JUDGMENT: Questioning the order dated 21-05-2008 in W.C. Case No. 20/2004 passed by the Authority under Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur (for short, 'the Authority'), the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 2. Respondent No. 1 is wife, respondent No. 2 is daughter and respondent No. 3 is mother of the deceased Gitta Gangadhar and they filed the above case claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-for the pre-mature death of the latter. The averments made in the claim application are that on 18-12-2003 at about 8.30 a.m., one Madhusudana Shetty brought a lorry bearing No. AP 04 T 4005 to transport groundnuts from Batalapally to Anantapur. The lorry was parked on cement road, near Varalakshmi Hotel. After finishing of loading, the said Madhusudana Shetty asked the deceased to instruct the driver to take the lorry in reverse up to his godown. The deceased and other coolies went to the lorry deceased and some others were loading groundnuts one Gitta Gangadhar who is husband, father and son of respondent under the uestioning the conviction and sentence passed by learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (for short, 'the Court below'), in C.C.No. 9 of 2004 dated 30-03-2007, the Accused-Officer (for short, 'A.O.') preferred the present appeal. The appellant was tried by the Court below under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). After completion of trial, the Court below convicted the appellant-A.O. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, under both counts. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The summary of the allegations made against the appellant-A.O. is as follows: The appellant-A.O. is working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Macherla, Guntur District. P.W.1-Shaik Naser Ahmed is running a Cinema Hall under the name and style of Neelima Deluxe Theatre in Macherla Town and he is the owner of the said theatre. He is running the said theatre about seven years prior to giving of the report. He is getting permit every year from Commercial Tax Department, which is being renewed every year. On 06-03-2003, P.W.1 made an application for renewal of the permit for the year 2003-04. In that connection, P.W.1 met the appellant-A.O. on 04-04-2003. He is running the said theatre about seven years prior to giving of the report. He is getting permit every year from Commercial Tax Department, which is being renewed every year. On 06-03-2003, P.W.1 made an application for renewal of the permit for the year 2003-04. In that connection, P.W.1 met the appellant-A.O. on 04-04-2003. It is alleged that the appellant-A.O. demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/-towards bribe for renewing the permit but P.W.1 refused to accede the said demand. Again on 28-04-2003, P.W.1 met the appellant-A.O. and requested for renewal of the permit and the appellant-A.O. reiterated the said demand. As P.W.1 is not interested in paying the bribe amount, he approached the office of P.W.7-Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Vijayawada, on 30-04-2003 at about 10.30 a.m. and gave Ex.P3 report. P.W.7 endorsed the same to P.W.8-Range Inspector – III, to verify the antecedents of the appellant-A.O. and P.W.1, who caused discreet inquiries and submitted his report by endorsing the same on Ex.P3 on 01-05-2003. Thereafter, P.W.7 registered a case in crime No. 20/RCT-ACB-VJA/2003, Vijayawada Range, under Sections 7 of the Act. Thereafter, P.W.7 submitted original FIR to the concerned Court. Ex.P16 is original FIR. On 01-05-2003 at about 11.45 a.m., P.W.7 secured mediators through P.W.8. As per the instructions of P.W.7, P.W.1 attended the office of P.W.7 on 01-05-2003 who introduced the mediators to P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.7 enquired P.W.1 about the proposed bribe amount, for which P.W.1 produced five hundred rupee notes (2) and hundred rupee notes (10), totaling Rs.2,000/-. On the instructions of P.W.7, P.W.1 gave the said amount to the mediators who verified serial numbers of both the denominations and noted them in panchanama and handed over them to his attender. Thereafter, the currency notes were tainted with Sodium Carbonate solution and pre-trap proceedings-Ex.P12 has been prepared in the presence of the mediators. He also collected samples of Sodium Carbonate powder in separate packets and they were properly packed, labeled and sealed and attested by P.W.7 and the mediators. M.Os.1 and 2 are the said samples. P.W.7 gave instructions to P.W.1. On the same day at about 1 p.m., P.W.7 along with his staff, mediators and P.W.1 proceeded in two vehicles and reached the office of the appellant-A.O. at Macherla, Guntur District. M.Os.1 and 2 are the said samples. P.W.7 gave instructions to P.W.1. On the same day at about 1 p.m., P.W.7 along with his staff, mediators and P.W.1 proceeded in two vehicles and reached the office of the appellant-A.O. at Macherla, Guntur District. P.W.7 instructed P.W.1 to proceed to the office of the appellant-A.O. and informed him to pay the amount on demand and after acceptance, P.W.1 has to give pre-arranged signal. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the office and handed over the tainted bribe amount to the appellant-A.O. on his demand. Immediately, P.W.1 came out and gave a pre-arranged signal. At about 5.20 p.m., the trap laying party went into the office and found the appellant-A.O. attending to his duties. P.W.7 disclosed his identity and identity of other trap laying party. Thereafter, P.W.7 conducted test of the hands of the appellant-A.O. which yielded positive result. Immediately, the appellant-A.O. produced wad of currency notes from his left side pant pocket. Thereafter, the trap laying party verified the serial numbers of the currency and found tallied as per the numbers mentioned in Ex.P12. Thereafter, the left side pant pocket of the appellant was also subjected to Sodium Carbonate solution test which also proved positive. P.W.7 prepared Ex.P14-post trap panchanama in the presence of the mediators. After completion of investigation and after obtaining sanction of prosecution-Ex.P15, P.W.8 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P16 apart from marking M.Os.1 to 8. P.W.1 is de factocomplainant; P.W.2 is Junior Assistant, working in the office of A.C.T.O., Macherla; P.W.3 is C.T.O., Macherla; P.W.4 is mediator for pre-trap proceedings-Ex.P12 and also post trap proceedings-Ex.P14; P.W.5 is Senior Assistant, working in the office of C.T.O., Macherla; P.W.6 is Section Officer, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, who speaks to the sanction of prosecution vide Ex.P15; P.W.7-Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Vijayawada, who is trap laying officer and P.W.8-Inspector, A.C.B., Range-III, Vijayawada, who laid charge sheet. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant-A.O. that P.W.1 is running a Cinema Theatre and he obtained permit which is being renewed every year. When P.W.1 makes an application for renewal, he has to submit Form-B obtained from revenue authorities. Along with the application dated 06-03-2003 submitted by P.W.1, he has not furnished Form-B. As such, question of renewing permit does not arise. When P.W.1 makes an application for renewal, he has to submit Form-B obtained from revenue authorities. Along with the application dated 06-03-2003 submitted by P.W.1, he has not furnished Form-B. As such, question of renewing permit does not arise. He also contends that P.W.1 has to pay an amount of Rs.8,516/-towards arrears of tax. As such, unless P.W.1 clears the arrears of tax, question of renewing the permit does not arise. It is his further contention that the amount of Rs.2,000/-paid by P.W.1 is towards part of the arrears of tax. As such, the amount received by the appellant-A.O. cannot be treated as bribe. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant-A.O. relies on the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 in his cross-examination specifically stated as follows: "I gave the amount of Rs.2,000/- on the date of alleged trap towards arrears of tax to A.O. It is true that A.O. asked me to take receipt for Rs.2,000/- immediately but I came out stating that the movement arrears of tax payment is completed then only I will take the receipt." In view of the above admission made by P.W.1, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-A.O. that the amount recovered from the appellant-A.O. cannot be treated as bribe and it is only paid by P.W.1 towards arrears of tax. P.W.3, who is Commercial Tax Officer, Macherla, has also admitted in his further cross-examination that arrears of tax can be accepted on part payment basis also. It also the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-A.O. that the appellant-A.O. made spontaneous explanation stating that the amount of Rs.2,000/-received by him was towards part payment of arrears of tax from P.W.1. The said aspect was also recorded by P.W.7 in posttrap proceedings. Basing on all these aspects, learned counsel pleads that the appellant-A.O. rebutted the presumption and as such, he is entitled for acquittal. 6. On the other hand, Smt. A.Gayathri Rerddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, contends that the appellant-A.O. received the money towards bribe and the phenolphthalein test was proved positive and the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 7 clinchingly established the guilt of the appellant-A.O. beyond all reasonable doubt. She also contends that the prosecution is able to prove the demand as well as acceptance in the case on hand. She also contends that the prosecution is able to prove the demand as well as acceptance in the case on hand. In support of her contentions, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the appellant-A.O. already prepared renewal form and renewed the permit from 01-04-2003 to 31-03-2004 and he also singed it on 01-04-2003; that the said document is marked as Ex.P8 and that therefore the appellant-A.O. received the money of Rs.2,000/-towards bribe for issuing Ex.P8. So far as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, it is contended by learned Special Public Prosecutor that P.W.1 though supported the version of prosecution in chief examination, because of time gap he was won over by the appellant-A.O. and therefore he made a statement in his cross-examination that he paid Rs.2,000/-towards arrears of tax. So far as the evidence of P.W.3 is concerned, learned Special Public Prosecutor contends that he, being colleague of the appellant-A.O., naturally tries to support his colleague. She, therefore, pleads for dismissal of the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below as the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant-A.O. beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. This Court has gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 5 and 7 and scrutinized the same. Though P.W.1 supported the case of prosecution in chief examination, it was specifically elicited by him in cross-examination that the amount of Rs.2,000/-was paid towards arrears of tax to the appellant-A.O. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that without waiting for receipt to be issued by the appellant-A.O., P.W.1 hurriedly went out and gave pre-arranged signal and immediately, the trap laying party caught the appellant-A.O. A close look at the post trap proceedings-Ex.P14, P.W.1 specifically stated that the appellant-A.O. gave spontaneous explanation stating that he received the money from P.W.1 towards arrears of tax. Though learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that Ex.P8 was already prepared and signed by the appellant-A.O. and therefore it can be presumed that the appellant-A.O. received the bribe amount only for issuance of Ex.P8, this Court is not inclined to accept such contention. If really the appellant-A.O. received the said amount towards bribe, he would have given Ex.P8 to P.W.1 and he will not keep the same with him having received the bribe amount. If really the appellant-A.O. received the said amount towards bribe, he would have given Ex.P8 to P.W.1 and he will not keep the same with him having received the bribe amount. Viewed from any angle, the explanation offered by the appellant-A.O. is more probable in the case, particularly with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and Ex.P14. As such, the appellant-A.O. is entitled for benefit of doubt. 8. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded in C.C.No. 9 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, dated 30-03-2007. The appellant-A.O. is acquitted of the charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The fine amount paid by the appellant-A.O. shall be refunded to him. The bail bonds of the appellant-A.O. shall stand cancelled. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.