JUDGMENT: 1. The present Appeal, under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the sole appellant against the judgment of his conviction and sentence, dated 25.08.2006, passed in C.C. No.17 of 2001 (arising out of Crime No.10/RCT-TCD/200 of ACB., Kadapa District, Tirupati Range) by Sri B.Sivanagi Reddy, learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Judge’). 2. By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’). For commission of offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month. For offences under Section 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Short fact of the case is that on 19.09.2000, complainant -S.Khader Mohiddin, filed a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Kadapa District, Tirupati Range, disclosing therein that he was owner of two houses in Y.S. Nagar, Chinna Chowk Panchayat, Kadapa Town, and both his houses were vacant. The complainant in the complaint stated that he came to know that the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer was in search of a hostel building by vacating the hostel building at Prakash Nagar of BC Boys Hostel No.2. In the complaint, it was further disclosed that the complainant met the appellant, G. Veema Reddy, who was the District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa, on 23.08.2000, and submitted an application. After filing of his application, during the month of August ending, one Smt. D.L.K. Aruna, PW.2, visited his house and asked him for changes in his house and, accordingly, he made alterations in his house. Thereafter, she came to his house, visited and returned back. The complainant in his complaint also disclosed that PW.2 asked him to take order from the office of District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa. Thereafter, she came to his house, visited and returned back. The complainant in his complaint also disclosed that PW.2 asked him to take order from the office of District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa. On 15.09.2000, the complainant met the appellant G.Veema Reddy, the District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa, in his house, and requested him for taking his house on rent. Thereafter, the appellant demanded Rs.6,000/-as bribe for taking his house on rent. The complainant showed his inability to the appellant. However, he was advised to rethink once again and approach him. Again, on 18.09.2000, the complainant met G.Veema Reddy, appellant, in his house, and asked him about taking his house on rent. However, again, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/-as bribe. On being requested and showing inability to pay the said bribe amount, the appellant reduced the same amount to Rs.4,000/-and stated that otherwise he will not take his house on rent. The complainant as per the complaint was asked by the appellant to hand over Rs.4,000/-on 20.09.2000 afternoon at his house. Since there was no way, he agreed to pay the bribe amount and returned back. In the complaint petition the complainant further stated that he was not having any intention to pay the bribe amount to the appellant, so he submitted an application before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range and requested to take necessary action against the appellant. After receipt of the complaint on 19.09.2000 an indiscrete enquiry was got conducted through V.G. Ramamurthy Rao, PW.8, and thereafter on 20.09.2000 FIR vide Crime No.10/RCT-TCD/2000, was registered for the offences under Sections 7 and 11 of the PC Act and thereafter Pre Trap Memorandum (Mediators Report No.I), marked as Ex.P-2, was prepared and trap was laid on the same day i.e., on 20.09.2000 after 03:30 P.M. in the house of the appellant and from his possession Rs.4,000/-tainted currency notes were recovered. The number of currency notes mentioned in the Pre Trap Memorandum were compared and tallied. After trap, the appellant voluntarily admitted that he had received the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-from the complainant for taking his building on rental basis for hostel purpose. The number of currency notes mentioned in the Pre Trap Memorandum were compared and tallied. After trap, the appellant voluntarily admitted that he had received the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-from the complainant for taking his building on rental basis for hostel purpose. The appellant lead the Trap Party to his bedroom and opened the steel almirah with the help of key, again he opened the inner safe with the help of the key and also opened the inside secret locker and picked out rexine pursue which was containing the bribe amount. After completion of the Post Trap Memorandum, the case was investigated. 4. During investigation, sanction order for prosecution of the appellant from the competent authority was obtained and thereafter charge sheet was submitted. After submission of charge sheet, on 13.02.2004, charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.S ection 13(1)(d) of PC Act were framed, which were denied by the appellant and he claimed to be tried. 