Judgment : 1) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.01.2006 in C.C.No.12 of 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B. cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer S.I for three months on two counts for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’), he preferred the instant Criminal Appeal. 2) The facts which led to file the appeal in nutshell are thus: "1. The Accused Officer(A.O)– P.V.Rajaratnam worked as General Manager, District Industries Centre(for short “D.I.C”), Nalgonda till 21.08.1992 and is a public servant. PW.1-K. Srinivasulu established a silk twisting unit under the name and style M/s. S.K. Silk Industries at Puttapaka village in Narayanpur Mandal of Nalgonda District which was registered as S.S.I Unit with the D.I.C, Nalgonda. After installation of machinery, PW.1 approached A.O on 01.06.1992 at his office and submitted claim application for getting Government subsidy. It is alleged that the A.O demanded him bribe of Rs.3,000/- for getting the subsidy sanctioned in his favour and directed him to pay the bribe amount before 20.06.1992, so that he would get the subsidy sanctioned by the District Level Committee (for short “D.L.C”). PW.1, who was asked to submit his documents for processing his subsidy claim, submitted the required documents but the A.O without processing them reiterated his earlier demand of bribe and threatened that his application would not be considered and he would not inspect the unit of PW.1 unless he meets his demand. 2. Unwilling to pay bribe, PW.1 lodged Ex.P.1- complaint dated 29.07.1992 with PW.6–D.S.P, A.C.B, Hyderabad Range who registered it as a case in R.C.No.6/ACB-HR/92 under Sections 7 and 11 of P.C. Act and laid a trap against A.O on 31.07.1992 with the help of mediators PW.2 and LW.3- Peddabbulu by following due pre-trap proceedings. 3. As instructed by the Trap Laying Officer, on 31.07.1992 at about 11:35am, PW.1 approached the A.O in his office. A.O demanded and accepted the tainted bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- and kept it in the left side lower drawer of his table in his office. 3. As instructed by the Trap Laying Officer, on 31.07.1992 at about 11:35am, PW.1 approached the A.O in his office. A.O demanded and accepted the tainted bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- and kept it in the left side lower drawer of his table in his office. PW.1 came out and gave prearranged signal and thereby the T.L.O and other trap members rushed to the office room of A.O and caught him red-handed and recovered the tainted amount from his possession. After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction from the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce (I.E) Department, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against A.O for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. 4. On appearance of A.O, the trial Court framed charges for the two offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and as the A.O denied charges and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted. 5. The prosecution to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11, Exs.X.1 & X.2 and produced material objects M.Os.1 to 6. On behalf of A.O, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D.1 was marked. 6. The defence plea as per the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and as per the written statement filed during the 313 Cr.P.C examination is thus. The A.O took the pleas that he never demanded bribe of Rs.3000/- from PW.1 for inspecting his unit. PW.1 deliberately mislead the ACB officials with the false complaint. The ACB officials acted hastily without making any verifications. The alleged demand was made on 01.06.1992. The complaint was filed on 29.07.1992 at about 4:30pm. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The application of PW.1 was lacking the 9 documents. The notice dated 22.06.1992 was issued to PW.1 to produce the documents. In pursuance of the said notice. PW.1 submitted his letter dated 29.06.1992. The said fact was deliberately suppressed by PW.1 before ACB officials. Even on 29.06.1992 there was no proper compliance of the defects pointed out by the office to consider the application of PW.1. Therefore, the further question of PW.1 getting subsidy from the D.L.C will not arise. The D.L.C alone is competent to consider the aspect of fixing the subsidy. The said fact was deliberately suppressed by PW.1 before ACB officials. Even on 29.06.1992 there was no proper compliance of the defects pointed out by the office to consider the application of PW.1. Therefore, the further question of PW.1 getting subsidy from the D.L.C will not arise. The D.L.C alone is competent to consider the aspect of fixing the subsidy. The D.L.C did not meet at all and no date was fixed by the District Collector till the date of trap. Therefore, PW.1 could not have any grievance. PW.1 misguided the ACB officials stating that the District Advisory Committee did not consider his