JUDGMENT The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Special Case No. 19/1997, which was pending in the Court of Special Judge, Jalna. The respondent is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 7 and section 13 (1)(d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act" for short). 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows :- The complainant was working as a driver in S.R.P. and the accused was working as a seat clerk in transport section of S.R.P. at the relevant time. The accused was incharge of the work like preparation of bills regarding house rent allowance. The complainant was entitled to get some amount in respect of this allowance and he had made application to the department for getting the allowance. In the month of March, the accused approached complainant and informed that the complainant would get around Rs. 10,000/- but for doing this job, the complainant should give him Rs. 1,000/- as a bribe. He said that unless the amount was paid, the matter will not be processed. The complainant promised to met the demand after the sanction of the amount. 3. On 3.4.1997 the complainant received amount of Rs. 9801/- on aforesaid count. On 10.4.1997 the accused approached complainant and again made the aforesaid demand, by saying that the complainant got his dues. The accused then gave threat that he would create obstruction in future, if the demand was not met with. The demand of Rs. 1,000/- was continued and the accused during negotiations said that he may reduce the demanded amount. To see that there is no trouble in future, initially the complainant agreed to pay the amount, but he then approached to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 12.4.1997 and he gave report against the accused. 4. In the office of ACB necessary formalities were completed. With one panch witness complainant was sent to the accused to ascertain as to whether there was demand. Then a trap was laid which was at a place situated outside the office. During trap, the tainted money of Rs. 1,000/- was demanded by the accused and when complainant delivered the amount, the accused kept the amount in chest pocket of his shirt. Then a trap was laid which was at a place situated outside the office. During trap, the tainted money of Rs. 1,000/- was demanded by the accused and when complainant delivered the amount, the accused kept the amount in chest pocket of his shirt. This tainted money came to be recovered during the post trap panchanama and accordingly the panchanama came to be prepared. From sanctioning authority, sanction was obtained and the case came to be filed for aforesaid offence. The charge came to be framed for aforesaid two offences, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses, who include two panch witnesses, complainant, some staff members, sanctioning authority and the I.O. Most of the witnesses stuck to their versions. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused on following grounds :- (i) The complainant failed to prove that in the past for preparation of bill demand of bribe was made by the accused. (ii) The complainant and the panch witnesses cannot be believed for aforesaid reason and also for the reason that the places of raid shown in two maps prepared during investigation are appearing different. (iii) The prosecution did not examine the second panch witness on post trap panchanama to show that the panch witness had taken out the tainted money from the shirt pocket of the accused and (iv) There is discrepancy in the record of panchanama which consists of the talk which took place between complainant and accused during trap and the substantive evidence given in the Court. 6. The evidence on record, which is undisputed shows that as per the procedure the matter of the complainant was processed. The application was received on 3.2.1997, the endorsement in respect of processing was made on 4.2.1997 for sanctioning the amount, the sanctioning authority received the file on 5.2.1997 and on the same day, the sanction came to be accorded. The sanction order was dispatched to original section on 6.2.1997. The accused himself had made endorsement on the application on 4.2.1997, which was favourable to complainant. The complainant did receive the amount in hand on 3.4.1997, though it was ready for payment on 31.3.1997. These facts show that in the month of February itself the processing of the matter was completed and the sanctioning authority had accorded the sanction in the month of February itself. The complainant did receive the amount in hand on 3.4.1997, though it was ready for payment on 31.3.1997. These facts show that in the month of February itself the processing of the matter was completed and the sanctioning authority had accorded the sanction in the month of February itself. Thus, in the month of March, no work was left with the accused with aforesaid regard. These facts are sufficient to infer that the evidence as it is, cannot make out any offence punishable under section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. Thus, the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view and in view of the position of law, reversal of the judgment of acquittal for this offence is not possible. 7. It is true that for proving the offence punishable under section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, it is not necessary to prove that there was some work pending with the accused or that he could have done some favour to the complainant. However, obtaining of the amount by misuse of the position is required to be proved in this case also. To ascertain as to whether the amount was obtained by the accused, the necessary evidence is considered by the Trial Court. It appears that one witness says that there was demand of Rs. 2,000/-. There is no evidence to show that there was negotiations and the amount was brought down to Rs. 1,000/- by the accused. The trap was laid at other place and not in the office. Two maps were prepared during investigation of the spot, where the amount was allegedly obtained/accepted. One map was prepared by T.I.L.R. and other was prepared by I.O. The Trial Court has discussed the discrepancies in the two maps. The Trial Court has held that there is the distance of at-least 1000 fts. between the two spots described in the two maps. Similarly the description given by the panch witness of the spot is not consistent with the description given in the panchanama. This description cannot be ignored as it creates doubt about the opportunity to others to see the signal etc. The panch witness, who is examined, is on demand and acceptance. between the two spots described in the two maps. Similarly the description given by the panch witness of the spot is not consistent with the description given in the panchanama. This description cannot be ignored as it creates doubt about the opportunity to others to see the signal etc. The panch witness, who is examined, is on demand and acceptance. But the other panch witness, who could have given evidence that he took out the tainted money from the chest pocket, is not examined and the Trial Court has held that in view of the facts of this case, the examination of such witness was necessary. During the statement given under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused took the defence that the amount was thrusted in to his chest pocket as the complainant feared that there was some delay caused in processing the matter due to the accused. In view of this circumstance and some other discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, the Trial Court has refused to believe these witnesses. Due weight needs to be given to the appreciation of the direct evidence done by the Trial Court. In view of this direct evidence and discrepancies between the direct evidence and the record, the Trial Court has held that direct evidence is not convincing in nature and due to the discrepancies in the direct evidence and the record, the witnesses cannot be believed. This view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view. Though there is no discussion about the section 13 (1)(d), as the witnesses are not believed, there is no need to have such discussion. So this Court holds that the reversal of judgment of offence punishable under section 13 (1)(d) r/w. 13 (2) of PC Act is not possible. 8. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.