JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Assailing the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 115 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under each count, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, the present appeal came to be filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 2. The appellant was working as Assistant Labour Officer, Yelamanchili, at the time of the incident. In the month of August, 1998, the accused officer is said to have booked a case against a transport vehicle of P.W.1. The notice in respect of the said proceedings was received by the wife of P.W.1 on 11.9.1998. An amount of Rs. 400/- was said to have been paid in month of January, 1999 before a competent criminal court. Thereafter, P.W.1 claims to have met the accused officer in a public street in Yelamanchili, wherein the accused officer is said to have instructed P.W.1 to meet him in his office. On 26.1.1999 at 9.00 AM, P.W.1 met the accused officer at his residence (though asked to meet in his office). It is alleged that the Accused Officer, saying as to whether P.W.1 knows that he is a Labour Officer, demanded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as bribe for not registering any cases. It was further stated to him that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 600/- was to be paid to the Government with respect to his transport vehicle. When P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the amount, having regard to the fact that he has already paid fine amount before the court, the accused officer instructed P.W.1 to meet him again. Accordingly, on 28.1.1999, P.W.1 met the accused officer at his residence at 8.30 AM, wherein he is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards maamool and Rs. 600/- towards fee to be paid by the Government. P.W.1 was asked to pay the amount on 1.2.1999. Since P.W.1 was not willing to pay the amount, he approached P.W.4, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam on 30.1.1999 and informed him about the demand made. 1,000/- towards maamool and Rs. 600/- towards fee to be paid by the Government. P.W.1 was asked to pay the amount on 1.2.1999. Since P.W.1 was not willing to pay the amount, he approached P.W.4, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam on 30.1.1999 and informed him about the demand made. His statement was recorded into writing, which is placed on record as Ex. P2. P.W.4 asked P.W.1 to come to his office on the next day i.e., on 1.2.1999 along with the Government fee and proposed bribe to be given to accused officer. Meanwhile, P.W.4 conducted confidential enquiries regarding the genuineness of the complaint as well as the conduct of the accused officer and came to a conclusion that contents of the complaint are true and the accused officer is a corrupt officer. After obtaining necessary permission from the authorities, registered a case in crime No. 4/RC-WLR/1999 under Sections 7, 11, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ex. P2 is the F.I.R. 3. On 1.2.1999 P.W.4 called the mediators (requisition of which was sent to R&B officials) and introduced them to P.W.1 and others. A copy of the F.I.R. - Ex. P9 was given to mediators and requested them to go through the contents and verify the genuineness of the same from P.W.1. The same was enquired into. Then, he questioned P.W.1 whether he brought the proposed bribe amount and Government fee. P.W.1 produced two wads of currency notes which was accepted by one of the mediators and thereafter the serial numbers of notes were recorded in the pre-trap proceedings. The significance of phenolphthalein test and also as to how the sodium carbonate solution turns pink in colour was explained. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied to proposed bribe amount. The persons, who explained significance of phenolphthalein test and also the Police Constable, who applied the phenolphthalein powder on the notes, placed their hands in sodium carbonate solution and the said solution turned pink in colour. P.W.1 was instructed to take out all his belongings from his pocket and thereafter the proposed bribe amount and the Government fee, which was smeared with phenolphthalein powder, were kept in the left side shirt pocket of P.W.1. He was instructed not to touch the amount unless and until there was a demand from the accused officer. P.W.1 was instructed to take out all his belongings from his pocket and thereafter the proposed bribe amount and the Government fee, which was smeared with phenolphthalein powder, were kept in the left side shirt pocket of P.W.1. He was instructed not to touch the amount unless and until there was a demand from the accused officer. It was also instructed to him that he should pay the amount only on demand made by the accused officer and thereafter to come out and give a pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief. After completing the pre-trap proceedings, which are placed on record as Ex. P10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with mediators, P.W.1 and staff left the ACB office and reached Rama Nagar. The vehicles were stopped 100 yards before the accuse officer's office and thereafter he instructed P.W.1 and S.I. to get down from the vehicle and proceed towards the house of the accused officer. P.W.1 was instructed again that he should pay the bribe amount only on demand made by the accused officer and after acceptance of money, he should come out and give the pre-arranged signal. 