JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.12 of 2002, the sole accused filed the present Criminal Appeal. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. By its judgment dated 19.8.2006, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused officer under both the counts and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months under each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. 2. The substance of the charge against the against the accused officer is that on 05.02.2001 at 10.30 AM the accused is said to have demanded an amount of Rs.2,500/- as bribe from one Avutu Brahmanandareddy of Tumuluru Village for issuance of a certificate of license in his favour and pursuant there to, accepted the same on 20.02.2001. The said amount was recovered from a diary, kept on the table of the accused officer. 3. The facts in issue are as under : There was one fertilizer shop in the name of the father of P.W.1 at Tumuluru village. P.W.1 intended to obtain fertilizer license in his name and accordingly submitted an application to Agricultural Officer of Kollipara Mandal on 27.12.2000. Along with the application, he enclosed a challan for Rs.1,250/-, xerox copies of rent agreement and Form-O. Ex.P1 is the said application. Ex.P2 is the challan and Ex.P3 is the proforma of Form-A application. While Ex.P4 is the Form-O submitted by the neighbouring businessmen, Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of registered sale deeds. The Agricultural Officer at Kollipara Mandal is said to have recommended the application of P.W.1 and forwarded the same to the accused officer at Tenali for issuance of license to carry on fertilizer business. On 29.01.2001, the accused officer returned the application on the ground that certain required papers were not enclosed. P.W.1 claims to have complied with the objections raised by the accused officer and re-submitted his application on the same day, i.e., on 29.01.2001. Ex.P6 is the xerox copy of the said application. A week thereafter, P.W.1 met the Agricultural Officer, Kollipara and enquired about his recommendation and for issuance of fertilizer license, to which he replied that he did not receive any recommendation from the accused officer. Ex.P6 is the xerox copy of the said application. A week thereafter, P.W.1 met the Agricultural Officer, Kollipara and enquired about his recommendation and for issuance of fertilizer license, to which he replied that he did not receive any recommendation from the accused officer. Two days thereafter, he again met the Agricultural Officer at Kollipara, but to no avail. Thereafter, he went to the office of the accused officer, Tenali on 10.02.2001, but could not meet him as he was on tour. Subsequently thereafter, he met the accused officer, who demanded bribe of Rs.2,500/-for issuance of fertilizer licence. Though P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount, the accused officer is said to have reiterated his demand. As P.W.1 was reluctant to pay the bribe amount, he came down to Vijayawada and presented a report-Ex.P7, which is in his handwriting, to P.W.12, the Dy.S.P., A.C.B. on 19.02.2001. On receipt of the same, P.W.12 endorsed the same to P.W.13 to cause discrete enquiries about the accused officer and P.W.1 and to submit his report. Pursuant thereto, P.W.13 caused discrete enquiry and submitted a report by the next day morning. 4. After obtaining oral permission from higher authorities to lay a trap, P.W.12 sent a requisition to C.T.O., Benz Circle, to spare the services of two officers to act as mediators. He registered a case under crime No.4 of 2001 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and submitted the original F.I.R. to the Court. Ex.P25 is the original F.I.R. On the next day, i.e., on 20.02.2001, the mediators -P.W.7 and one V.Narendra Kumar attended the office of P.W.12, where they were introduced to P.W.1, who came there along with the proposed bribe amount. The mediators were asked to verify the contents of F.I.R. and also about the genuineness of the report given by P.W.1. The mediators went through the said report and P.W.1 also asserted that the contents of the report are true and correct. The two mediators put their initials on the carbon copy of the F.I.R. in token of their verification. On the request of P.W.12, the bribe amount was produced by P.W.1, which consists of ten Rs.100/-notes and three Rs.500/-notes. The numbers on the currency notes were noted down in a mahazar and thereafter the importance of phenolphthalein test was explained to the mediators and P.W.1. On the request of P.W.12, the bribe amount was produced by P.W.1, which consists of ten Rs.100/-notes and three Rs.500/-notes. The numbers on the currency notes were noted down in a mahazar and thereafter the importance of phenolphthalein test was explained to the mediators and P.W.1. A demonstration of the same was also conducted before the mediators and P.W.1. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied to currency notes and the same was put in the shirt pocket of P.W.1. P.W.1 was instructed to give the bribe amount to the person on his demand only and in case he receives the same, to come out of the office and give a signal by wiping his face with hand kerchief. P.W.12 collected sodium carbonate powder and also phenolphthalein power in two separate packets, which are placed on record as M.Os.1 and 2. 5. At about 2.15 PM, the entire trap party proceeded in one car and jeep to Tenali and reached near the vicinity of the office of the accused officer at 3.15 PM. The vehicles were stopped and all of them got down from the respective vehicles. P.W.1 was instructed to proceed towards the office, reiterating the earlier instructions in respect of the demand, acceptance and relay of pre-arranged signal. At about 4.10 PM, they received a signal from P.W.1 and accordingly, the trap party members rushed into the office of the accused officer, which is located in the first floor of the building. They saw one person sitting in the office of the Assistant Director, Agriculture. P.W.12 introduced himself to the said person and ascertained the identity of the said person and found him to be the accused officer. P.W.12 also introduced trap party members and vice-versa. 6. On instructions of P.W.12, one Police Constable prepared sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and when accused officer dipped the fingers of both hands into the solution, there was no change in colour of the solution. When questioned about the tainted amount, the accused officer stated that he has no knowledge about the bribe amount and his version was reduced into writing by one of the mediators. Then, P.W.12 called P.W.1 and questioned him as to what happened in between himself and the accused officer. His version was reduced into writing by one of the mediators. When questioned about the tainted amount, the accused officer stated that he has no knowledge about the bribe amount and his version was reduced into writing by one of the mediators. Then, P.W.12 called P.W.1 and questioned him as to what happened in between himself and the accused officer. His version was reduced into writing by one of the mediators. P.W.1 stated before the mediators, that when he offered the bribe amount, accused officer instructed him to keep the bribe amount in the diary and accordingly, he placed the amount in the diary. On further enquiry, the accused officer is said to have opened the diary by himself and showed the wad of currency notes. The mediators took out the currency notes, verified the serial numbers of the notes and found them to be same with those mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings. An amount of Rs.2,500/- was seized, which is placed on record as M.O.3. The sodium carbonate solution test, with the aid of cotton swab, was conducted on the pages of diary, which came in contact with the tainted amount and the same turned pink in colour. Ex.P11 is the diary. On a request made by P.W.12, the accused officer produced the file relating to the application of P.W.1. Exs.P1 to P6 are relevant papers relating to the application of P.W.1 which were seized under Ex.P18. A rough sketch of the scene was prepared, which is marked as Ex.P19. Ex.P20 is the post-trap proceedings. The accused was arrested and released on bail. Further investigation in this case was conducted by P.W.13, who examined the witnesses, collected the material documents and later on, filed the charge-sheet, which was taken on file as C.C. No.12 of 2002 by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, at Vijayawada. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished and thereafter, charges, 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. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. He examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2 in support of his plea and also marked through these witnesses, Exs.X1 to X13. Out of the thirteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 did not support the prosecution case and were treated hostile by the prosecution. In view of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 7, 12 and 13, which amply established demand and acceptance of money as bribe, the trial court convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 8. Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the accused officer has either demanded or accepted any bribe. He took me through the evidence of P.W.1 to show that his evidence is inconsistent with regard to the date of demand. According to him in one portion of the evidence, P.W.1 deposed about demand being made by the accused officer around 10.02.2001, while in the later portion he speaks about the demand being made on 05.02.2001. He further submits that there is enough evidence on record to show that the accused officer was not in the office on 05.02.2001. Therefore, his plea prima facie appears to be, that when the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, the entire fabric of the prosecution case collapses and the accused is entitled for acquittal on that score alone. Even otherwise he would submit