application for subsidy because of non inspection of his unit by the A.O before 29.06.1992. He was absent in the office on 31.07.1992 when PW.1 entered into his room. Taking advantage of his absence in his room, PW.1 kept the money in his table drawer. At that time, Sri Ramesh Babu, Sri Suresh Babu Industrialists and Sri Chakrapani and others were waiting in the varandah adjoining his room. While PW.1 was coming out from his room, the A.O arrived the office just then. On seeing PW.1 coming out of the room, he questioned the PW.1. Then PW.1 simply held both hands of him to pay respects and went out. The same was witnessed by all the visitors and also several staff members who were present there. Earlier to this, PW.1 also lodged a false complaint to the ACB officials involving Sri Anjaneyulu, clerk. He is having good reputation. He is honest and sincere. He made spontaneous representation that he never demanded or accepted any bribe from PW.1 and that PW.1 must have kept the money in the drawer taking advantage of his absence. The visitors and industrialists who were present in front of his room when PW.1 entered in his room during his absence were not at all examined by the ACB officials. He submitted his representation to the District Collector in person on 31.07.1992 mentioning all the facts. Another representation was also submitted to the Collector marking the copy to the Commissioner of Industries etc., by him. 7. A perusal of the judgment would show that the trial Court basing on facts and evidence has observed that the defence plea of planting of money was not probable and convincing and the A.O failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of P.C Act. 7. A perusal of the judgment would show that the trial Court basing on facts and evidence has observed that the defence plea of planting of money was not probable and convincing and the A.O failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of P.C Act. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the A.O as stated supra." Hence, the appeal. 3) Heard Sri T. Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Balakrishna Rao, learned counsel for appellant and Sri M.B.Thimma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB cases. 4) Learned senior counsel while impugning the judgment of the trial Court submitted the following points in his arguments. a) Firstly, it is argued that there was no official favour pending with AO to demand bribe inasmuch as the Government subsidy will be granted by District Level Committee upon the advice of District Advisory Committee and AO has no role in it, as such he had no occasion to demand bribe. It is further argued that AO never demanded bribe from PW1 at any point of time and on the other hand, as AO instructed PW.1 to produce certificate from AE, APSEB with service connection number of his industry instead of a letter of lineman to accord permanent registration number to his industry under SSI Scheme, PW1 bore grudge against AO and implicated him in a false case. b) Secondly it is argued that on the aspect of alleged demand and acceptance of bribe except the sole testimony of PW1—complainant there is no other evidence as admittedly the alleged demand and acceptance occurred in between PW1 and AO alone. As such the evidence of PW1 must be trustworthy in all respects to infuse confidence in the mind of court to warrant conviction. However PW1– of the three categories of witnesses i.e. (i) wholly reliable (ii)wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable as observed in the decision reported in T.RAMESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. (2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 342 (AP) falls in the category of wholly unreliable because of the grudge nurtured by him against AO for the reasons mentioned in point No.1. In contrast to the interested and unreliable evidence of PW1, the disinterested and independent evidence of DWs.1 and 2 probablises and establishes the defence version to the effect that PW1 planted the tainted amount in the office drawer of AO during his absence and when he accosted AO he shook his hands with AO. Thus, learned counsel argued that when the bribe amount was not found in physical possession of AO and found somewhere else in his office drawer and sole testimony of PW1 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe is not believable, the defence version which is probable can be believed. On this aspect he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in M.K.Harshanv. State of Kerala ( AIR 1995 SC 2178 ). 