4. At about 6.00 AM on 1.2.1999, P.W.1 went inside the residence of accused officer and on seeing him, the accused officer, asked him whether the amount was brought. P.W.1 replied in positive and gave Rs. 1,600/- to accused officer, which was received with his right hand and kept on his table. P.W.1 is said to have demanded for issuance of a receipt for Rs. 600/-, to which he replied that receipt will be sent by post. Thereafter, he came out of the residence of the accused officer and gave a pre-arranged signal as per the instructions given. On receiving the signal, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and other raid party members rushed towards the house of the accused officer. By the time they reached the house of the accused officer, P.W.1 and S.I. were found on the road, in front of the house of the accused officer. P.W.1 was asked to stay outside till he was called in. On entering the first floor of the house, they noticed a person wearing a lungi in the balcony, which is in front of the first floor of that building. P.W.4 disclosed his identity. P.W.1 was asked to stay outside till he was called in. On entering the first floor of the house, they noticed a person wearing a lungi in the balcony, which is in front of the first floor of that building. P.W.4 disclosed his identity. On hearing the same, the accused officer was stunned and speechless for some time, thereafter, disclosed his identity. When asked whether he has received any bribe amount before their arrival, the accused officer started rubbing his hands to his body. When he was instructed not to do so, accused officer is alleged to have revealed that he has taken Rs. 1,600/- from P.W.1. Thereafter, sodium carbonate solution was prepared in two glasses and when the hands of accused officer were dipped, the solution turned pink in colour. M.Os. 3 and 4 are respective solution bottles. The version of accused officer came to be recorded in the post trap proceedings, which is placed on record as Ex. P12. It is also said that after giving the statement, accused officer showed a wad of currency notes, which was kept on his table. On verification it was found that the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings tallied with the numbers on the currency notes, which were on the table. M.O.5 is the currency notes. Thereafter, P.W.1 was called in and was asked to narrate the events which took place from the time he left the trap party. The statement of P.W.1 was recorded in the post trap proceedings. The version of accused officer was confronted to P.W.1 and the explanation offered by him was also recorded. Thereafter, P.W.4 prepared a rough sketch of the scene which is placed on record as Ex. P11. The statement of wife of the accused officer was also recorded and the same was incorporated in Ex. P12. The accused officer was arrested and thereafter released on bail on executing a bond. 5. Thereafter, the house of the accused was also searched, but, no incriminating material was found. On 4.2.1999, a preliminary report was submitted to D.G., A.C.B., Hyderabad, and on 28.2.1999, P.W.4 filed a petition before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, to nominate a Magistrate for recording 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. 5. Thereafter, the house of the accused was also searched, but, no incriminating material was found. On 4.2.1999, a preliminary report was submitted to D.G., A.C.B., Hyderabad, and on 28.2.1999, P.W.4 filed a petition before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, to nominate a Magistrate for recording 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Accordingly, on 27.3.1999, the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After recording the statements of witnesses concerned and collecting all the necessary documents, handed over the file to one P. Rama Rao. Thereafter, one Sri M. Appa Rao completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet after obtaining the sanction under Ex. P19, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 115 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished and thereafter charges under Section 209 as referred to earlier came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs. P1 to P21, besides marking of M.Os. 1 to 9. After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. He examined D.W.1 in support of his version. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4, the trial Court held that the prosecution has successfully established the demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification for doing a favour of not registering any crimes against the vehicle of P.W.1 and his wife. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 7. Sri A. Viswanath, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the version of the prosecution that accused demanded money as illegal gratification for doing a favour is absolutely false. According to him, there was only one case registered, in which fine was already paid. Such being the position, question of demanding money to help P.W.1 would not arise. 