JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 05.12.2006, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.12 of 2002, the appellant - Accused Officer preferred the present appeal. 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant- Accused Officer for the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) and accordingly imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month under each charge. The trial Court ordered to run both the sentences of imprisonment concurrently. 3. Accused Officer - A.S. Nagaraju worked as District Tribal Welfare Officer, Nizamabad District, while PW.1 - de facto complainant, Mr. Poodati Kamalesh was working as Warden, S.T.Boys Hostel, Dichpalli, Nizamabad District at the relevant point of time. 4. The allegation of the prosecution in the present case is that the Accused Officer being the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Nizamabad District has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.3,000/- from PW.1 for the purpose of releasing cheques in respect of the bills submitted by PW.1 in respect of S.T. Boys Hostel. Thus, the Accused Officer being public servant abusing his official position as a public servant obtained for himself, the above said pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.3,000/- from PW.1 as illegal gratification for the purpose of doing said official favour, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. 5. According to the prosecution, the Accused Officer being the District Tribunal Welfare Officer is having power to release the cheques in respect of the bills submitted by PW.1. The said official favour was pending with the Accused Officer at the relevant point of time and accordingly demanded the said bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- from PW.1. 6. Since PW.1 - de facto complainant was not interested to meet the said demand of bribe, approached the ACB Officials on 19.02.2001 and lodged Ex.P3 - complaint. The said official favour was pending with the Accused Officer at the relevant point of time and accordingly demanded the said bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- from PW.1. 6. Since PW.1 - de facto complainant was not interested to meet the said demand of bribe, approached the ACB Officials on 19.02.2001 and lodged Ex.P3 - complaint. Thereafter, PW.4 - DSP, ACB, Nizamabad Range, registered a case in Crime No.2/ACB-NZB/2001 on 20.02.2001 and laid trap on the same day by following the due procedure including conducting pre-trap and post-trap proceedings in the presence of mediators. 7. After completion of investigation, the ACB filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.12 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. 8. The trial Court framed the charges under above provisions. On examination, the Accused denied the said charges and prayed for trial. Accordingly, the trial Court proceeded with the trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and marked Exs.P1 to P16 and MO.1 to MO.6 were exhibited. On behalf of the Accused Officer, DW.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. The trial Court also marked Exs.X1 to X3. 9. After completion of trial and on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the Accused Officer guilty of the aforesaid charges and accordingly convicted him vide the impugned judgment in the manner stated above. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the Accused Officer preferred the present appeal. 11. Heard Mr. A. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - Accused Officer and Mr. T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel - cum - Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases. 12. Impugning the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant would make the following submissions: (i) PW.4 - DSP, ACB on receipt of Ex.P3 - complaint from PW.1, who is subordinate to the Accused Officer, without conducting discreet enquiries as per the ACB Manual, registered the case and laid the trap. (ii) As per the ACB Manual, wherever disputes arise with regard to inter se seniority, promotions, complaints by subordinates on the superior officers, the ACB Officials have to make discreet enquiries and then only on verification of the same as genuine, have to register a case and proceed to lay a trap. (ii) As per the ACB Manual, wherever disputes arise with regard to inter se seniority, promotions, complaints by subordinates on the superior officers, the ACB Officials have to make discreet enquiries and then only on verification of the same as genuine, have to register a case and proceed to lay a trap. In the case on hand, PW.4 - DSP, ACB did not follow the said procedure. (iii) The trail Court failed to appreciate the contention of the Accused Officer that PW.1, Warden in S.T. Boys Hostel, Dichpalli, Nizamabad District is having bad reputation, bad antecedents and committed several irregularities earlier. Even earlier also, there were complaints against PW.1. (v) PW.1 deliberately planted the tainted currency notes in the table drawer of the Accused Officer when he was in bath room. The same was informed to PW.4 - Trap Laying Officer during post-trap proceedings. When PW.1 was working in Kamareddy, inmates of the Hostel lodged complaint about various irregularities committed by PW.1 as a Warden of the Hostel, on which, P.S. Kamareddy, registered a case in Crime No.66 of 1991 for the offence under section 420 of IPC. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against PW.1 for the said irregularities committed by him in Social Welfare Hostel and in the month of December, 1997, the ACB Officials conducted surprise check and found irregularities. Same were culminated into awarding of punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Thus, PW.1 bore grudge against the Accused Officer and implicated him in the present case with the help of ACB Officials. (vi) There was no official favour that was pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of Ex.P3 - complaint. There are contradictions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses. He would further contend that the trial Court without considering the said aspects recorded conviction without giving proper reasons. With the said contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment, acquittal of the Accused Officer by allowing the appeal. 13. Supporting the judgment, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that there is no dispute with regard to laying of trap, recovery of tainted currency notes and also chemical tests turning positive. With the said contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment, acquittal of the Accused Officer by allowing the appeal. 13. Supporting the judgment, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that there is no dispute with regard to laying of trap, recovery of tainted currency notes and also chemical tests turning positive. He would further contend that there are no discrepancies in the depositions of prosecution witnesses and even the discrepancies, if any, they are minor in nature and the same cannot tilt the case of the prosecution to acquit the Accused Officer by interfering with the impugned judgment. 14. He would further contend that in order to prove the animosity and personal grudge, the Accused Officer did not examine any witness. There is no material on the said aspect and during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses nothing was elicited to prove the same. There is no spot explanation given by the Accused Officer during post-trap proceedings. The prosecution has proved both demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the Accused Officer beyond reasonable doubt. 15. He would further submit that ACB Manual is a guiding document and it is not mandatory. There is no need of conducting discreet enquiries on receipt of complaint from de facto complainant. Even then PW.4 - DSP has conducted discreet enquiries. There is no bar that the Accused Officer cannot demand 40% of the total bill amount as bribe. The antecedents and office record of PW.1 is nothing to do with the present case. The trial Court on analysis of entire evidence, recorded the conviction in the impugned judgment and by giving a specific finding with regard to proving of demand and acceptance of bribe, drawn presumption under Section 20 of the Act. There is no circumstance that warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal with the impugned judgment. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 16. In view of the above rival contentions, the following points that arise for consideration: (i) Whether there was any official favour that was pending with the Accused Officer to do the same to PW.1 at the relevant point of time? (ii) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the Accused Officer under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? (ii) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the Accused Officer under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable factually and legally? POINT Nos. (i) to (iii): 17. To prove the said offences, the prosecution has examined PW.1 - de facto complainant, PW.2 - mediator, PW.3 - Senior Assistant, Office of the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Nizamabad at the relevant point of time, PW.4 - DSP, ACB - cum - Trap Laying Officer and PW.6 - Inspector of Police, ACB - cum - Investigating Officer. 18. PW.1 - Warden in ST. Boys Hostel, Dichpalli, Nizamabad District, lodged Ex.P3 - complaint to PW.6 - DSP, ACB, complaining that he has spent an amount of Rs.3,200/- towards repair of septic tank and Rs.3,600/- towards repair of pipe in the said Hostel and during the said repair works, the District Tribal Welfare Officer inspected the same and asked him to submit bill. Accordingly, PW.1 has submitted two bills in December. For sanction of the said bills, the appellant - Accused Officer demanded an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards bribe and informed him that unless and until the said bribe is paid, cheques pertains to the bills will not be issued. It is further alleged in Ex.P3 - complaint that PW.1 met the Accused Officer on 19.02.2001 at 11.00 a.m., enquired about the cheques, on which the appellant - Accused Officer once again demanded bribe amount. PW.1 deposed almost in terms of Ex.P3. But, with regard to amount, he has deposed that he has spent Rs.3,300/- towards rewinding of submersible motor and Rs.3,500/- for getting repaired the septic tank pipes. It is relevant to note that there is discrepancy in spending the amounts. However, in Ex.P1 - voucher, an amount of Rs.3,300/- is mentioned towards repairing of submersible winding and in Ex.P2 - voucher, an amount of Rs.3,500/- is mentioned towards cleaning of septic tank and pipe. 19. PW.3 - Senior Assistant of District Tribal Welfare Office, Nizamabad, deposed about submission of bills by PW.1 in the 3rd week of January, 2001, he has scrutinized the same, put up the same before the Superintendent, who initialed on the said bills on 29.01.2001 itself. He has further deposed that the Accused Officer also sanctioned the said Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 bills on 29.01.2001 itself. He has further deposed that the Accused Officer also sanctioned the said Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 bills on 29.01.2001 itself. After sanctioning of the said bills by the Accused Officer, they came to him, after entering the bills in Treasury Register he has forwarded the said bills to the concerned Treasury Office for sending the demand drafts. As seen from Exs.P5 and P6 - demand drafts, they were signed by the Concerned Bank Manager on 09.02.2001. PW.3 has further deposed that the said demand drafts were received in their office on the same day, and immediately he made the entry of said demand drafts in Ex.P4 - Register. PW.1 did not meet him from 09.02.2001 till 20.02.2001. 