5a) Per contra, supporting the judgment of the trial court, learned Standing Counsel firstly argued that though subsidy has to be granted by District Level Committee, the necessary recommendation in this regard has to be made by the AO only in the capacity of General Manager, District Industries Centre. For making such recommendation, he needs to inspect the unit of PW1 which he admittedly did not do till the date of trap. Thereby it is clear that official favour was pending with AO on the date of trap. For doing such favour only he demanded bribe and therefore it is futile to contend that no official favour was pending with him during the relevant period. b) Secondly, he argued that the testimony of PW1 is totally believable as there was no animosity for him against AO as argued. He never submitted his application for issuance of permanent registration number under SSI Scheme along with certificate of electrical lineman and he was never instructed by AO to produce the certificate of AE, APSEB. He argued that except making such allegation AO did not produce any record to that effect. Hence, the allegation that PW1 nurtured grudge against AO is only a myth. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 and 6 will clearly establish the guilt of the accused. c) Thirdly, he argued that the defence theory of planting money in the office drawer of AO during his absence is a concoction and the evidence of DW1 and DW2 in support of such theory is quite unnatural and unbelievable. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 and 6 will clearly establish the guilt of the accused. c) Thirdly, he argued that the defence theory of planting money in the office drawer of AO during his absence is a concoction and the evidence of DW1 and DW2 in support of such theory is quite unnatural and unbelievable. Learned standing counsel argued that DW1 who claimed to be an industrialist and attended the office of AO on the date of trap could not produce any cogent evidence to show that he had some work pending at AO’s office on the date of trap. Similarly, DW2 who claimed that AO entrusted him some important work some time back and was waiting at the office chamber of AO just before trap to apprise him about that work could not reveal what was the so-called important work entrusted to him. So, their evidence to the effect that waiting at the varandah of AO’s chamber, they saw PW1 entering in the chamber of AO and their hearing the sound of pulling office drawer is quite unbelievable. He further argued that when DW2 who is the Superintendent working under AO himself did not dare to go inside the office chamber of AO during his absence, it would be quite unbelievable that PW1 who is only one among several industrialists would enter inside the office chamber of AO in his absence. He thus argued that the planting theory is absurd. d) Fourthly, regarding spontaneous explanation offered by AO immediately after trap, learned standing counsel argued that the said explanation is quite contrary to the defence plea taken by him during trial. He submitted that in Ex.P6—second mediator’s report the explanation of AO was that he did not demand any amount from PW1 and he forcibly kept in the left side table drawer. However, during trial his plea is that the said amount was secretly planted by PW1 during his absence. So, there is no consistency in his plea and either plea is bereft of logic and truth. However, during trial his plea is that the said amount was secretly planted by PW1 during his absence. So, there is no consistency in his plea and either plea is bereft of logic and truth. e) Finally, he argued that representation said to be submitted by AO to the District Collector under Ex.D1 wherein he allegedly disclosed the foul play of PW1 in planting the money is not believable because it does not contain the despatch number and it contains the signature of DRO instead of Collector as claimed by AO and further it is not known how the AO got copy under Ex.D1 from the Collectorate. He thus submitted that appeal may be dismissed. 6) In the light of rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is: “Whether the prosecution could able to prove guilt of the accused and whether the judgment of trial Court is factually and legally sustainable.” 7) POINT : a) The prosecution to prove the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act has to establish the following essential ingredients: The essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act are: i) that the accused is a public servant; ii) that he accepts the gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. Similarly Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is concerned: (i) that he is a public servant; (ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means orotherwise abused his position as public servant, and (iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniaryadvantage for himself or for any other person. It has now to be seen whether prosecution could establish the above ingredients to bring home the guilt of AO. 8) The first ingredient is concerned, admittedly AO worked as General Manager, DIC, Nalgonda during the relevant period of the offence and so he was a public servant. 9) The next ingredient is that he accepts or agrees to accept gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act. Regarding pendency of official favour we have the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 5. 