7. Sri A. Viswanath, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the version of the prosecution that accused demanded money as illegal gratification for doing a favour is absolutely false. According to him, there was only one case registered, in which fine was already paid. Such being the position, question of demanding money to help P.W.1 would not arise. He further pleads though the F.I.R. speaks about accused officer making a demand on 24.1.1999 and 29.1.1999, but, the evidence of P.W.1 is silent with regard to the demand on 24.1.1999 and 29.1.1999. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 was to the effect that the accused officer demanded on 26.1.1999 and 28.1.1999, which is not the version set out in the First Information Report. In other words, his plea appears to be that when the dates of demand are not consistent, the entire fabric of the prosecution case collapses. He further contends that even in respect of the second case, charge-sheet was filed prior to the demand and hence the argument that money was demanded for doing an official favour is totally baseless. 8. The counsel further contends that the amount was collected towards registration fee and renewal fee and since P.W.1 has not paid the amount for a period of three years i.e., for the years 1996 to 1999 and if 100% penalty is to be imposed, the amount to be paid to the department would be Rs. 1,600/-, which tallies with the amount paid by P.W.1 to the accused officer. In other words, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount, which has been paid, was towards registration fee and renewal fee for a period of three years, including penalty at the rate of 100% and that it is not an amount paid towards bribe. He took us through various documents in support of his plea. 9. Sri S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent-State, would submit that the amount of Rs. 1,600/- includes the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- as maamool and Rs. 600/- towards registration and renewal fee for a period of three years. If really the amount was towards the renewal and registration fee, the plea of the accused should have been consistent all through. 1,600/- includes the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- as maamool and Rs. 600/- towards registration and renewal fee for a period of three years. If really the amount was towards the renewal and registration fee, the plea of the accused should have been consistent all through. Since the version set out in the post trap proceedings and the suggestions given to the witnesses shows that the accused officer has come forward with different version at different stages. In fact, it has been elicited in the evidence of witnesses that there was no need to pay any penalty. That being the position, it is urged that question of imposing 100% penalty would not arise. Apart from that, Sri Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB, would contend that there was no need for the Assistant Labour Officer to collect money for payment to the treasury, since the procedure contemplates as to who and where the amount has to be paid. Therefore, collecting of the amount by the accused officer himself for payment in the treasury being uncalled for, it has to be inferred that this amount was collected as bribe and thereafter the accused introduced a theory to suit his case. In view of the above, he would submit that conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court requires no interference. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused officer beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 11. In order to see as to whether the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused it would be just and proper to refer to the evidence of some of the witnesses and documents. 12. In order to constitute an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as to whether there was any demand for money and whether the amount accepted was as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration to do any favour. 13. In so far as the first aspect of the issue i.e., demand is concerned, as seen from the evidence available on record there are varying versions. 13. In so far as the first aspect of the issue i.e., demand is concerned, as seen from the evidence available on record there are varying versions. In the First Information Report given by P.W.1 on 30.1.1999 it was stated that on 24.1.1999 at 9.00 AM he went to the residence of the accused officer at Yelamanchili and met him. On seeing him, he seems to have told him as to why he did not come to him after paying the fine amount in the court and further commented that P.W.1 was not recognizing him as a Labour Officer. So saying, he is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as bribe to see that no cases are filed against him in future. According to him, out of the said amount, about Rs. 1,600/- will have to be remitted to the Government. As per Ex. P1, the second demand was on 29.1.1999 (Friday), again at his house at Yelamanchili. On that day, he is said to have reduced the bribe amount to Rs. 1,600/-, which is inclusive of Rs. 600/- to be paid to the Government. 14. From the First Information Report it appears that demands of bribe were on 24.1.1999 at 9.00 AM and on 29.1.1999 at 7.00 AM at his residence. 