5. During the evidence to establish its case on behalf of the prosecution, altogether, 9 witnesses were examined and from the prosecution side, following documents were got exhibited: “Ex.P.1/20.09.2000 : Carbon copy of FIR in Cr.No.10/RCT TDC/2000. Ex.P.2/20.09.2000 : Mediators Report No.I (Pre Trap Proceedings). Ex.P.3/20.09.2000 : Rough sketch showing the scene of Offence. Ex.P.4/20.09.2000 : Mediators Report No.II (Post Trap Proceedings). Ex.P.5/20.09.2000 : Search List. Ex.P.6/30.08.2000 : Letter received from Asst. B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa to the Dist. B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa. Ex.P.7/ : Application put by D.C. to the District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa. Ex.P.8/20.09.2000 : Mediators Report No.III. Ex.P.9/ : Dispatch Register. Ex.P.9(A)/08.09.2000 : Relevant portion in Ex.P.9, dt.08.09.2000 with regard to the receipt of Ex.P.6 by the Dist. B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa. Ex.P.10/18.06.2000 Sanction order to prosecute the A.O. Ex.P.11/19.09.2000 Report submitted by LW.1 to PW.8. Ex.P.12/20.09.2000 : Original FIR in Cr.No.10/RCT-TCD/2000.” 6. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the charges and produced 3 witnesses in his defense namely DW.1 – G.Laxmi Devi, Assistant Backward Welfare Officer, Jammalamadugu; DW.2 – C.Sivasankar Reddy, Warden, B.C. Boys Hostel, Gundlakunta, and DW.3 – D.Ramachandra Raju, Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer, Tirupati. Besides examining 3 witnesses, the defense also got following documents exhibited: “Ex.X.1/05.11.2000 : Copy of notice issued to A.O. by PW.9. Ex.X.2/06.11.2000 :Reply to Ex.X1 given by A.O. to PW.9. Ex.X.3/13.11.2000 : Explanation given by A.O. to PW.1. Besides examining 3 witnesses, the defense also got following documents exhibited: “Ex.X.1/05.11.2000 : Copy of notice issued to A.O. by PW.9. Ex.X.2/06.11.2000 :Reply to Ex.X1 given by A.O. to PW.9. Ex.X.3/13.11.2000 : Explanation given by A.O. to PW.1. Ex.X.4/ : Inspection/Visitors Book of B.C. Boys Hostel, Nandyalampeta. Ex.X.4(A)/15.09.2000 : Relevant endorsement of the A.O. in Ex.X.4. Ex.X.5/ : Office attendance register of Asst. B.C. Welfare Office, Jammalamadugu. Ex.X.5(A)/15.09.2000 : Relevant endorsement made by the A.O. in Ex.X.5. Ex.X.6/ : Visitors Register of B.C. Welfare Hostel for Boys, Gundlakunta. Ex.X.6(A)/15.09.2000 : Relevant endorsement made by the A.O. in Ex.X.6. Ex.X.7/ : Visitors Register of Govt. B.C. Boys Hostel, Dommaranandyala. Ex.X.7(A)/15.09.2000 : Relevant endorsement made by the A.O. in Ex.X.7. Ex.X.8/ : Inspection Register/Visitors Book of B.C. Girls Hostel, Jammalamadugu. Ex.P.8(A)/ : Relevant endorsement made by the A.O. in Ex.X.8.” 7. During trial, since the complainant died, his statement recorded during investigation was also got marked as Court Document vide Ex.C.1. 8. Learned trial Judge, after conclusion of the defense evidence, heard the parties and assigning detailed and sound reasons has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, which has been assailed in the present Appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, after placing entire evidence on record, has argued that since during trial the complainant was not examined, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the demand of bribe by the appellant and, according to learned counsel for the appellant, in the absence of establishing demand of bribe, merely on the ground of showing recovery of the bribe amount, the learned trial Judge was not correct in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence. He further submits that during investigation, statement of complainant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded but, to the reasons best known to the prosecution, the same statement was suppressed by the prosecution. He has further argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish even acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant, particularly in view of non-examination of the complainant. He also contended that though recovery of tainted currency notes were shown but it appears to be improbable and learned trial Judge was not correct in accepting the prosecution case regarding recovery of the currency notes from the possession of the appellant. He also contended that though recovery of tainted currency notes were shown but it appears to be improbable and learned trial Judge was not correct in accepting the prosecution case regarding recovery of the currency notes from the possession of the appellant. By way of referring to evidence of defense witnesses, learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade the Court that on the alleged date of first demand i.e., on 15.09.2000 the appellant was not present in his office at Kadapa, since he had visited B.C. Boys Hostel of Gundlakunta, which was far away from the office of the appellant. He further referred to document i.e., Ex.X-6, which is a visit book of B.C. Boys Hostel of Gundlakunta. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in view of evidence of all the three defense witnesses and documents which have been marked from the defense side, it is evident that the appellant on 15.09.2000 was not in his District Headquarter, rather he had visited Boys hostel, which was far away from the Headquarter, and as such the allegation of the prosecution that on 15.09.2000, the appellant had demanded illegal gratification is itself flawed. In sum and substance, it has been argued that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the appellant was entitled to get at least benefit of doubt and as such impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set-aside. 10. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB, opposing the Appeal has argued that learned trial Judge on the basis of established case of demand of bribe, its acceptance, recovery and also assurance of official favour by the appellant to the complainant was established by the prosecution and as such the learned trial Judge by detailed reason has passed judgment of conviction and sentence, which need no interference by this Court. He further submits that during evidence it has been established by the prosecution that the complainant had approached the appellant for the purpose of getting his vacant house to be taken on rent by the department for the purposes of running B.C. Boys Hostel. The application of the complainant with request for hiring his house on rental basis was received in the office of the appellant. The application of the complainant with request for hiring his house on rental basis was received in the office of the appellant. On 24.08.2000 on the endorsement made by the appellant, PW.2 namely D.L.K. Aruna, who was Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa, visited the house of the complainant on 28.08.2000 and subsequently on 30.08.2000 she submitted the report, which was received in the office of the appellant on 08.09.2000 and since then the appellant kept the matter pending and it has come that for favouring the complainant the appellant officer demanded bribe of Rs.6,000/-, which was on request by the complainant was reduced to Rs.4,000/-and as directed by the appellant the said amount was received by the appellant in his own residence. After signal regarding acceptance of bribe was given by the complainant, the Trap Party entered into the house of the appellant. Till that time, the appellant had already kept the said amount in his locker, which on being asked by the leader of the Trap Party i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police, was produced by the appellant. The currency notes recovered from the possession of the appellant were tallied on comparison with the Pre Trap Memorandum (Mediators Report No.I). After being trapped, the hand fingers of the appellant were tested by asking him to dip in the solution which turned pink. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has further argued that since it was a specific case of acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant, as per Section 20 of the PC Act, presumption goes against the appellant that for giving official favour, he had demanded the bribe, accepted the same, which was recovered. He submits that in view of Section 20 of the PC Act, onus was on the appellant to rebut the presumption, whereas the defense/appellant has miserably failed to rebut the presumption. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P 2004 (Crl.L.J) 884 SC and M.Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P2. In M.Narsinga Rao 2001 (Crl.L.J) 515 SC, he has specifically referred to Paragraph No.18, which is quoted herein below: “18. For the purpose of reaching one conclusion the Court can rely on a factual presumption. Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted, the Court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. In M.Narsinga Rao 2001 (Crl.L.J) 515 SC, he has specifically referred to Paragraph No.18, which is quoted herein below: “18. For the purpose of reaching one conclusion the Court can rely on a factual presumption. Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted, the Court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. However, as a caution of prudence we have to observe that it may be unsafe to use that presumption to draw yet another discretionary presumption unless there is a statutory compulsion. This Court has indicated so in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 7 SCC 337 : (1998 AIR SCW 3182 : AIR 1998 SC 3258 : 1998 Crl.L.J 4592). ‘A presumption can be drawn only from facts – and not from other presumptions – by a process of probable and logical reasoning’.” 12. Accordingly, it has been argued by learned standing counsel that the impugned judgment requires no interference and the instant Appeal is liable to be rejected. 13. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have minutely examined the entire evidence on record. Before proceeding it would be necessary to examine as to what evidence was brought on record by the prosecution to establish the case of demand of bribe for official favour, acceptance of the bribe amount and its recovery. 