9) The next ingredient is that he accepts or agrees to accept gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act. Regarding pendency of official favour we have the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 5. a) PW5 – C.Narasimhulu, the then General Manager, Industries, Nalgonda deposed about certain procedural aspects touching the method of obtaining permanent registration for the industrial units and obtaining Government subsidy. He deposed that an entrepreneur at first has to obtain provisional SSI certificate in DIC, Nalgonda to make him eligible to obtain loan from APSFC and financial institutions and power supply. Later he has to obtain eligibility certificate under the scheme of State incentives within three months after sanction of loan. After obtaining eligibility certificate and starting industry and commencing regular production, he has to obtain permanent SSI registration certificate. Thereafter he has to file a claim application in the required form along with concerned documents for getting Government subsidy. On receiving the said application the General manager of DIC or his authorised Field Officer will inspect the unit and recommend the case for sanction of subsidy if it is genuine. He further stated that DLC has power to sanction subsidy to the eligible units. b) Then PW1 in his evidence deposed that he is the proprietor of S.K.Silk Industries, Puttapaka in Nalgonda district and it was registered as Small Scale Industry with DIC at Nalgonda and after installation of machinery and completion of other formalities, his unit was given permanent registration certificate in May, 1992 under Ex.P.3 and thereafter, on 01-06-1992 he approached AO with Ex.P.4 - claim application for getting Government subsidy. It is his further case that AO being the General Manager of DIC has to inspect his unit to recommend his case for granting Government subsidy. For this purpose, he alleged, the AO demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe. He further deposed that on subsequent occasions i.e. 22.06.1992 and 27.06.1992 also when he met AO, he reiterated his demand. Thus, according to PW1 an official favour was pending with AO as on the date of demand and trap. For this purpose, he alleged, the AO demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe. He further deposed that on subsequent occasions i.e. 22.06.1992 and 27.06.1992 also when he met AO, he reiterated his demand. Thus, according to PW1 an official favour was pending with AO as on the date of demand and trap. c) Then PW3 – B.Anjaneyulu, Senior Assistant, D.I.C, Nalgonda deposed with the help of Ex.P8 (a) file that after submission of Ex.P4—application form by PW1, he scrutinized the same and noted shortfalls and after taking permission of AO on 22-06-1992 he addressed a letter to the applicant mentioning the short falls. Thereafter, the applicant (PW1) submitted the documents on 29-06-1992 which were found in order. Thereafter, he put up the note to the AO on 13-07-1992 stating that the application is in full form and inspection can be done. The AO signed on the said note by fixing the inspection on 22-07-1992. In the cross-examination he stated that he was not aware whether AO cancelled the inspection on 27-07-1992 (Sic. 22-07-1992) in view of Minister’s programme and re-fixed to 31-07-1992. 10) So, from a conjunctive study of the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 5, it is clear that AO being General Manager, DIC is competent to inspect the SSI units of industrialists to recommend them for Government subsidy on the basis of their eligibility. Coupled with their oral evidence, Ex.P8 (a) file would show that AO fixed the date of inspection as 22-07-1992. Further in Ex.P9— personal diary of AO he himself had written on 31-07-1992 “to go to Puttapaka” a) The aforesaid oral and documentary evidence was not denied by the AO which would show that during the relevant period of demand and trap, an official favour was indeed pending with AO to demand bribe. He may be only a recommending authority as argued but unless he recommends the files of industrialists, they will not be placed before DLC for considering grant of subsidy. So, the prosecution could successfully establish the motive for AO to demand bribe from PW1. 11) It is now to be seen whether AO in fact demanded and accepted bribe from PW1. On this aspect prosecution case mainly pivots on the evidence of PW1, as there was no other person in whose presence the alleged demand was made and there was no accompanying witness in whose presence PW1 paid the bribe to AO. 11) It is now to be seen whether AO in fact demanded and accepted bribe from PW1. On this aspect prosecution case mainly pivots on the evidence of PW1, as there was no other person in whose presence the alleged demand was made and there was no accompanying witness in whose presence PW1 paid the bribe to AO. 12) In the decision of VADVIVELU THEVAR v. STATE OF MADRAS (AIR 1957 Madras 614) the Apex Court categorised oral testimony into three categories i.e.,: 1) wholly