JUDGMENT :- This appeal is filed by the accused against the judgment dated 1.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad in CC No.4 of 2000, whereby and whereunder he was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). 2. I have heard Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Ghani A. Moosa, learned Standing Counsel for ACB. 3. Charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed by the trial Court against the appellant alleging that on 29.12.1998 he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.400/- from D.E. Hussain Kullai-PW1 for doing the official favour viz., for processing his pay fixation form for fixation of pay in revised pay scales from 1.7.1998 to 29.12.1998. 4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is like this: PW 1 - D.E. Hussain Kullai was working as the Record Assistant in the Office of Z.P.H. School, Rangapuram R.S., Kurnool District He submitted his forms for fixing his pay in revised Ray scales to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad through the Head Master, Z.P.P. High School, R.S. Rangapuram. The appellant S. V. Prasad Rao was working as Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad Office at Kurnool at relevant time. PW 1 approached him at the ZPP Office, Kurnool and enquired about his pay fixation filed on 29.12.1998. It is said that the appellant demanded from him an amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification for processing the file and when LW1 expressed his inability, it is said that the appellant reduced the bribe to Rs.400/- and made it clear to PW 1 that unless the said bribe amount was not paid by evening on 29.12.1998 he would not do the official favour. 5. PW1, who was unwilling to pay the bribe amount to the appellant, on the same day lodged a report with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Kurnool at about 11.30 a.m. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.10/ACB-KUR/98 was registered under Sections 7 and B(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. PW1, who was unwilling to pay the bribe amount to the appellant, on the same day lodged a report with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Kurnool at about 11.30 a.m. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.10/ACB-KUR/98 was registered under Sections 7 and B(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the course of the investigation, the DSP, ACB laid a trap and in the said trap on 29.12.1998 at about 04.50 p.m., when PW 1 approached the appellant in the ZPP Office, the appellant reiterated his demand of bribe and ascertained from PW1 as to whether he brought the amount of Rs.400/-, when PW1 positively responded, the appellant received the said amount from PW1. Thereafter, PW1 went outside the ZPP Office, relayed the pre-arranged signal and on receiving the same, thereafter, the raiding party rushed in PW9, the DSP, ACB after disclosing his identity to the appellant asked the appellant as to the acceptance of bribe amount and thereafter it is said that the appellant took out the amount from his right side pant hip pocket and his right side shirt pocket and produced the same before the DSP, ACB. Subsequently, the chemical test conducted on the fingers of the appellant yielded positive result. PW1, in the course of his evidence before the trial Court had categorically spoken to the factum of demanding from him an amount of Rs.400/-as bribe on 29.12.1998 and receiving the same from him in the course of the trap laid by the DSP, ACB. 6. According to PW 1, after lodging the report at 11.30 a.m., on 29.12.1998, the DSP, ACB directed him to come at 2.00 p.m., with the proposed bribe amount, and then he approached PW3-P.V. Subbaaraidu, Typist in the ZPP Office obtained Rs.400/- from him and went to the DSP, ACB. The said amount is used as bribe amount in the present case. PW3, however, in his evidence did not state that PW1 took the amount of Rs.400/- from him on the date of trap. 7. The defence theory in this case is that the appellant did not demand any bribe from PW1 and the appellant asked PW1 loan of Rs.400/- and PW3 paid the loan amount of Rs.400/- to him through PW1. PW3, however, in his evidence did not state that PW1 took the amount of Rs.400/- from him on the date of trap. 7. The defence theory in this case is that the appellant did not demand any bribe from PW1 and the appellant asked PW1 loan of Rs.400/- and PW3 paid the loan amount of Rs.400/- to him through PW1. PW3 in his evidence stated that the appellant did not ask him to advance any loan and that he did not send the amount of Rs.400/- to the appellant through PW1. Thus, PW3 did not support the prosecution version that PW1 took an amount of Rs.400/-from him. At the same time, he did not also support the defence theory that on the date of trap the appellant asked him hand loan of Rs.400/- and he sent the said amount to the appellant through PW1. 8. PW4, Senior Stenographer in ZPP Office, Kurnool stated in his evidence that his seat was by the side of the appellant and on 29.12.1998 at about 12 noon PW1 came to the seat of the appellant and talked to the appellant for sometime and on the said day at about 5.20 p.m., the ACB Officials came to their office and prepared post-trap proceedings. PW6, the Superintendent in the ZPP Office, Kurnool at relevant time stated in his evidence that on 12.12.1998 he received pay fixation proposals of PW1 from PW5, Headmaster of ZPP High School, Rangapuram, on 28.12.1998 he signed on the first copy of the proceedings and directed the appellant to stitch the fair copy of the proceedings to the S.R. of PW1 and asked him to send the papers to the Dispatch Section. According to him, on 29.12.1998 at 5.15 p.m., the ACB Officials came to their office and asked the appellant about the bribe amount and on that the appellant produced the cash from his shirt and pant pocket. PW8, the Junior Assistant in ZPP Office, Kurnool stated in his evidence that on 29.12.1998 at 02.45 p.m., the appellant sent PW1's pay fixation papers along with Service Register through Attender to his seat and at about 04.45 p.m., PW1 came to him and he handed over those papers to him after obtaining his signature in the local Tappal Register against Ex.P2. 