that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused has accepted the money. The evidence of the mediator and the Investigating Officer would show that the phenolphthalein test conducted to fingers of both hands turned negative and the money was said to have been recovered from a diary. According to the learned Senior Counsel, diary was there on the table and P.W.1, who reached the office prior to the arrival of the accused officer from tour, planted the money in the said diary. According to the learned Senior Counsel, diary was there on the table and P.W.1, who reached the office prior to the arrival of the accused officer from tour, planted the money in the said diary. Therefore, according to him, the immediate explanation given by the accused officer that he did not accept any bribe requires to be accepted, more so, when the phenolphthalein test is negative and there is no evidence on record to show that this diary was brought along with the accused officer. 9. He further pleads that the prosecution failed to verify the antecedents of the accused officer and P.W.1 before registering a crime. Apart from that, he also contends that, there was no official favour pending with the accused officer for demanding the bribe amount, which fact is to the knowledge of P.W.1. 10. On the other hand, Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor, would contend that P.W.1, in his evidence, categorically deposed that due to lapse of time, he could not correctly mention the date, but, after seeing Ex.P7-report, he categorically stated the demand was on 05.02.2001 and though no time was given, the same will not be of any consequence, as the contents and signature of the report were admitted by P.W.1. He would further contend that the evidence of P.W.1 also discloses keeping of the bribe amount in the diary of the accused officer at his instance. The cross-examination done does not anywhere demolish his version. Merely because the attender, who accompanied the accused officer, did not support the prosecution case with regard to bringing of the diary along with the accused officer, does not by itself make the entire case suspicious. In other words, his argument is that the prosecution has successfully proved the demand and acceptance of money as bribe. In fact, it is pleaded that the motive, as suggested by the accused officer, is far from truth, as the grievance, if any, was against the officer superior to the accused officer and not against the accused officer. Therefore, if a false case was to be foisted, it should have been only against the officer superior to the accused officer, but, definitely not against the accused officer. Therefore, if a false case was to be foisted, it should have been only against the officer superior to the accused officer, but, definitely not against the accused officer. Having regard to the documents, namely, Exs.X1 to X13, coupled with the evidence of defence witnesses, it only stands to establish that the accused officer was there in the office on 05.02.2001 and he came to the office at 4.00 PM on 20.02.2001. Therefore, the argument that he was not present on the date of demand cannot be accepted. In view of the above, he would submit that the findings arrived at by the trial court requires no interference. 11. 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 offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 12. In order to appreciate the rival arguments it would be necessary to refer to the evidence available on record. It is well established principle of law that in order to prove offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove demand and acceptance of money and existence of an official favour for accepting the money. 13. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, as observed earlier, the prosecution has to prove three main ingredients, namely, that there was demand by the accused officer, acceptance of money and whether there was any favour pending before the accused officer for demanding money. In so far as the demand is concerned, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of the P.Ws.1, 7 and 12. Before going into the said aspect it has to be seen whether there was a valid sanction for initiation of the prosecution. Though the learned Senior Counsel would contend that there was no valid sanction, but, however, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.6, coupled with Ex.P15, shows that the sanction order seeking prosecution of the accused officer came to be issued after considering the material available on record. In other words, it can be said that there was application of mind by the authorities prior to issuance of sanction order. In other words, it can be said that there was application of mind by the authorities prior to issuance of sanction order. It may be true that the explanation submitted by the accused officer was not considered, but, still the material on record show a prima facie case against the accused officer, which made the authorities to issue the sanction order. 