reliable 2) wholly unreliable 3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and held that there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion either way basing on the evidence of first two categories of witnesses. Third category is concerned, the Apex Court held, the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct of circumstantial. Referring the above said decision in T.RameshReddy’s case, (1 supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court observed: “When a case rests upon the evidence of solitary witness, the law is well-settled that it must be true, trustworthy, free from doubt and wholly reliable. When the evidence of a witness is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar to base conviction on the solitary testimony of the witness.” With the above observation, the learned Judge embarked upon scrutinizing the solitary testimony of PW1 in that case to know whether he was a wholly reliable witness or not. In the instant case also the probative value of PW1 has to be carefully tested basing on the above principles in mind. 13 a) Coming to the evidence of PW1, I have, in the preceding paras while discussing about pending official favour, already narrated his evidence to some extent i.e. his incorporating M/s.S.K.Silk Industry, a silk twisting unit at Puttapaka village, obtaining permanent registration and submitting Ex.P4—subsidy application to AO on 01-06-1992 and his demanding bribe of Rs.3,000/- for inspecting the unit for making recommendations to DLC, his reiteration of demand on subsequent occasions. The further evidence of PW1 is that not willing to pay bribe he gave Ex.P1—written compliant to DSP, Hyderabad on 29-07-1992 and on 31-07-1992 PW6— DSP laid trap by following due pre-trap formalities. He deposed that at 11:00 a.m, he and other members of trap party reached near the office of AO. The further evidence of PW1 is that not willing to pay bribe he gave Ex.P1—written compliant to DSP, Hyderabad on 29-07-1992 and on 31-07-1992 PW6— DSP laid trap by following due pre-trap formalities. He deposed that at 11:00 a.m, he and other members of trap party reached near the office of AO. The other members stopped and he entered the office and enquired about AO and came to know from the attender that he was not readily available so, he waited by sitting on the bench. At 11.15 AM AO came on the cycle rikshaw and on seeing him at the varandah he enquired him as to when he came and PW1 replied and followed him to his office chambers. AO offered him a seat across his seat and asked PW1 whether he brought the demanded bribe amount. PW1 affirmed and offered the amount which the AO received with his right hand and enquired whether the bunch of notes contains Rs.3,000/- When PW1 asked him to count the notes, he did not do it but pulled his left side table drawer and by transferring the amount from right hand to left hand, kept the amount in the table drawer. Then, AO informed PW1 that after lunch he would go to his unit for inspection and to that effect he made an entry in Ex.P9—his personal diary. Meanwhile, two persons came into the chambers of AO, one of whom was the Superintendent (PW3). While they were taking with AO, PW1 came out and gave pre-arranged signal to trap party members who rushed there and went inside the AO’s room. b) In the cross-examination he made emphatic denial on the following crucial points: i) Firstly he denied that he approached the AO only with the letter of lineman about the service connection to his industry and asked him to give permanent registration certificate but AO refused stating that he should obtain certificate from AE, APSEB with service connection number and since then he bore grudge against AO. ii) He denied entering into the room of AO in his absence. He narrated that he enquired the attender who was sitting on the bench near the office room of AO about the presence of AO and learnt that he was not present and after so informed, he was waiting for the AO sitting there. ii) He denied entering into the room of AO in his absence. He narrated that he enquired the attender who was sitting on the bench near the office room of AO about the presence of AO and learnt that he was not present and after so informed, he was waiting for the AO sitting there. iii) He denied the suggestion that on knowing that AO was not available in the office he went into the room of AO and found him absent and he planted the money in the left drawer to involve AO. iv) He denied the further suggestion that while he was coming out of the room AO then just arrived on a rikshaw and on seeing him AO questioned him as to why he had entered in his room and then stating that he (PW1) came to pay respects to him held his both hands pretending to pay respects and went off and the same was witnessed by the visitors and the staff present there. v) He denied the suggestion that Ramesh Babu (DW1), Suresh Babu and Chakrapani were present and saw him going inside the office room of AO. c) So, an analysis of the