9. PW9 is the DSP, ACB, Kurnool Range. He is the trap laying officer in this case. 9. PW9 is the DSP, ACB, Kurnool Range. He is the trap laying officer in this case. His evidence discloses that he got the currency notes noted in the pre-trap proceedings and that the numbers of the currency notes recovered from PW1 tallied with that of the numbers noted in the pretrap proceedings. He spoke about the chemical test conducted on the fingers of the appellant yielding positive results. He also stated in his evidence that when he questioned the appellant as to the bribe amount, the appellant produced the same from his shirt and pant pockets. The evidence of the mediators is also to the same effect. 10. Thus, the prosecution in this case clearly established that the numbers of the currency notes which were noted down in the post-trap proceedings were tallied with the currency notes which were recovered from the appellant and that the Chemical Test conducted on the fingers of the appellant yielded positive result. As to the demand of bribe, PW1 in his evidence stated that on 29.12.1998 the appellant demanded from him an amount of Rs.500/- for doing the official favour viz., processing his application forms and reduced the same to Rs.400/- and ultimately received the amount from him on the date of trap at about 04.50 p.m. and kept the same in his pant pocket and shirt pocket. 11. In the cross-examination, however, PW1 stated in his evidence that after he took the Service Register and proceedings from the dispatch section, the appellant and another staff member went out and took tea in the tea stall outside the compound of the ZPP Office, and there AO took the tainted amount and kept the same in his pockets. 12. DW1 is the Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad Office, Kurnool at relevant time. The appellant examined him as a witness on his behalf. He stated in his evidence that in the last week of November, 1998 he, the appellant, PW 1, Subbarayudu were in the office before the office hours and at that time the appellant asked loan of Rs.400/- from PW1 and also from PW3-Subbarayudu. According to this witness he was not having the amount at that time and he stated to the appellant that he would give the amount later. This witness specifically stated that he did not know whether Subbarayudu paid the appellant or not. According to this witness he was not having the amount at that time and he stated to the appellant that he would give the amount later. This witness specifically stated that he did not know whether Subbarayudu paid the appellant or not. He also stated in his evidence that on 29.12.1998 PW1 came to ZPP Office in the morning, he enquired the appellant as to his pay fixation file, the appellant told him that the matter was completed and it was in the dispatch section. He also stated that on the same day evening after taking permission from the Superintendent, he, Nagender Prasad and the appellant were proceeding to the tea stall, on the way PW 1 came and joined them and all of them went to have tea outside the compound of the office and, while they were taking tea PW1 gave an amount of Rs.400/- to the appellant stating that it was sent by PW3-Subbarayudu. 13. DW2, K. V. Nagendra Prasad was the Junior Assistant in the ZP Office, Kurnool. He also stated in his evidence that in the last week of November, 1998, the appellant asked for a loan from PW 1 and DW1, and that PW3 expressed his inability stating that he was not having the amount and that he would pay the amount later. He also further stated that on 29.12.1998 PW1 came to the office, enquired the appellant about his file, the appellant informed him that the proceedings were over and he can receive the same in the dispatch section. He further stated that on the same day evening at about 04.45 p.m., he, appellant and DW1 were proceeding to have a tea outside the compound of the office, PW1 met them and had tea, PW1 gave an amount of Rs.400/- to the appellant stating to him that it was given by PW3. He also stated that the appellant received the amount of Rs.400/- divided into Rs.250/and Rs.150/- and kept Rs.250/- in the pant pocket and offered Rs.150/- to DW1. DW1stated that he did not require the said amount and that he would take it whenever it is required. Then according to DW2, the appellant kept the amount of Rs.150/- in his shirt pocket. 14. DW1stated that he did not require the said amount and that he would take it whenever it is required. Then according to DW2, the appellant kept the amount of Rs.150/- in his shirt pocket. 