14. PW.1 – J.Harinath, at the relevant time working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department, Vigilance and Quality Control Wing, Kadapa, had acted as mediator in the present case. In his evidence he has stated that on 20.09.2000 at 02:00 P.M. he went to the office of Inspector, ACB, Kadapa, as per instructions of his higher officials. He went along with one Senior Assistant, G. Venkatasubbaiah, of his department. After arrival this witness and another were called inside. Subsequently, Khaja Mohiddin (Complainant) was called inside and they were introduced with each other and at that time Deputy Superintendent of Police, produced copy of the FIR and contents therein were read over by the 2nd mediator, the complainant acknowledged correctness of the contents therein and thereafter this witness and another mediator initialed the copy and made endorsement as ‘seen’. The said copy of FIR was marked as Ex.P-1. This witness further stated that the complainant was asked by Dy.S.P. as to whether he had brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-, and the same was produced by the complainant. The said copy of FIR was marked as Ex.P-1. This witness further stated that the complainant was asked by Dy.S.P. as to whether he had brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-, and the same was produced by the complainant. All those currency notes were of Rs.100/-denomination. It was counted and as per the instructions of Dy.S.P. Serial numbers of currency notes were noted down by this witness in its mediators report No.1 (Pre Trap Memorandum). 2 bottles containing sodium carbonate powder and phenolphthalein powder separately were shown and its importance and reaction was explained to them by the Dy.S.P. In his evidence, he further detailed as to how the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. A demonstration was also done regarding touching the said currency notes, dipping fingers in the solution and turning the colour of the solution into pink. Thereafter, in his presence, the tainted currency notes, as per the instructions of Dy.S.P., were kept in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant and complainant was instructed not to touch the currency notes and pay the same only on further demand by the appellant. The complainant was further instructed that only after acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant, he may give signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief to the raid party. After completion of such preparation, which was completed at 03:15 P.M. this witness stated that he prepared mediators report (Pre Trap Memorandum), which was marked as Ex.P-2. In his evidence, he further stated that at about 03:20 p.m. they started in a Government jeep, thereafter, the Dy.S.P. after the complainant got down from the jeep, reiterated his earlier instructions about payment of bribe amount and giving signal. The complainant was asked to proceed to the house of the appellant. This witness further stated that he along with trap party took vantage positions at a distance of about 25 yards from the house of the appellant. At about 03:50 P.M. they got signal, then, this witness along with other trap party including Dy.S.P. proceeded to the house of the appellant. When the complainant was found outside the house of the appellant, he was asked to stay there. The witness stated that they found a person and thereafter the Dy.S.P. introduced himself and introduced this witness and others to the said person and ascertained the particulars of the said person. When the complainant was found outside the house of the appellant, he was asked to stay there. The witness stated that they found a person and thereafter the Dy.S.P. introduced himself and introduced this witness and others to the said person and ascertained the particulars of the said person. The said person stated his name as Vema Reddy, working as District B.C. Welfare Officer. This witness identified the appellant who was present in Court as said Vema Reddy. Thereafter, the solution in two glass of tumblers was prepared and on instructions of the Dy. S.P. the appellant dipped his right hand fingers into the solution, whereby the solution turned into pink colour. The appellant was again asked to dip his fingers of left hand into another glass of tumbler containing sodium carbonate solution and on dipping his fingers the said solution turned into pink colour. The resultant solutions were kept in 2 bottles. MO.3 was the bottle containing right hand wash of the appellant and MO.4 was the bottle containing left hand wash of the appellant. This witness further stated that the appellant was found shivering then. On being asked by the Dy. S.P. about the money which he received, the appellant lead all the trap party members to his bedroom, opened steel almirah with key, then he again opened another drawer like and in that there was inner safe, he opened the inner safe and took out a rexine purse and opened the rexine purse, which was containing currency notes. The said currency notes were counted and it was compared with the earlier mediators report i.e., Pre Trap Memorandum and on comparison, serial numbers were found tallied. In his presence the said currency notes were seized. He identified MO.5 which were 40 currency notes of Rs.100/-denomination. The inner lining of the rexine purse was also subjected to the chemical test which yielded