20. PW.4 - Trap Laying Officer admitted during cross-examination that Exs.P1 and P2 bills were submitted in January, 2001 and in Ex.P3 - complaint, there is no mention about date of Exs.P1 and P2 bills. He has further admitted that Superintendent made initials on Exs.P1 and P2 - bills on 29.01.2001 and sent the same to the Accused Officer, who in turn sanctioned the same on the very same day. Exs.P5 and P6 - demand drafts were issued by the concerned Bank on 09.02.2001 21. PW.7 - Inspector of Police, ACB - cum - Investigating Officer, admitted during cross-examination that he did not ascertain from the staff of the Accused Officer as to when Exs.P1 and P2 - bills were sanctioned and processing of the same. 22. On perusal of the above said depositions would reveal that PW.1 submitted Exs.P1 and P2 - bills in December, 2000 itself. PW.3 - Senior Assistant processed the same after scrutiny and submitted to the Superintendent, who in turn initialed the same on 29.01.2001 itself. The same were sent to the Accused Officer, who in turn sanctioned the same on 29.01.2001 itself. Thereafter, the bills came to PW.3, who in turn entered the bills in the Treasury Register, forwarded the same to the concerned Treasury Office for sending the demand drafts. Exs.P5 and P6 are the demand drafts dated 09.02.2001 prepared by the concerned Bank. The said demand drafts were received by the District Tribal Welfare Office, Nizamabad, on the very same day i.e., 09.02.2001. Immediately, PW.3 made entry of the said demand drafts in Ex.P4 - Register. According to PW.3, PW.1 did not meet him from 09.02.2001 till 20.02.2001. Exs.P5 and P6 are the demand drafts dated 09.02.2001 prepared by the concerned Bank. The said demand drafts were received by the District Tribal Welfare Office, Nizamabad, on the very same day i.e., 09.02.2001. Immediately, PW.3 made entry of the said demand drafts in Ex.P4 - Register. According to PW.3, PW.1 did not meet him from 09.02.2001 till 20.02.2001. PW.4 - Trap Laying Officer has also deposed in the very same lines. 23. The above said depositions would clearly reveal that there was no official favour that was pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of Ex.P3 - complaint and on the date of trap i.e., 19.02.2001 and 20.02.2001 respectively. As per the deposition of PW.3, concerned Senior Assistant and PW.4 - Trap Laying Officer, Exs.P1 and P2 were processed and sanctioned. The demand drafts were made ready by 09.02.2001 itself vide Exs.P5 and P6. Even according to PW.3, his office has already received Exs.P5 and P6 - demand drafts on 09.02.2001 itself and he made entry in Ex.P4 - Register. Even according to PW.1, he has met PW.3 - Senior Assistant on 19.02.2001 at 11.00 a.m. at his office. But, there is no mention either in Ex.P3 or in his deposition that PW.3 requested PW.1 to meet the Accused Officer and on his instructions only, PW.3 will issue cheques to PW.1. Thus, there was no official favour that was pending with the Accused Officer at the relevant point of time. 24. On perusal of the above said deposition would also reveal that PW.1 was Warden in S.T. Boys Hostel, Dichpalli, Nizamabad District and the appellant - Accused Officer was District Tribal Welfare Officer, Nizamabad. Thus, PW.1 is subordinate to the Accused Officer. While PW.1 was working as Warden in S.T. Boys Hostel, Kamareddy, a 9th Class student made a complaint alleging supply of preparing food with substandard provisions, beating and threatening the hostellers. On the said complaint, a crime No.66 of 1991 was registered against PW.1 under Section 420 of IPC by Kamareddy Police Station and he was arrested. R.D.O., Kamareddy framed five charges against him and he was placed under suspension. 25. It is also not in dispute that PW.1 was working in Dichpalli Hostel, ACB Officials conducted surprise check on 22nd and 23rd of December, 1997 and found certain irregularities and five charges were framed against him. R.D.O., Kamareddy framed five charges against him and he was placed under suspension. 25. It is also not in dispute that PW.1 was working in Dichpalli Hostel, ACB Officials conducted surprise check on 22nd and 23rd of December, 1997 and found certain irregularities and five charges were framed against him. After completion of disciplinary proceedings, the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on him. The said proceedings issued by the District Collector were served on PW.1 by the appellant - Accused Officer. It is also not in dispute and as admitted by PW.1 himself that the appellant - Accused Officer has inspected the Hostel at Dichpalli on 20.12.2000 at 7.30 p.m. and PW.1 was not present in the hostel. Ex.X2 - charge memo was issued to PW.1 framing five charges and asking him to submit explanation. 26. It is relevant to note that PW.1 conveniently suppressed all these facts and lodged Ex.P3 – complaint on 19.02.2001 with PW.4 - DSP, ACB. But, unfortunately, PW.4 having come to know that PW.1 is subordinate to the Accused Officer, did not make any discreet enquiry as per ACB Manual. From the above said evidence, it is also not in dispute that the ACB Officials conducted surprise check in the hostel, in which PW.1 was working as Warden and found irregularities. PW.4 in his chief examination deposed that on receipt of Ex.P3 - complaint, after due verification, he has registered a case and by issuing Ex.P14 - FIR. There is no mention of making any discreet enquiry and it is not even mentioned or endorsed on Ex.P14 - FIR. Thus, PW.4 - Trap Laying Officer has not conducted any discreet enquiry by following the guidelines issued in ACB Manual. Therefore, the trap laid and conducted by PW.4 is not in accordance with the procedure. 