15. Coming to the 164 Cr.P.C. statement, which was recorded by the Magistrate, the version is to the effect that the demand was on 26.1.1999 wherein the accused officer demanded P.W.1 to bring Rs. 3,000/- and the next demand was on 28.1.1999 for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards maamool and Rs. 600/- towards fee. It has been mentioned that accused officer demanded bribe of Rs. 2,600/- and the amount to be paid to the Government is Rs. 1,600/-. It would be useful to extract the relevant portion of the cross-examination of P.W.1, wherein version of 164 Cr.P.C. is elicited, which is as under: "The Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (V M.M. VSP) recorded what I stated in 164 of Cr.P.C. statement, wherein it is stated that on 26.1.1999 I met the A.O., in his residence and he demanded me to pay Rs. 3,000/- for not to book any case and on 28.1.1999, I met the A.O. at his residence, and the A.O. demanded me to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards maamools and Rs. 600/- towards fee. 3,000/- for not to book any case and on 28.1.1999, I met the A.O. at his residence, and the A.O. demanded me to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards maamools and Rs. 600/- towards fee. It is true that I have stated before the Magistrate, Visakhapatnam that the A.O. demanded me Rs. 600/- towards fee and Rs. 2,600/- for not registering case. It is true that I have stated before the Magistrate, Visakhapatnam the date on which date Ex. P2 was recorded by the Dy. S.P., Visakhapatnam." 16. Coming to the evidence in Court, P.W.1 gives a go bye to what he has stated in the F.I.R. and he speaks about the first demand on 26.1.1999 and the second demand on 28.1.1999 toeing in line with 164 Cr.P.C. statement. However, in the cross-examination, he admits that the dates mentioned by him before the Court are incorrect and the dates mentioned in the F.I.R. alone are correct. The same is as under: "The A.O. did not demand any amount out of Rs. 3,000/- towards bribe on 26.1.1999. On 28.1.1999 for the first time the A.O. demanded me to pay the bribe of Rs. 1,000/-. In Ex. P2 it is not mentioned that the A.O., demanded me to pay Rs. 3,000/- on 26.1.1999 when I visited him at his residence and on 28.1.1999, when I visited the A.O. at his residence, he demanded me to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards MAMOOLS and Rs. 600/- towards fee to be levied by the Government in respect of the vehicle. The dates I mentioned in Ex. P2 F.I.R. statement on which the A.O. demanded bribe are correct. The dates I mentioned during my Chief Examination by the learned Spl. P.P. are not correct." 17. Further, the evidence referred to above, it is clear that the first demand was only on 28.1.1999 wherein the accused officer is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as bribe, but, there is no reference to demand on 28.1.1999 in the F.I.R. Therefore, in view of the above, there is any amount of doubt as to when the demand was made. 18. In so far as the acceptance of money is concerned, it is an admitted fact that P.W.1 was due to the Government, towards registration and renewal fee for a period of four years. 18. In so far as the acceptance of money is concerned, it is an admitted fact that P.W.1 was due to the Government, towards registration and renewal fee for a period of four years. This fact is admitted by P.W.1 in his evidence, which is as under: "It is true that the charge sheet was filed before the court at Yelamanchili that my wife failed to pay the registration and renewal fee under Motor Transport Workers Act from 1996 to 1999. That case also includes for not maintaining individual control book by the driver of the vehicle and for not issuing appointment letter to the employees by the employer. Registration fee and renewal fee are to be paid to the Government with regard to my vehicle and they were not paid by me under M.T.W. Act." "I was running my vehicle without paying the registration and renewal fees. I was aware that amount was to be paid to the Department towards Registration and Renewal and yet the same were not paid to the Department." 19. From the evidence of this witness it is very much clear that he was running the vehicle without paying registration and renewal fee for a period of four years i.e., from 1996 to 1996. The said version of P.W.1 gets corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses as well. P.W.2, who was working as Assistant Labour Officer, Circle-I, was asked to conduct inspection under Motor Vehicles Act, 1961. According to him, on 22.10.1998 at about 3.00 PM a van bearing No. AP 31 U 2437 was moving on NH 5 towards Tuni. He stopped the vehicle, inspected the same and submitted a report to Labour Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ex. P5 is the said report. The Labour Officer, on receipt of the report, directed the concerned Assistant Labour Officer to take action against that vehicle. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice was issued to the vehicle owner. Not being satisfied with the documents furnished, prosecution was sought to be initiated against the owner of the vehicle. The said vehicle belongs to the wife of P.W.1. In his evidence in chief he further states that the owner of the vehicle has to remit the amount in treasury by way of challan towards registration fee and renewal fee or penalty. After remitting the same, Form No. 1 was to be filled up by the employer. The said vehicle belongs to the wife of P.W.1. In his evidence in chief he further states that the owner of the vehicle has to remit the amount in treasury by way of challan towards registration fee and renewal fee or penalty. After remitting the same, Form No. 1 was to be filled up by the employer. He further deposed in the chief that cash cannot be paid to the Labour Officer and the Labour Officer cannot receive the same. But, however, in the cross-examination he gives a go by to the said version. According to him, his observations in the inspection report shows that registration fee and the renewal fee for the aforesaid vehicle was not paid for the years 1996 to 1999. A sum of Rs. 200/- has to be paid for a period of one year if the employer engages less than five employees. That amount of Rs. 200/- represents the registration fee and renewal fee for a period of one year. According to him, as per Rule 8 of Motor Vehicles Rules, penalty @ 100% can be imposed on failure to pay registration fee and renewal fee. Registration and renewal fee @ Rs. 200/- per year comes to Rs. 800/- for a period of four years from 1996 to 1999 and if 100% penalty is calculated on it, it comes to Rs. 1,600/-. It will be appropriate to extract the admissions in the cross-examination of P.W.2, which are as under: "My observation in my Inspection report is that the registration fee and renewal fee were not paid for the years 1996 to 1999. A sum of Rs. 200/- is to be paid for a period of one year if employer engages less than five employees. That amount of Rs. 200/- represents registration and renewal for a period of one year. As per Rule-VIII M.T.W. Rules penalty at the rate of 100% can be imposed on failure to pay renewal and registration fee. Registration fee and renewal fee at the rate of Rs. 200/- per year comes to Rs. 800/- for a period of four years from 1996 to 1999 and if 100% penalty is calculated on it, it comes to Rs. 1,600/- (Rs. 800/- + Rs. 800/- = Rs. 1,600/-)." 20. Registration fee and renewal fee at the rate of Rs. 200/- per year comes to Rs. 800/- for a period of four years from 1996 to 1999 and if 100% penalty is calculated on it, it comes to Rs. 1,600/- (Rs. 800/- + Rs. 800/- = Rs. 1,600/-)." 20. From the evidence of this witness it is very much clear that 100% penalty will be calculated if registration and renewal fee are not paid in view of Rule 8 of Motor Vehicles Rules. Since there is default in payment of registration and renewal fee for a period of four years and if 100% penalty is imposed for default in payment, the total amount would be Rs. 1,600/-, which is the amount paid to accused officer. 21. P.W.3 is the mediator who was present at the time when the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were prepared. In his evidence in chief he deposed about the complaint given, the verification of the contents of the complaint, explanation of the importance of phenolphthalein test, the instructions given to P.W.1 as to when the amount has to be paid and the trap party recovering the said amount from the table, apart from the sodium carbonate solution turning pink into colour when the hands of the accused officer were subjected to phenolphthalein test. But, one circumstance which is very much essential in this context is, the explanation offered by the accused officer at the time of post trap proceedings. His evidence categorically shows that when D.S.P. asked the accused officer as to how and why the money is on the table, the accused officer gave an explanation stating that he accepted a sum of Rs. 1,600/- towards registration and renewal of the van for the last four years from P.W.1. The explanation so offered was incorporated in the post-trap panchanama, which is placed on record as Ex. P12. It would be appropriate to extract that portion of evidence of P.W.3, which is as under: "When questioned by the Dy.-S.P. the A.O. stated that he accepted Rs. 1,600/- towards Registration and Renewal of the van for the last four years from P.W.1. The same was incorporated in the post trap proceedings. When asked by the DY.S.P. with regard to the amount the A.O. showed the amount lying in his table." 22. 1,600/- towards Registration and Renewal of the van for the last four years from P.W.1. The same was incorporated in the post trap proceedings. When asked by the DY.S.P. with regard to the amount the A.O. showed the amount lying in his table." 22. The version of the Accused Officer was also incorporated in the post-trap proceedings, which is as under: "When the D.S.P. questioned Sri K. Vidya Sagar about the taking of money from the complainant, he stated as follows: "I am working as Assistant Labour Officer, Yellamanchili. I booked a case for non-registration on the van of the complainant K. Rama Koti and it was charged in the Yellamanchili Court during 1998 and he has paid fine in the Court. I also charged for second offence on the same van for not registration in the court and it is pending in Yellamanchili Court. Today Sri K. Rama Koti came to me and gave Rs. 1,600/- towards the registration and renewal fee of Rs. 400/- per year for the last four years. I will remit challan towards registration and renewal fee. I did not take it as bribe from Sri K. Rama Koti" saying so Sri K. Vidya Sagar pointed out by showing a wad of hundred rupee currency notes on a small table located in the southern side of the front room." 23. P.W.3 in his cross-examination states as under: "It is true that the Dy. S.P. asked the A.O. twice on two different occasions whether he was in a receipt of amount from P.W.1 during the stage of post trap proceedings. The Dy. S.P. did not question the A.O. whether he has received any amount towards bribe or not. The A.O. asserted before the Dy. S.P. that he had received the amount from P.W.1 for Registration and renewal. The A.O. asserted before the Dy. S.P. that P.W.1 came and paid Rs. 1,600/- towards Registration and Renewal fee at Rs. 400/- per year for the last four years." 