positive result. The appellant was further asked by the Dy. S.P. about the connected file, whereupon the appellant stated that the said file was available in the office. In his evidence PW.1 further stated that thereafter the complainant was asked to explain as to what happened and he narrated the same facts which were incorporated in the 2nd mediators report i.e., Post Trap Memorandum. Rough sketch was also prepared regarding place of occurrence, which was marked as Ex.P-3. In his evidence PW.1 further stated that thereafter the complainant was asked to explain as to what happened and he narrated the same facts which were incorporated in the 2nd mediators report i.e., Post Trap Memorandum. Rough sketch was also prepared regarding place of occurrence, which was marked as Ex.P-3. In his evidence he has stated that the said process i.e., after trap till completion of Post Trap Memorandum i.e., mediators report No.2 was completed by 06:00 P.M. He also identified the said mediators report (Post Trap memorandum) which was in his writing and attested by him. The said Post Trap Memorandum was got exhibited. In his evidence it has come that in his presence house of the appellant was also searched but no incriminating material was found and thereafter this witness followed Dy. S.P. the appellant and others, who went to the office of the appellant at 07:00 P.M. From the chambers of the appellant, he picked out order copy and produced the same, which was received from Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer. This witness further deposed that the said document contained initial of the appellant and 2 seals; one seal was dated 08.09.2000 and initial was dated 11.09.2000. The said documents was seized which was got attested by him and others. The said document was marked as Ex.P-6. He stated that Ex.P-6 was the letter, dated 30.08.2000, which was produced by the appellant before the Dy. S.P. On being questioned by the Dy. S.P. about the application of the complainant, one Senior Assistant in the office produced the same. The said application was marked as Ex.P-7. Mediator’s report-3 was prepared and he identified the same which was marked as Ex.P-8. 15. This witness was cross-examined at length and on going through the cross-examination, it is evident that this witness has stated that the complainant was dropped at the tailor shop from the jeep. However, he did not see when the complainant went inside the compound of the Appellant. He stated that within two to three minutes from 03:20 P.M., complainant left and proceeded to the house of the appellant. Again, in cross-examination he said that he saw the complainant again at 03:55 P.M. Of course, several suggestions were given to create doubt in his evidence; however, after going through his entire evidence, I do not find any reason to doubt credibility of this witness. 16. Again, in cross-examination he said that he saw the complainant again at 03:55 P.M. Of course, several suggestions were given to create doubt in his evidence; however, after going through his entire evidence, I do not find any reason to doubt credibility of this witness. 16. PW.2 – D.L.K. Aruna, at the relevant time working as Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa, deposed in her evidence that she received xerox copy of application i.e., Ex.P-7 on 24.08.2000 from District B.C. Welfare Officer with a direction to inspect two buildings bearing D.Nos.4/603 and 4/604 and sent the suitability report. In her evidence she has stated that on 28.08.2000, she went to the concerned buildings, where house owner was present and she found trees (bushes) around the house and electrical wiring was also not in order and asked the house owner to clear the bushes and set right the wiring. She again visited the said building on 30.08.2000, by that time the bushes were cleared and electrical wires were set right, thereafter she sent suitability report to the District B.C. Welfare Officer. She identified her report, which was marked as Ex.P-6. She entered the report in dispatch register and sent the same through one G.Vijaya Kumar. This witness was also cross-examined and suggestion was given to the extent as if since she wanted additional charge of District B.C. Welfare Officer, she conspired to get a case filed against the appellant, which suggestion was completely denied. According to the evidence of this witness much before the trap was laid, she had already submitted suitability report in respect of hiring of the house of the complainant for B.C. Boys Hostel. 17. PW.3 – C. Ganganna, at the relevant time was Senior Assistant in the office of District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa. He deposed that he had received Ex.P-7 on 23.08.2000. The District B.C. Welfare Officer made an endorsement and sent the application to the complainant to send the xerox copy of Ex.P-7 to the Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer and at that very time the appellant was District B.C. Welfare Officer, who had made endorsement on Ex.P-7. He further described about the procedure in respect of receipt of such application in the office. 