entire evidence of PW1 would show that except giving some suggestions, which were stoutly denied by PW1 nothing prominent could be extracted to impeach the credibility of prosecution case. It must be noted that mere ingenious suggestions will have no evidentiary value unless accepted by the cross examinee or otherwise proved and there must be something inherent in the statement of a witness to disentitle him to be believed as is held in a decision reported in GURA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1984 Crl.L.J.1423). So, it must be said that credibility of PW1 was not shattered during the cross-examination. d) Then the reliability of his evidence has to be further tested in the light of other allegations i.e. his animosity towards AO and his implanting the bribe amount. 14 a) The contention of AO was that for obtaining Ex.P3—permanent registration certificate PW1 had to submit some documents. One of which was the certificate issued by AE, APSEB mentioning service connection number of the industrial unit of PW1. However, PW1 produced a certificate said to be issued by lineman. 14 a) The contention of AO was that for obtaining Ex.P3—permanent registration certificate PW1 had to submit some documents. One of which was the certificate issued by AE, APSEB mentioning service connection number of the industrial unit of PW1. However, PW1 produced a certificate said to be issued by lineman. When AO refused to accept the same and instructed PW1 to obtain a certificate from AE, APSEB, since then he bore grudge against him. As already stated supra, the aforesaid suggestion was denied by PW1. Be that as it may, Ex.P8 is the entire file relating to S.K.Silk Industries of PW1. In this file we do not find any mentioning of either AO or his staff to the effect that PW1 produced the certificate issued by lineman, which was refused. On the other hand, Ex.P8 contains copy of certificate dated 23-04-1992 issued by Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation, APSEB, Narayanpur revealing that electricity supply with SC No.695 was issued to the Silk Industry of PW1 on 31-03-1992. Further, Ex.P3 would show that permanent registration certificate was issued to PW1 on 19-05-1992. Therefore, the above documentary evidence belies the contention of AO that PW1 produced a certificate issued by lineman and the same was refused by AO. So, the theory of PW1 implicating AO in a false case bearing grudge can be safely ruled out. b) The next accusing finger against the credibility of PW1 is his planting money in the office drawer of AO during his absence. As already stated supra, PW1 staunchly denied the said suggestion also. His emphatic case is that AO demanded and accepted the bribe and he himself kept the amount in the left side drawer of his office table. On a careful scrutiny of evidence of PW1 and contra evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and also other attending circumstances, I am of the firm view that the evidence of PW1 is reliable for the following reasons: i) Firstly, PW1 is only an industrialist and outsider. On a careful scrutiny of evidence of PW1 and contra evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and also other attending circumstances, I am of the firm view that the evidence of PW1 is reliable for the following reasons: i) Firstly, PW1 is only an industrialist and outsider. When the own staff members such as DW2 and other industrialist such as DW1, even on their own saying were waiting outside the office chamber of AO on being informed that he was yet to arrive office, it would be very difficult to believe that PW1 who stood on no better footing could dare to go inside the office chamber of AO in his absence and further dare to implant the money by pulling the office drawer noisily audible even to the outsiders. DW2 who is the Superintendent in the office of AO claims that some time prior to the date of trap AO entrusted him an important work and just before trap he came to the chamber of AO to inform him about that work. If that is correct, in all probability DW2 on seeing some visitors waiting for AO had the possibility to wait inside the office chamber of AO to meet him earlier than others, immediately after his arrival to intimate about the so-called important work entrusted to him. Even he did not do it but waiting only outside the chamber of AO. Thus, it belies the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 on one hand and the claim of AO that PW1 went inside his chamber and planted money in his absence. ii) Secondly, the mentioning, “to go to Puttapaka” by AO on 31-07-1992 in his personal diary (Ex.P9) also strengthens the evidence of PW1. According to PW1 after receiving bribe, AO asked him to come after lunch for going to his unit for inspection and to that effect he made an entry in his diary. So, according to PW1, AO made such an entry in Ex.P9 after accepting the bribe. He mentioned this fact in Ex.P6—second mediator’s report also. Generally, PW1 is not expected to know what was noted in