Judgment :- 1. This appeal is preferred by the sole accused-appellant against the judgment dated 11.02.2005 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.C. No. 29 of 1994. 2. The appellant-sole accused was tried by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad for the charges under Sections 7 and13(1)(d)(i) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act'), was convicted for the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the charge under Section 7 of the Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and to paya fine of Rs.2,000/-.The appellant challenges the said order of conviction andsentence in the instant appeal. 3. Shortly stated, the facts are that PW-2 (Lunavath Bhikya) is the son-in-law of Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) who was suffering from severe stomach-ache was admitted in Government Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar. The appellant-Dr.K.Satyanarayana Reddy, a civil surgeon attended on PW-2.After subjectingPW-2 to some tests, the appellant told Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) and PW-2 that PW-2was having a peptic ulcer which had to be operated upon.PW-2 agreed to undergo operation but as he was diagnosed by the appellant as anemic, the appellant told Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) and PW2 that blood was required for making PW-2 fit foroperation. As the blood of group 'A' which was necessary for PW-2 was not available in the hospital, the operation could not be performed. However, the prosecution version is that the appellant was demanding bribe of Rs.1,000/-fromPW-2 for the purpose of performing operation and the said amount had not been paid by Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1), the appellant was not conducting the operation. 4. It is said that the appellant demanded bribe from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) on30.08.1993 for performing the surgery and reiterated the demand on 31.08.1993when Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) again met him. Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) who was not willing to pay the bribe, being annoyed with the attitude of the appellant, approached PW-6 (M.Nago Rao, DSP, ACB, Karimnagar) on 31.08.1993 at 3 p.m. and gave a statement against the appellant orally. Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) who was not willing to pay the bribe, being annoyed with the attitude of the appellant, approached PW-6 (M.Nago Rao, DSP, ACB, Karimnagar) on 31.08.1993 at 3 p.m. and gave a statement against the appellant orally. The same was reduced by PW-6 into writing and basing on the said statement, PW-6 registered a case in CrimeNo.4/ACB-KNR/1993 under Sections 7 and 11 of the Prevention of Anti Corruption Act 1988.Thereafter, PW-6 directed Bhukya Sarvia(LW-1) to bring an amount f Rs.1,000/-and laid a trap on 01.09.1993. For conducting trap operation, apart from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1), PW-6 took PW-8 (Meharaj Ahmed Khan), a rickshaw puller as a shadow witness and PW1 (K.Satyanarayana), a senior assistant in the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar and another as mediators. 5. The prosecution story is that on the day when the trap was laid, Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) and PW-8 proceeded to the Government Hospital while the mediators took vantage positions on the instructions of PW-6, the trap laying officer. Oncoming to know that the appellant was in the operation theatre, Bhukya Sarvia(LW-1)and PW-8 were waiting outside for his arrival. At about1.30 p.m. the appellant came out of the operation theatre and both of them met him. The appellant instructed them to come to his house, thereafter both o them went to his house and found him sitting in the visitors room in front of the table. When Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) enquired about the operation, the appellant asked him whether he brought the amount of Rs.1,000/-, for which Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) replied positively and the appellant asked him to pay the same. Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) took out the amount and offered it to the appellant who in turn received the same with his right hand and kept it in the left side shirt pocket.PW-8 went out and gave the prearranged signal, on receipt of which the trap party led by PW-6 rushed into the house of appellant, informed him about their identity and the purpose of their entry into the house and phenolphthalein sodium carbonate re-action test conducted on the appellant yielded positive results. 6. 6. The version of the appellant is that when Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) came to his residence, he enquired him as to whether the blood was available, Bhukya Sarvia (LW1) informed him about the non-availability of the blood in the hospital and kept some amount on the table and requested him to provide blood, but the appellant had returned the said amount to Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1), but Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) suddenly kept the said amount in his shirt pocket requesting him to arrange blood from outside and despite his resistance Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) held his feet, immobilized him and at that juncture, the trap party rushed in while the de facto complainant was still holding his feet. The appellant claims that he put-forth the said version before the trap laying officer at the earliest, but the same was not acceded to. The version of PW-6, however, is that he never offered any such explanation. 7. The prosecution in order to establish the aforementioned charges, examinedPWs.1 to 8, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and M.Os.1 to 8.However, before the commencement of the trial, Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1), the de facto complainant died. The learned Special Judge taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2, the son-in-law of Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1), PW-3 (Dr.K.Naveen Kumar), Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar, PW-4 (Dr.Jhansi Rani),Superintendent of the said Hospital, PW-5 (B.Janardhan Rao), an official who was examined to prove the sanction order, PW-6 the trap laying officer, PW-7(P.Ramniranjan Rao), the investigating officer who took over the investigationfromPW-6 and that of PW-8, a shadow witness, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid charges and sentenced him to punishment as mentioned above. 8. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant can be sustained or whether he is entitled for benefit of doubt. 9. 8. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant can be sustained or whether he is entitled for benefit of doubt. 9. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1), the de facto complainant was no more on the date of the trial, what all stated by PW-2, the son-in-law is based on the information conveyed to him by Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) being hear-say coupled with the fact that PW8, a shadow witness being declared hostile and not entirely supporting the prosecution version, absolutely there is no legal evidence in this case and the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below against the appellant are liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB Cases would contend that in the present case, the prosecution could be able to successfully establish that the appellant received an amount of Rs.1,000/-from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1), the de facto complainant in which case it shall be presumed that the acceptance of the said amount is a motive or reward for performing official duty as envisaged under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellant having not been able to rebut the presumption as required under law was rightly convicted by the trial Court which his to be upheld in t he present appeal. 11 .The crucial question, therefore, requires consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution could be able to prove that the appellant received an amount of Rs.1,000/-fromBhukya Sarvia (LW-1), the de facto complainant in the course of the trap laid byPW-6.As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant what all stated by PW-2 before the Court is hearsay as it was based on the information conveyed to him by Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) and is not admissible in evidence against the appellant. But, the court has to examine the circumstances leading to the trap laid by PW-6 against the appellant. But, the court has to examine the circumstances leading to the trap laid by PW-6 against the appellant. Admittedly, on the date of the incident PW-2 was admitted in the hospital and the appellant advised him to undergo surgery for peptic ulcer, PW-3 (Dr.Naveen Kumar) who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar deposed that if the transfusion of blood is required by the doctor in the hospital, he would send a requisition through case sheet for supply of the blood, they will do grouping of the patient and upon knowing the blood group, they will ascertain whether the blood group required was available in the blood bank or not, if it was not available, they will inform the patient or to his attendants to provide a donor of a similar blood group or procure blood from any other blood bank. According to him, the blood group required for PW-2 was not available on a particular day and the same was informed to the appellant. Similarly, PW-4,Dr.N.Jhansi Rani who was the superintendent of the said Hospital at the relevant time stated in her evidence that as could be seen from Ex.P-3 case sheet of PW-2, the appellant examined PW-2, prescribed medicines and opined that PW-2 had to undergo surgery. According to her, all the facilities in Government Hospital, Karimnagar were provided to the patients free of cost including providing blood to them, if necessary. She said that no doctor in their hospital was allowed to collect money from the patient for procurement of blood. 12. From the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 it is obvious that the appellant is not expected to receive money from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1), the de facto complainant for any purpose. Even for procuring the blood also, he is not supposed to take any amount, since the same would be arranged by the hospital authorities. In such an event, mere acceptance of money from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) unless properly explained would lead to an inference that it is nothing but towards illegal gratification. 13. Even for procuring the blood also, he is not supposed to take any amount, since the same would be arranged by the hospital authorities. In such an event, mere acceptance of money from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) unless properly explained would lead to an inference that it is nothing but towards illegal gratification. 13. In this back drop, if we examine the evidence of PW-8, the shadow witness, he only stated in the chief-examination that Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) informed him that the appellant demanded money from him for providing blood and that PW-6gave an amount of Rs.1,000/-to Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1).This witness, however, in the cross-examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases supported the entire version of the prosecution relating to the trap proceedings. In the course of the investigation, his statement was recorded by the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C. One of the contentions urged by the defence to discredit the evidence of this witness is that in the summons served on him and in 164 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the Magistrate, he affixed his thumb marks, whereas in the deposition, he signed as 'Miraz'. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant sought to convince this Court that the prosecution brought PW-8 who did not, in fact, participate in trap proceedings and made him to give false evidence before the Court. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that initially the prosecution submitted to the trial Court that the whereabouts of PW-8 were not known, but produced him after the entire evidence of the prosecution was over and the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which fact according to the learned Senior Counsel creates any amount of doubt as to whether PW-8 is the person participated in the trap proceedings conducted byPW-6.The learned counsel could also point out the material discrepancy in the evidence of PW-8, the shadow witness and PW-1, the mediator. PW-1 in his evidence did not speak about PW-8.He stated in his evidence before the Court that the complainant after some time came out and nodded his head and waved the hand-kerchief, whereas, PW-8 stated in the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor that after the appellant received the amount, he came out and gave the pre-arranged signal to the PW-6 (DSP) and party. The evidence of PW-6, however, also is to the effect that PW-8 came out after receiving the amount by the appellant from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) and gave the prearranged signal. No doubt, there is a discrepancy, but to my mind, it appears that PW-1 might not have spoken about the presence of PW-8 due to forgetfulness. The entire investigation conducted by PW-6 discloses that PW-8,a rickshaw puller was taken as a shadow witness in the course of the trap proceedings. In any event, the Court has to scrutinize the evidence taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the probability factor. For introducing a false witness, the prosecution need not take time till the entire evidence of the prosecution was over. It seems that, in fact, PW-8 was not available to the prosecution till all the remaining witnesses for the prosecution were examined. Only when he became available, the prosecution sought permission of the trial Court and examined PW-8 as its witness. Merely because PW-8 was examined at a later point of time, in the absence of any sufficient reason, his involvement in the trap proceedings cannot be doubted.LW-1 (Bhukya Sarvia) hails from a remote village and is a labourer. Nothing was suggested to him by the defence that he was employed by somebody who is inimical to the appellant for the purpose of involving him in the trap case. Admittedly, there is no enmity between Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) and the appellant. Though what all stated by Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) to PW-2, being hearsay is not in the strict sense admissible in evidence, the evidence of PW-2 can be accepted to the extent of his stating the circumstances leading to laying trap against the appellant. Similarly, the evidence of PW-6, the trap laying officer insofar as it relates to registering the case basing on the complaint made by Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) and laying trap is admissible in evidence and can be taken into consideration by the Court. As already said, under no circumstances, the appellant was expected to receive money from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1). Similarly, the evidence of PW-6, the trap laying officer insofar as it relates to registering the case basing on the complaint made by Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) and laying trap is admissible in evidence and can be taken into consideration by the Court. As already said, under no circumstances, the appellant was expected to receive money from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1). If really the blood was not available for transfusion to PW-2 for the purpose of conducting surgery, the appellant could have flatly told Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) in the hospital itself that till the blood is procured by the hospital authorities it was not possible to make arrangements for surgery to PW-2.The evidence of PW-2 reveals that after laying of trap, he approached another doctor who treated him for the stomachache without suggesting any surgery and it was cured by using the medicines prescribed by the said doctor. Allowing Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) to his house by the appellant itself probabalises the version of the prosecution that only onthe instructions of the appellant, Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) went to the house of the appellant. I do not think that Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) being a labourer and a resident of remote village would thrust the money into the pocket of the appellant even when he refused to receive any amount from him. 14. For all these reasons, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant received an amount of Rs.1,000/-from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1).When receiving amount by the appellant from Bhukya Sarvia (LW-1) is accepted, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to raise a presumption that unless the contrary, it is proved the said amount was received towards illegal gratification. The burden to dislodge the presumption lies with the appellant. Though, the burden is not heavy as that of the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, which is of the standard of proving beyond all reasonable doubt, the appellant in this case in my view is not able to rebut the presumption even by the standard of preponderance of probability. The learned trial Court therefore, according to me, rightly convicted the appellant for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 15. The learned trial Court therefore, according to me, rightly convicted the appellant for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 15. As regards the sentence, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is of extreme old age and is now 76 years. Considering his age and the magnitude of the offence, the sentence passed against the appellant for the charge under Section 13(1)(d)(i)of the Act punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act is reduced to one year from two years. The sentence awarded against the appellant under both the counts i.e. under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act shall run concurrently. 16. In the result, with the reduction in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.