24. From the above answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3 it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused Officer asserted before the Dy. S.P. at the time of post-trap proceedings that he received the amount from P.W.1 towards registration and renewal fee. Further, the accused officer stated before Dy.S.P. that P.W.1 came and paid Rs. 1,600/- towards registration and renewal fee @ Rs. S.P. at the time of post-trap proceedings that he received the amount from P.W.1 towards registration and renewal fee. Further, the accused officer stated before Dy.S.P. that P.W.1 came and paid Rs. 1,600/- towards registration and renewal fee @ Rs. 400/- per year for the last four years. 25. Similarly, the Investigating Officer (P.W.4) in his evidence categorically admits as under: "When I enquired with the A.O. on our entering into his house, he stated to me that he has received Rs. 1,600/- towards Vehicle Registration Fee. As per the statement of P.W.1, the bribe to be given to the A.O. was Rs. 1,000/-. The A.O. has stated that he received Rs. 400/- per year and for the last four years towards registration and renewal fee and he would remit challan towards and renewal fee. He also stated during the course of post trap proceedings that the owner has to remit into the treasury and he has to bring the challan, but, sometimes he is collecting amounts direct from the owners and remitting it into the treasury." 26. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer also it is very much clear that the accused officer gave a spontaneous explanation immediately after the trap to the effect that he received the amount towards registration and renewal charges with 100% penalty and the amount so mentioned in the proceedings tallied with the evidence of P.W.1 that he has to pay a sum of Rs. 1,600/- to the Government. Therefore, plea of the accused that the amount was paid towards registration and renewal fee with 100% penalty cannot be doubted. 27. At this stage, Sri S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB, would contend that the admissions elicited in the evidence of P.W.4 show that in the instant case payment of penalty does not arise. This version spoken to by P.W.4 is based on the version of L.W.7 - P. Latchanna, the same is as under: "Witness volunteers payment of penalty does not arise in this case, as per the version of L.W.7-P. Latchanna." But, strangely, the prosecution did not examine the said Latchanna. On the other hand, the said Latchanna, who was working as Labour Officer-I Circle, Visakhapatnam at the relevant point of time, was examined as D.W.1. He, in his evidence, never stated that there was no necessity to collect penalty in the instant case. On the other hand, the said Latchanna, who was working as Labour Officer-I Circle, Visakhapatnam at the relevant point of time, was examined as D.W.1. He, in his evidence, never stated that there was no necessity to collect penalty in the instant case. He, in his evidence in chief, states as under: "5. Within thirty days from the date of purchase of Transport vehicle or from the date of registration of the Transport Vehicle with R.T.A. the employer has to get it registered under the provisions of Sec. 3 r/w Rule 4 under Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. Up to five workers, the Registration fee was Rs. 200/-. The Renewal is also Rs. 200/-. If employer fails to get the Transport vehicle registered under M.T.W. Act 1961, employer has got to pay the penalty of Rs. 200/- besides Rs. 200/- payable towards Registration fee. Calendar year for the purpose of Registration expires by 31st December of the calendar year. Renewal has to be completed before 31st October of the Calendar Year. In case the renewal of registration fee is not paid within the stipulated period the renewal fee has to be paid before 30th November of the Calendar year with 50% penalty. In case the renewal of registration fee is not paid by 30th November of the calendar year which has got to be paid with 100% i.e., Rs. 200/- as penalty besides Rs. 200/-. 6. A sum of Rs. 1,600/- was to be paid by the employer of Transport Vehicle bearing registration No. AP 31 U 2437 for 1996 to 1999 and the sum of Rs. 1,600/- includes penalty of Rs. 200/- being Non-Registration Fee for the year 1996. (Total Rs. 400/- = Rs. 200/- + Rs. 200/-). Rs. 200/- towards penalty for Non-Renewal for the year 1997, Rs. 200/- towards penalty for the non-Renewal for the year 1998, and Rs. 200/- towards penalty for the non-Renewal for the year 1999, as per the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet-Ex. P8." 28. Though D.W.1 was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing useful came to be elicited to show that the instant case is not one where penalty can be collected. Suggestions given to that effect were denied by him. 200/- towards penalty for the non-Renewal for the year 1999, as per the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet-Ex. P8." 