18. PW.4 – G.Vijaya Kumar, at the relevant time was Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the office of District B.C. Welfare Office, Kadapa. He further described about the procedure in respect of receipt of such application in the office. 18. PW.4 – G.Vijaya Kumar, at the relevant time was Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the office of District B.C. Welfare Office, Kadapa. He stated regarding dispatch of report of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer to the District B.C. Welfare Officer on 08.09.2000 and also stated that the same was received in the office of District B.C. Welfare Officer on the same day i.e., on 08.09.2000. 19. PW.5 – U.Nagaratnamma, at the relevant time was Typist in the office of District B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa. Her evidence is to the extent that he had received Ex.P-7 which was received on 23.08.2000 and it was handed over to PW.3 on 24.08.2000. 20. PW.6 – N.Chandrasekhar, at the relevant time was Warden Grade-II, S.T. Hostel, Kadapa. He deposed that he was having full charge of the same from 14.06.1999 to October, 2000. At that very time B.C. Hostel-II was located at the fag end of Kadapa town and, according to his evidence, on 30.07.2000, some outsiders came and assaulted the students, whereupon he gave a report to the SHO, Chinna Chowk Police Station, Kadapa, and also presented a report to Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa. Since then students agitated for shifting the hostel building. Due to the said incident, he represented to PW.2 that students in B.C. Hostel-2 were afraid of outsiders and requested to permit to shift the hostel to some other building. This witness was asked to search for the suitable accommodation. While searching for the said building, the complainant approached him and disclosed that he was having 2 buildings in Y.S. Nagar, Kadapa, and offered to give his buildings to open the hostel. This witness in his evidence further stated that he advised the complainant to approach the District B.C. Welfare Officer and get the order. On examination of the evidence of this witness, it is established that due to such situation the department was in search of new building for shifting the hostel and in this context the complainant met this witness and, as per the advise of this witness, the complainant approached the appellant, who was the competent authority. 21. PW.7 – D.Rangaswamy, who was examined on the point of prosecution sanction, identified the sanction order, which was marked as Ex.P-10. 21. PW.7 – D.Rangaswamy, who was examined on the point of prosecution sanction, identified the sanction order, which was marked as Ex.P-10. Since the prosecution sanction is not under challenge, there is no need to further discuss his evidence. 22. PW.9 – Md. Munawar Basha, at the relevant time was Inspector, ACB, Kadapa. In his evidence he stated that he assisted Dy.S.P., ACB, during Pre Trap and Post Trap and conducted further investigation in the case on the instructions of superior officers. His evidence is to the extent that he got recorded the statement of complainant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class/Special Mobile Court, Kadapa, and he also examined other witnesses. On his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the complainant had stated before the Magistrate as if the case was false. 23. PW.8 – V.G.Ramamurthy Rao, was posted as Dy.S.P., ACB, Tirupati, during the said period. In his evidence he stated that on 19.09.2000 at 03:00 p.m. the complainant had presented a written complaint against the appellant. He identified the report submitted by the complainant which was marked as Ex.P-11. He further deposed that after going through the complaint, he asked the complainant to come on the next date i.e., on 20.09.2000 at 02:00 P.M. with proposed bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-, which was asked by the appellant for doing an official favour to the complainant. This witness further deposed that he got an enquiry conducted about the antecedents of the complainant and reputation of the appellant also. In his evidence it has come that on enquiry he learnt that the reputation of the appellant was bad. He further stated that on 20.09.2000, he informed the Head Office and obtained prior permission to register the case and on the same day at 10:00 A.M. he registered the case on the basis of complaint vide Crime No.10/RCT-TCD/2000, under Sections 7 and 11 of the PC Act against the appellant. He identified the original complaint and original FIR, which was marked as Ex.P-12. He further deposed that he sent requisition to the Executive Engineer, Vigilance and Control, Panchayat Raj, Kadapa, with a request to depute one gazetted officer and one non-gazetted officer to act as mediators in the case. He further described that on the same day at 02:00 P.M. the mediators i.e., PW.1 and another came to his house. He further deposed that he sent requisition to the Executive Engineer, Vigilance and Control, Panchayat Raj, Kadapa, with a request to depute one gazetted officer and one non-gazetted officer to act as mediators in the case. He further described that on the same day at 02:00 P.M. the mediators