, it is wrong to presume that no part of the evidence of the hostile witness can be taken into consideration. The Court can certainly take into consideration the evidence of the hostile witness to the extent to which it is found to be reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. In the instant case, as I have already said that PWs.1 and 2 did not totally depart from the basic version of the prosecution, they in fact supported the basic version of the prosecution. If their evidence and that of PW5 is considered in its entirety it is to the effect that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- from PW1 for releasing his father and received the same from PW1 during the course of the trap laid by PW9, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACE. Under these circumstances, according to me, the learned trial Court rightly drew the presumption under Section 20 of the Act against the appellant and the appellant failed to rebut the presumption by positive evidence or by showing any circumstance in his favour. On failure by the appellant to displace the presumption drawn by the trial Court against him, he is liable for punishment under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore was rightly convicted by the trial Court. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against him do not call for any interference in the present appeal. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant-A1 are confirmed. The criminal appeal is dismissed.