the personal diary of AO. It is also not the case of AO that some how PW1 accessed his diary and came to know its contents. He mentioned this fact in Ex.P6—second mediator’s report also. Generally, PW1 is not expected to know what was noted in the personal diary of AO. It is also not the case of AO that some how PW1 accessed his diary and came to know its contents. In such circumstances, when PW1 authoritatively tells that AO made an entry in his diary to visit his unit, his statement goes a long way and probablises his claim that after receiving bribe from him only AO made such an entry in Ex.P9—diary. In this context, AO’s version that originally he scheduled to visit the unit of PW1 on 27-07-1992 (sic 22-07-1992) and he cancelled the inspection due to Minister’s visit and re-fixed it to 31-07-1992 can be ruled out in view of non-mentioning of Minister’s visit on 22-07-1992 or 27-07-1992 in his personal diary. iii) Thirdly the contra evidence of DW1 and DW2 is concerned, DW1—S.Ramesh Babu one of the Directors of Zoom Organics deposed as if he visited the AO’s office on the date of trap in connection with his work. In the cross-examination he deposed that he was running a pharmacist industry and on the date of trap he wanted to meet AO since he has to forward backward areas subsidy proposals relating to his industry. However, as rightly observed by the trial Court he did not produce any record to show that an official work was pending in the office of AO as on the date of trap. Further, in Ex.D1 alleged representation of AO to the District Collector, he did not specifically mention about DW1’s visiting at his office on the date of trap. Therefore, his evidence cannot be believed. Similarly, the evidence of DW2, who is Superintendent in the office of AO can also be discarded for the reasons that he is interested towards AO and further he did not even insinuatingly depose about the nature of so-called important work which was entrusted to him by AO in connection whereof he allegedly waiting for the arrival of AO to inform him. Therefore, there is no demur to hold that DWs.1 and 2 are planted by AO. 15) Thus, when the evidence of PW1 on one hand and the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 on the other are critically analysed, the evidence of PW1 appears to be more probable and trustworthy than that of DWs.1 and 2. Therefore, there is no demur to hold that DWs.1 and 2 are planted by AO. 15) Thus, when the evidence of PW1 on one hand and the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 on the other are critically analysed, the evidence of PW1 appears to be more probable and trustworthy than that of DWs.1 and 2. Further, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by PWs.2 and 6 on material particulars. PWs.2 and 6 corroborated the facts relating to AO making demand for bribe on several occasions and PW1 giving complaint to PW6 and PW6 laying trap etc. Then so far as Ex.D1 is concerned, apart from infirmities found by the trial Court, even assuming that AO made a representation to the Collector under Ex.D1, by that count alone the contents in Ex.D1 touching the trap incidents cannot be taken as gospel truth. On the other hand, the version of AO immediately after trap as mentioned in Ex.P6—second mediator’s report is quite contrary to his defence plea during trial. In Ex.P6 AO mentioned as if PW1 forcibly kept the amount in the left side table drawer, whereas his version during trial is that PW1 stealthily kept the amount in his table drawer during his absence. It is needless to say both are contrary to each other and neither of them is true. So on a conspectus of entire evidence and facts and circumstances on record, it can be said that prosecution by virtue of cogent evidence in the form of PWs.1, 2 and 6 could prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by AO. Hence, the presumption under Section 20 of PC Act followed. However, AO failed to rebut the said presumption. Therefore it is held, the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) r/w 13(2) of PC Act. The decision in M.K. Harshan’s case (2 Supra) relied on by the appellant will not help to advance his case. 16) In the result, I find no merits in the Criminal Appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed by confirming the conviction of the trial Court. The decision in M.K. Harshan’s case (2 Supra) relied on by the appellant will not help to advance his case. 16) In the result, I find no merits in the Criminal Appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed by confirming the conviction of the trial Court. However, considering the submission of learned counsel for appellant that the appellant/accused is an old aged person and so the sentence imposed by the trial Court may be reduced, the substantive sentence of two years imposed by the trial Court on two counts under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (i) & (ii) r/w 13(2) of PC Act is reduced to one year and six months while maintaining fine and default sentence.