14. The second point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused officer beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused officer for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused officer has accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- from P.W.1 for himself and the same was not a remuneration to which he is legally entitled to. In order to prove the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is to be established that the accused officer by incorrect or illegal means obtained for himself a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage so as to come to a conclusion that he has committed an offence of criminal misconduct as a public servant. 15. The defence of the accused officer in so far as the demand is concerned, the accused officer was on camp on the alleged dates of demand and by the time he came to the office, P.W.1, who was present in his chamber, kept the tainted amount in his diary. In order to prove that the money was kept without his knowledge in the diary, which was on the table, the accused officer examined D.W.3. D.W.3, who also claims to have gone to the office on that day, noticed P.W.1 sitting in front of the table of the accused officer. According to D.W.3, he claims to have gone to the office of the accused officer to meet the accused officer in respect of some license. (A) Before dealing with the demand and acceptance of money, it would be appropriate to examine the issue as to whether there was any motive for P.W.1 to implicate the accused officer. According to D.W.3, he claims to have gone to the office of the accused officer to meet the accused officer in respect of some license. (A) Before dealing with the demand and acceptance of money, it would be appropriate to examine the issue as to whether there was any motive for P.W.1 to implicate the accused officer. According to the accused officer, P.W.1 was under the impression that the accused officer is responsible for some problems in the fertilizers shop being run by his father through P.W.2 and only with the said grouse he gave the report. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, father of P.W.1 was running a fertilizer shop under the name and style of M/s.Sambasive General Stores at Kollipara. The evidence on record is to the effect that the subordinate of Assistant Director of Agriculture by name G.Lakshmana Kumar (P.W.2) visited the shop and found some irregularities. In that connection, a panchanama vide Ex.X12 was prepared on 12.01.2001 and samples of maize were seized from his shop. When the said samples were sent to the laboratory, they were found to be spurious. At that time, P.W.1 presented an application seeking a license in his name for starting a new fertilizer shop. The said application, which was presented on 27.12.2000, was returned as it was not having the necessary documents and that it was not presented through proper channel. Later on, it was presented through Agricultural Officer at Kollipara on 29.01.2001, which was forwarded to the Agricultural Officer on 30.01.2001 under Ex.P10. The endorsement made on the said application show that the said application was returned, as the procedure contemplated for processing the application was not followed. In other words, it can be said that the first application was presented directly to the accused officer thinking that he was competent to issue the license, but the same was returned, whereby the application was forwarded through Agricultural Officer at Kollipara. At this stage, it is to be noted that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicate that though the license of the shop at Kollipara was in the name of the father of P.W.1, but, it was P.W.1, who was looking after the business. At this stage, it is to be noted that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicate that though the license of the shop at Kollipara was in the name of the father of P.W.1, but, it was P.W.1, who was looking after the business. At this stage it is required to be noted that the samples of maize, which was seized from the shop of the father of P.W.1, were found to be substandard on 16.02.2001 and a letter was addressed to the Agricultural Officer enclosing the original documents. Therefore, the alleged motive for foisting a false case appears to be incorrect for the reason that if really there was any motive for P.W.1 to foist a false case, it should be against P.W.2, who seized the samples and the record from the shop of the father of P.W.1 and sent it to the accused officer on 16.02.2001 for further action vide Ex.X13. Therefore, the motive, as suggested by the accused officer, for foisting a false case cannot be accepted. (B) The second issue, which arises for consideration and which, in my view, to be dealt with before dealing with the plea of demand and acceptance is, as to whether there was any favour pending before the accused officer on the date of demand and trap. The evidence of P.W.1, coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer, show, Ex.P1 application of P.W.1 was pending in the office of the accused officer, who