28. Though D.W.1 was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing useful came to be elicited to show that the instant case is not one where penalty can be collected. Suggestions given to that effect were denied by him. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.1 falsifies the statement of the Investigating Officer that the payment of penalty does not arise in this case as per the version of Latchanna (D.W.1). Hence, the case of the prosecution that out of Rs. 1,600/-, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was accepted as gratification other than legal remuneration and a sum of Rs. 600/- was towards payment of charges has to be viewed with suspicion and the admissions elicited in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 creates a doubt in the prosecution case. 29. One other question which has been argued by learned Standing Counsel for ACB is that the appellant has no authority to accept money and remit it in treasury. According to him, it is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to remit the money in the treasury and submit Form-I. Though P.W.2, in his evidence in chief, speaks about the same, but, in the cross-examination he admits as under: "Generally, the employers or their employees will remit the amounts representing the renewal and Registration fee into treasury and they will submit the challans to the Asst. Labour Officer. I do not know if there is nothing wrong in receiving the amounts by the Asst. Labour Officer at the request of the employer to remit the money into Treasury through his attender in the interest of the department and on the assurance of the employer that he would get the application necessary filled up later. To my knowledge there were no instruction to the Asst. Labour Officer not to receive the cash from the employers representing the Registration and renewal fee under the M.T.W. Rules." 30. In view of the admissions, it is very much clear that there are no instructions to Assistant Labour Officer not to receive cash from the employers representing the registration and renewal fee under Motor Vehicles Rules and that there is nothing wrong in receiving the amount and paying it in the treasury. In view of the admissions, it is very much clear that there are no instructions to Assistant Labour Officer not to receive cash from the employers representing the registration and renewal fee under Motor Vehicles Rules and that there is nothing wrong in receiving the amount and paying it in the treasury. In fact, the case of the accused consistently had been that the said amount was received on the request made by P.W.1 to be remitted in the treasury, as it would be difficult for him to pay the same. 31. Dealing with the issue of explanation offered by the accused immediately after the trap, the Apex Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2006 SC 836 held as under: "The High Court did not consider the explanation offered by the appellant for the receipt of the money nor the previous enmity harboured by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 towards the appellant. Nor did it hold that the decision of the trial court was erroneous or perverse. Re-appreciating the very evidence (on which the trial court had reached the conclusion that the payment was not by way of an illegal gratification but was towards lease rent due by PW-6 and paid through PW-1), the High Court relying on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 concluded that the payment was by way of illegal gratification. In particular, it relied on the denial by PW-6 that he had sent any amount through PW-1, against the appellant. But the mere denial by PW-6 that he had sent the money through PW-1 cannot be a ground to hold the appellant guilty. If PWs.1, 2 and 6 had hatched a conspiracy to involve the appellant in a criminal case, naturally PW-6 would deny having sent the amount through PW-1. The explanation given by the appellant immediately after the incident clearly explains all the circumstances and raises not only a reasonable but very serious doubt about the amount having been received by him as illegal gratification." 32. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above and having regard to the fact that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt as to whether there was any demand for money and whether the amount accepted was as illegal gratification to do any favour, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 33. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above and having regard to the fact that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt as to whether there was any demand for money and whether the amount accepted was as illegal gratification to do any favour, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 33. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant - accused officer, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in C.C. No. 115 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB cases-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, by judgment dated 25.9.2006, are set aside. The appellant - accused officer is acquitted and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to appellant - accused officer. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.