i.e., PW.1 and another came to his house. In the meanwhile, complainant also arrived, thereafter like the evidence of PW.1 he has clarified as to how Pre Trap Memorandum was prepared, how the Trap Party proceeded and complainant was allowed to go inside the house of the appellant with the tainted currency notes and he further described that first mediators report, Ex.P-2 i.e., Pre Trap Memorandum was prepared by 03:15 P.M. on 20.09.2000. After completing the mediators report this witness along with his staff, PW.9 – Inspector, 2 mediators, complainant along with other staff members in Government jeep proceeded to the house of appellant. He further stated that the jeep was stopped in front of one Chandra Ladies Tailor, situated in Bhagyanagar Street, kadapa, then he asked the complainant and others to get down from the vehicle and asked the complainant to go inside the house of the appellant and hand over the tainted currency notes only after his demand. He along with other raid party members took vantage position in the vicinity of the house of the appellant, whereas other two persons and mediators followed the complainant and took vantage positions. At 03:50 p.m. he received signal and thereafter he along with raid party members entered into the house of the appellant and he described how the appellant being asked voluntarily admitted and lead them to bedroom situated to south west of the house of the appellant and opened the almirah and then secret lock and picked up a rexine small purse and produced currency notes before the mediators. 24. This witness categorically described almost in similar manner like PW.1, the mediator, who prepared the mediators report-1 and also mediators report-2 (Pre and Post Trap Memorandums). In his evidence he stated that he examined witnesses and thereafter further investigation was entrusted to Md. Munwar Basha, PW.9, on 22.09.2000. 24. This witness categorically described almost in similar manner like PW.1, the mediator, who prepared the mediators report-1 and also mediators report-2 (Pre and Post Trap Memorandums). In his evidence he stated that he examined witnesses and thereafter further investigation was entrusted to Md. Munwar Basha, PW.9, on 22.09.2000. This witness was cross-examined at length and he was asked number of questions mainly on the point of recording statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and a suggestion was given as if in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the complainant had stated before the learned Magistrate that false case was filed against the appellant. On examination of his entire cross-examination, it appears that only effort was taken by the defense to emphasize regarding suppression of statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Otherwise, the evidence of PW.8 is in consonance with the evidence of PW.1, who was the mediator and independent public servant. On examination of entire evidence and also after going through the impugned judgment of the trial Court, I feel that the learned trial Judge has elaborately discussed entire evidence and with sound reasoning has passed judgment of conviction and sentence. It is true that in this case the complainant was not examined but fact remains that the complainant had already died and this was the reason that he could not be examined as the prosecution witness. Of course, learned counsel for the appellant had tried to persuade the Court that in the absence of evidence of the complainant, the prosecution was not able to establish the case of demand of bribe made by the appellant, on going through the entire evidence there is no reason to raise doubt on the question of demand made by the appellant. The complaint filed by the complainant was read by PW.1. In the evidence of PW.1 it has come that he read the F.I.R. in the presence of the complainant and in the presence of PW.1 also the complainant had narrated regarding pendency of his application for hiring his premises for running Boys B.C. Hostel before the appellant and disclosure regarding demand of bribe. Those facts are itself sufficient to draw presumption that the appellant had demanded bribe. 25. Those facts are itself sufficient to draw presumption that the appellant had demanded bribe. 25. The evidence which has been discussed herein above categorically reflects that due to an incident which had taken place in earlier boys hostel, wherein the inmates of the hostel were beaten by local persons, the department was in search of a new premises for shifting the hostel. It has also been established that the complainant was asked by one of the officers to approach the appellant for hiring his building. It is in evidence that the complainant approached and filed his application, which was endorsed by the appellant and thereafter PW.2, Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa, was asked to conduct an enquiry, who conducted the same and after some rectification, she had already submitted feasibility report. The said report was received in the office of the appellant and since thereafter no decision was taken. In the evidence it has been established that the said application of the complainant was received