is the competent officer to grant fertilizer license. The Agricultural Officer advised P.W.1 to meet the accused officer personally as he did not receive the sanction of license from the office of the accused officer. P.W.1, in his evidence, categorically deposed about he going to the office of the accused officer couple of times and also meeting the accused not only on 05.02.2001, but also on 17.02.2001 and on that the accused officer demanding bribe amount. If really there was nothing in the hands of the accused officer to do a favour, there was no need for the Agricultural Officer at Kollipara to advice P.W.1 to meet the accused officer or forward Ex.P1 application along with the documents to the accused officer. Further, immediately after the trap it was the accused officer who produced Exs.P1 to P6, the documents relating to the application of P.W.1 from his custody. Further, immediately after the trap it was the accused officer who produced Exs.P1 to P6, the documents relating to the application of P.W.1 from his custody. These facts not only get corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 7 and 12, but also the report-Ex.P7 lodged by P.W.1 and also the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P8. Therefore, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that there was no official favour pending with the accused officer as on the date of demand and trap cannot be accepted. (C) The next question would be whether there was any demand on the dates as alleged in the report. According to the prosecution, the accused officer is said to have demanded payment of bribe on 05.02.2001 and again on 17.02.2001. The plea of the accused officer is that on both these dates he was not in the office and as such the evidence of P.W.1, even assuming it to be consistent, is false. In other words, the plea of the accused officer is that he was on tour on 05.02.2001 in his office jeep; attended grama sabha in Chakrayapalem, Chemudupadu, Duggirala, Tumuluru to select beneficiaries of Anthyodaya scheme. He also claims to have participated in the meeting at M.P.D.Os. office at Kollipara. While prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 7 and 12 & Exs.P1 to 7, 8,11,17 and 20 to prove their case, the defence relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 and Exs.X3,6,8 and Ex.P11. P.W.1, in his evidence stated that as there was no proper response from the Agricultural officer at Kollipara about his application, which was forwarded to the accused officer, he went to Tenali to meet the accused officer personally. According to him, around 10.02.2001 he went to the office of the accused officer, but was not able to meet him as he was on tour. Two days thereafter, he again went to the office of the accused officer, met him personally and enquired about his pending application for issuance of fertilizer license. On that, the accused officer is said to have demanded bribe of Rs.2,500/-for issuance of fertilizer license. Though P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the amount, the accused officer demanded the money and thereafter, lodged a report on 19.02.2001. From this portion of evidence of P.W.1 it appears that the demands were on 10.02.2001 and 12.02.2001. On that, the accused officer is said to have demanded bribe of Rs.2,500/-for issuance of fertilizer license. Though P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the amount, the accused officer demanded the money and thereafter, lodged a report on 19.02.2001. From this portion of evidence of P.W.1 it appears that the demands were on 10.02.2001 and 12.02.2001. But, however, the subsequent portion of the evidence goes to show that due to lapse of time he could not remember the dates of demand as stated by him in chief and thereafter on seeing the contents of Ex.P7, witness categorically states that the demand was on 05.02.2001 and 17.02.2001. It is also to be noted here, this variation in dates, in my view, may not go to the root of the matter, for the reason that P.W.1 in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor admits that the contents of Ex.P7 report are true and correct. It will be useful to extract the same, which is as under : “It is true that the mediators have gone through the contents of the copy of Ex.P7 and asked me about the genuineness thereof and I asserted before them that the contents of my report are true and correct.” Further, in the cross-examination of the accused officer he categorically admits that he met the accused officer on 05.02.2001 and that he was alone when he met him. It will be useful to extract the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the accused officer, which are as under : “On 5.2.2001 I met the A.O. in his office. I alone met A.O. on that day. When I met A.O. he was alone.” It is no doubt true that realizing the mistake done in asking such question, another question was posed about his meeting the accused officer on 05.02.2001, but the same was denied by him. Further, in the next sentence he again admits to have met the accused officer on 