27. To prove the demand, the prosecution examined PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4. PW.1 deposed about demand of Rs.3,000/- as stated in Ex.P3 - complaint. PW.2 - mediator deposed that PW.4 - Trap Laying Officer instructed him to accompany PW.1 to the place of trap and accordingly, he and PW.1 went to the office of the Accused Officer which is in second floor. He remained at the entrance of the office of the Accused Officer itself, whereas PW.1 went inside the office of the Accused Officer. He remained at the entrance of the office of the Accused Officer itself, whereas PW.1 went inside the office of the Accused Officer. Thus, the prosecution failed to examine any witness, much less independent witness to prove the alleged demand. 28. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has proved the trap, recovery of tainted notes, the chemical tests turned positive and, therefore, the prosecution has proved the very demand itself. He would further submit that the defence theory of deliberately planting of money in the table drawer of the Accused Officer when he was in bath room is not probable, concocted and created by the Accused Officer to get over from the present proceedings. 29. As discussed above, PW.2 did not accompany PW.1 into the office room of the Accused Officer and he has not stayed at the entrance of the office itself. PW.1 also deposed that PW.2 remained at the entrance of office of the Accused Officer and he alone entered into the chambers of the Accused Officer. PW.1 further deposed that when he went into the chamber of the Accused Officer, he has enquired about the bribe amount, for which PW.1 informed him that he has brought the said amount. Then, the Accused Officer requested him to meet PW.3 - Senior Assistant and get the cheques. Accordingly, he met PW.3, who in turn handed over the said cheques by obtaining his signatures in D.D. Register. On receipt of the said cheques, PW.1 went into the chambers of the Accused Officer for his attestation on the said cheques and again the Accused Officer ascertained about bringing of the said bribe amount. According to PW.1, he has paid the said amount of Rs.3,0000/- by taking the same from his shirt pocket to the Accused Officer, who in turn received the said amount with his right hand, counted the amount, then kept the same in his right side table drawer. After attestation, he gave the said cheques to PW.1. 30. PW.1 during cross-examination has admitted that a bathroom is located behind the chambers of the Accused Officer at his office and there is entrance into the bath room from the chambers of the Accused Officer. On the date of trap, the District Collector’s meeting was scheduled in the office of the Accused Officer in the evening hours. 30. PW.1 during cross-examination has admitted that a bathroom is located behind the chambers of the Accused Officer at his office and there is entrance into the bath room from the chambers of the Accused Officer. On the date of trap, the District Collector’s meeting was scheduled in the office of the Accused Officer in the evening hours. There are serious contradictions with regard to PW.1 approaching the Accused Officer on the day of trap which are major. PW.1 did not state about completion of entire process of sanction of bills, preparation of cheques by the date of Ex.P3 - complaint. PW.3 - prosecution witness himself deposed that PW.1 did not meet him from 09.02.2001 till 20.02.2001 and he does not know what transpired between PW.1 and the Accused Officer in the chambers of the Accused Officer. 31. PW.4 - Trap Laying Officer has also deposed that on the day of trap, on his asking, the Accused Officer produced a wad of currency notes by picking up the same from his table drawer and kept the said amount on his table. PW.4 admitted during cross-examination that PW.1 did not state to him in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that he went into the chambers of the Accused Officer, found him alone asked him to give the cheques pertaining to the bills. Then, the Accused Officer asked him whether he brought the demanded amount of Rs.3,000/- for which he said that he has brought the said amount, thereafter the Accused Officer asked him to meet PW.3, get the cheques and accordingly he went and met PW.3 etc. PW.4 further admitted that PW.3 also did not state the said facts to him in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He has further admitted that he has not subjected the portion of table drawer, which came into contact with the tainted amount to such a chemical test. PW.4 further admitted that he did not observe whether there was any attached bath room to the chambers of the Accused Officer. Exs.P.5 and 6 - demand drafts were also not subjected to any chemical tests. 32. It is relevant to note that PW.4 - DSP, ACB-cum-Trap Laying Officer instructed Accountant of District Tribal Welfare Office to produce certain documents and, accordingly he has produced all the records including Exs.P5 and P6 - demand drafts. Exs.P.5 and 6 - demand drafts were also not subjected to any chemical tests. 32. It is relevant to note that PW.4 - DSP, ACB-cum-Trap Laying Officer instructed Accountant of District Tribal Welfare Office to produce certain documents and, accordingly he has produced all the records including Exs.P5 and P6 - demand drafts. The said fact was mentioned in Ex.P12 – post-trap proceedings. It is the contention of PW.1 that he has collected Exs.P5 and P6 from PW.3 - Senior Assistant, went to the chambers of the Accused Officer for getting attestation. Thus, Exs.P5 and P6 should be either with PW.1 or with Accused Officer or at the most with PW.3. Absolutely, there is no explanation by the prosecution with regard to production of Exs.P5 and P6 by the Accountant of the District Tribal Welfare Officer. It is relevant to note that the prosecution has not examined the said Accountant as witness to establish the fact that how he got possession of Exs.P5 and P6 - demand drafts. 33. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the Accused Officer did not offer any spot explanation and the defence theory is not probable. The learned counsel for the appellant - Accused Officer would submit that for the Accused Officer, there is no need to disclose his defence and he is having right to remain silent. 34. In view of the above stated depositions, the prosecution failed to prove the very demand itself, and the question of acceptance of the same does not arise. It is settled principle of law that mere recovery of tainted notes is not sufficient and the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt like any other offence as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 10 SCC 152 . 35. The Apex Court in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 486 held that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. 35. The Apex Court in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 486 held that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability. 36. As discussed supra, it is the specific defence of the Accused Officer that PW.1, who is subordinate to him and whose antecedents are very bad, bore grudge against him for the sudden inspection caused by him and also issuance of Ex.X3 - charge memo, and implicated him falsely in the present case with the help of ACB Officials. The said facts were not disputed by PW.1. ACB Officials conducted surprise check and found irregularities. A crime was registered against PW.1. It is important to note that the total amount claimed by PW.1 under Exs.P1 and P2 bills are Rs.6,800/- and whereas, according to PW.1 himself, the Accused Officer has demanded an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards illegal gratification which comes to nearly 45% of the total bills amount. The learned counsel for the appellant – Accused Officer would submit that no prudent person will demand 45% of the amount towards illegal gratification and no prudent person will accept to pay the same. Thus, the version of PW.1 that the Accused Officer has demanded an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards illegal gratification to do a favour of sanctioning the bills worth for Rs.6,800/- is not probable, reliable and trustworthy. The evidence of PW.1 is also not trustworthy in view of his antecedents in the manner stated above. PW.4 did not conduct any discreet enquiry as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court P. Sirajuddin v. The State of Madras etc., 1971 Crl.L.J. 523 in view of the fact that there are strained relations between PW.1 and the Accused Officer in the manner stated above. 37. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the pendency of official favour to be done by the Accused Officer to PW.1 and the very demand itself to record conviction under Section 7 of the Act. 37. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the pendency of official favour to be done by the Accused Officer to PW.1 and the very demand itself to record conviction under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore drawing of presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Sunkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2016) 1 SCC 713 . Wherever two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the Accused Officer shall be considered as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N., (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401 more particularly, keeping the right of the Accused Officer under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The very same principle was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Dinesh Kumar v. State through Inspector, 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 606 (SC). 38. As held in Kalicheti Gopala Reddy v. State, 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 189 failure of the accused to offer explanation on recovery of tainted notes is not a bar to the Accused Officer to submit his defence plea during his evidence or in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the same cannot be discarded on mere ground that it was furnished at a belated stage. It has to be accepted if trustworthy on examination that the accused has not taken different/inconsistent version at different stages. In the present case, it is the consistent plea of the Accused Officer that PW.1 bore grudge against him and to implicate him in a false case, deliberately planted the said amount in the table drawer. 39. The finding of the trial Court that Accused Officer has demanded and accepted MO.3 - cash of Rs.3,000/- towards illegal gratification for doing the official favour to PW.1 is contrary to evidence, both oral and documentary, as discussed in detailed supra. 40. In the said circumstances and foregoing discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court recording conviction is unsustainable. 41. 40. In the said circumstances and foregoing discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court recording conviction is unsustainable. 41. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.12 of 2002 vide judgment dated 05.12.2006 against the appellant - Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are hereby set aside. The Accused Officer is on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. The fine amounts, if any, paid is ordered to be returned to the Accused Officer. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.