in the office of appellant on 23.08.2000, on the same day the appellant made an endorsement on the application of the complainant for enquiry. Thereafter on 28.08.2000, PW.2, Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer, Kadapa, conducted an enquiry and issued certain instructions to the complainant to remove bushes and get the wiring of the building arranged, which was complied by the complainant. Thereafter on 30.08.2000, PW.2 again visited the premises of the complainant and then she submitted feasibility report on 08.09.2000. The said report was received by the appellant on the same date and thereafter it was kept pending and on 15.09.2000 initially the appellant demanded Rs.6,000/-as bribe from the complainant. Again on 18.09.2000 the complainant visited the office of the appellant and thereafter on persuasion the appellant reduced the demanded bribe amount to Rs.4,000/-. On 19.09.2000 the complainant filed the complaint to the Dy.S.P., PW.8. The said complaint was marked as Ex.P-11. On 20.09.2000 trap was laid in the house of the appellant, where it was established that the appellant had accepted the tainted bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-which he kept in his locker and on being asked by the Dy.S.P., the same was produced. 26. The said complaint was marked as Ex.P-11. On 20.09.2000 trap was laid in the house of the appellant, where it was established that the appellant had accepted the tainted bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-which he kept in his locker and on being asked by the Dy.S.P., the same was produced. 26. So far as the case of defense is concerned, it is true that DW.1 – G.Lakshmi Devi, who was posted as Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer, Jammalamadugu, DW.2 – C.Sivasankar Reddy, who was posted as Warden, B.C. Boys Hostel, Gundlakunta, and DW.3 – D.Ramachandra Raju, who worked as Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer, Jammalamadugu, have come forward and got some documents exhibited on the plea as if on 15.09.2000 the appellant visited Boys Hostel, which was far away from the District Headquarter. However, in cross-examination of DW.2, this fact has come that distance between Kadapa and Guntlakunta was about 90 K.Ms. and the appellant, District B.C. Welfare Officer, was provided with a car and he used to come to hostel in his car to visit hostel. In his cross-examination, he further stated that ‘one can reach Gundlagunta from Cuddapah directly in 2 to 2½ hours by car’. If this evidence is examined, only ground that the appellant visited Boys hostel in Gundlakunta on 15.09.2000 cannot be sufficient evidence, as if on the same date in his Headquarter he did not met the complainant. Moreover, it was not only first occasion, when as per evidence, the appellant had demanded bribe amount but, it is the case of prosecution that on next date i.e., on 19.09.2000 also demand was made by the appellant and thereafter on the same date the complaint was filed. 27. After going through the entire evidence, it is established that the appellant for rendering official favour to the complainant had demanded bribe, accepted the same and said currency notes were subsequently produced by the appellant after opening his almirah kept in his bedroom. In the evidence it has been established that on being caught, he was asked to dip fingers of his both hands in the solution kept in two tumblers and after dipping the same, colour of solution had turned pink. In the evidence it has been established that on being caught, he was asked to dip fingers of his both hands in the solution kept in two tumblers and after dipping the same, colour of solution had turned pink. In those circumstances, when prosecution had established its case, merely on the ground of non-examination of the complainant, who obviously died and also non production of statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., may not be treated as a ground for demolishing a well established case. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned standing counsel for ACB, has rightly placed reliance on Para No.18 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Narsinga Rao2 . In the present case the defense had not been able to rebut the presumption which was posed against the appellant but the prosecution has successfully established the case that the appellant was demanding illegal gratification for rendering official favour to the complainant, he accepted the tainted bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-and same was recovered from possession of the appellant. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no reason for interference with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 28. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 25.08.2006, passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, in C.C. No.17 of 2001, is hereby approved and Appeal stands dismissed. 29. In view of dismissal of this Appeal, the bail bond of the appellant is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith for serving the remaining sentence, failing which the learned trial Judge is required to take steps for securing his presence.