14. Thus, the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 clearly shows that PW1 came to the ZPP Office on 29.12.1998 at about 12.45 p.m. and met the appellant and talked to him. Their evidence also further discloses that PW1 gave an amount of Rs.400/- to the appellant stating that it was sent by PW3. But, PW3 did not support the defence theory that the appellant asked him to advance the amount of Rs.400/- and he sent the amount to the appellant through PW 1. PW 1 in his chief-examination did not state that PW3 gave him Rs.400/- with a direction to handover the amount to the appellant. He denied the suggestion put to him in the cross-examination to the effect that PW3-Subbarayudu gave Rs.400/- to PW1 to be paid to the appellant as loan. PW3 one of the mediators stated in his evidence before the trial Court that during the post-trap proceedings the appellant stated before them that he took the hand loan of Rs.400/-from PW3. The same was also recited in Ex.P6-post-trap proceedings. Further, the very plea taken by the appellant that PW3Subbarayudu, his colleague sent the loan amount through PW 1 to him is quite unconvincing. The appellant and PW3 were colleagues in the office. Both of them attended the office on the date of trap i.e., on 29.12.1998. If really PW3 wanted to advance the loan amount to the appellant, he would have directly paid the amount to the appellant, who was very much present in the office. The theory put-forth by the appellant that PW3 gave the amount of Rs.400/- to PW1 in the office and PW1 in turn gave the amount in the tea stall outside the office compound to the appellant in the presence of DWs.1 and 2 is quite unbelievable. It seems that the said theory was invented by the appellant for the purpose of this case. The version of the appellant before the mediators in the post-trap proceedings is altogether different and it was to the effect that PW1 paid the amount to the appellant as loan. The pleas taken by the appellant in the post-trap proceedings and at the trial are mutually inconsistent. The version of the appellant before the mediators in the post-trap proceedings is altogether different and it was to the effect that PW1 paid the amount to the appellant as loan. The pleas taken by the appellant in the post-trap proceedings and at the trial are mutually inconsistent. In the post-trap proceedings as spoken to by PW2, the mediator, the appellant states that he directly borrowed the amount from PW1 whereas in the course of he trial the defence version is that he borrowed the amount of Rs.400/- from PW3 and PW3 sent the amount to him through PW1. 15. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that after he took his service register and proceedings from the dispatch section, the, AO and some other staff members went out of the office to the tea stall and there, he paid the tainted amount to the appellant. But, in the later course of cross-examination, he stated that when he met the appellant in his office, he asked him whether he brought the bribe amount, when he replied in the positive, the appellant told him to go to the dispatch section and obtain papers, otherwise the dispatch section would be closed. Accordingly, he states that he went to the dispatch section to take the papers and came back to the appellant and gave the tainted amount to him. He clarified this ambiguity by stating in his cross-examination that after paying the amount to the appellant, he went to the dispatch section and obtained the papers. 16. Basing on the aforesaid inconsistency it was argued on behalf of the appellant that according to the evidence of PW1 he paid the bribe amount to the appellant after he obtained the relevant papers in the dispatch section and that there was no official favour pending with the appellant. Absolutely, I see no force in the contention. The entire episode took place on 29.12.1998 on which date admittedly, the official favour was pending with the appellant. PWI stated in the cross-examination specifically that in the first instance the appellant asked him as to whether he brought the bribe amount, he replied positively and then the appellant told him to go to the dispatch section to receive the papers, otherwise, the dispatch section would be closed and that he paid the bribe amount after returning from the dispatch section by taking papers from there. The evidence of PW1 therefore, clearly shows that when he offered the bribe amount to the appellant the official favour was pending with him and obtaining papers from the dispatch section and paying the bribe amount to the appellant are almost simultaneous. Therefore, I see no force in the contention urged on behalf of the appellant. 17. In the instant case, the prosecution from the evidence of PW1 could be able to establish that the appellant demanded illegal gratification for doing the official favour viz., to process the file of pay fixation relating to PW1. There is enough evidence on record showing that the appellant was present in the office on 29.12.1998. There is also evidence to show that PW 1 came to the office in the afternoon of 29.12.1998 to meet the appellant. The defence theory put-forth by the appellant to the effect that PW3 paid the loan of Rs.400/- to him through PW 1 is not supported by PW3 himself and it is also quite unconvincing and unbelievable. The learned trial Court in my view basing on the evidence relating to receipt of the bribe amount by the appellant rightly drew a presumption against the appellant under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to the effect that the appellant received the amount of Rs.400/- from PW1 as illegal gratification to do the official favour viz., to process his pay fixation file. The appellant could not be able to rebut the presumption from the evidence which he adduced through DWs.1 and 2 or by showing any circumstances probabalising his version. The learned trial Court rightly rejected the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 as unworthy of credence insofar as it relates to the defence plea of the appellant that he received the amount through PW1 as loan advanced by PW3. For all these reasons, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant do not call for any interference in the present appeal. 18. For the afore-mentioned reasons, the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad in CC No.4 of 2000 against the appellant are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.