17.2.2001 when he was in office room. The relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.1 is as under : “On 17.2.2001 I alone met the A.O. when he was in office room.” Things would have been different had such answers are not elicited from the evidence of P.W.1. The relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.1 is as under : “On 17.2.2001 I alone met the A.O. when he was in office room.” Things would have been different had such answers are not elicited from the evidence of P.W.1. But, when the accused officer himself has elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 about P.W.1 meeting the accused officer on 05.02.2001 and 17.02.2001, the plea, which is now taken, that the evidence of P.W.1 in chief is false cannot be accepted. Apart from that, as observed by me earlier, P.W.1 is not disputing the contents of Ex.P7 report wherein he categorically stated about he meeting the accused officer on 05.02.2001 at 10.30 AM and on 17.02.2001 at his office, wherein on both the dates accused officer is said to have demanded P.W.1 to pay a bribe of Rs.2,500/-. Apart from that, Ex.P8, 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1, though not a substantive piece of evidence, but can be used to test the maker, it is evident that in the said statement also he deposed about meeting the accused officer on 05.02.2001 and 17.02.2001. Therefore, the argument of the learned senior counsel that the accused officer never met P.W.1 on those two days may not be correct. Further, as observed by me earlier, P.W.1 met the accused officer on those two days and on both the days he demanded bribe of Rs.2,500/- for doing an official favour. At this stage it would be necessary to discuss the material relied upon by the accused, namely, Exs.X3, 6, 7 and Ex.P11, coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 along with Exs.X4 and X5, to show that he was not in the office on 05.02.2001 and 17.02.2001 and that P.W.1 has not met the accused officer on those two days. Ex.X1 is the Akshara Deepthi Minutes Book which refers to tours from 02.10.2000 to 29.11.2003 and the same was maintained in the office of M.P.D.O., Kollipara. Ex.X3 is dated 5.2.2001 which shows accused officer holding a meeting as a Nodal Officer from 3.00 PM on 05.02.2001 (Ex.X1 is the relevant page). Ex.X6 is the log book of the jeep bearing No.AAG 9114 from 01.01.1998 to 26.12.2001, while Ex.X8 is Tour Diary of the accused officer from 01.01.2000 to 28.02.2001. Ex.X6 shows that the accused officer reached Tenali at 8.30 AM and returned at 10.30 PM on 05.02.2001. Ex.X6 is the log book of the jeep bearing No.AAG 9114 from 01.01.1998 to 26.12.2001, while Ex.X8 is Tour Diary of the accused officer from 01.01.2000 to 28.02.2001. Ex.X6 shows that the accused officer reached Tenali at 8.30 AM and returned at 10.30 PM on 05.02.2001. Relying on these exhibits, learned Senior Counsel would contend that P.W.1 could not have met the accused officer on that day. At a first blush the argument of the learned Senior Counsel appeared to be quite convincing, but on a close perusal of the exhibits proved to be otherwise. Ex.X8, which is the tour diary of the accused officer, would show that the entries in the said diary were made by the accused officer himself. As per the said entries, he left for camp to some villages on 05.02.2001 and came back. It also disclose that on the said day he traveled about 72 K.Ms. in his jeep. Further, a reading of Ex.X8 also shows that the accused officer, who made the entries, is in the habit of noting down the timings of his journey. Ex.X6 is the Log Book of the jeep which shows that vehicle traveled 48 K.Ms. from 8.10 AM to 10.30 PM on 05.02.2001. However, there are some strikings and corrections with regard to the distance traveled. Prima facie, the counsel relied upon these two documents, more particularly Exs.X8 and X6 to show that on 05.02.2011 the accused officer was on tour from 8.10 AM to 10.30 PM, meaning thereby that P.W.1 could not have met him on that day. But, at this stage, it will be useful to refer to the entries made by the accused officer himself in Ex.P11-diary, which was seized at the time of trap and found on the table of the accused officer. While Ex.P11 was said to have been seized at the time of trap from the table of the accused officer, Ex.P18 was summoned from the office of the accused officer during the course of trial. It is to be noted that the contents in Ex.P11 are not disputed by the accused officer. The cross-examination made does not anywhere suggest disputing either seizure of the documents or the entries made therein. A perusal of the contents of Ex.P11 show that the accused officer traveled a distance of 72 K.Ms. on that day and that he returned back to the office. The cross-examination made does not anywhere suggest disputing either seizure of the documents or the entries made therein. A perusal of the contents of Ex.P11 show that the accused officer traveled a distance of 72 K.Ms. on that day and that he returned back to the office. In order to test the veracity of the contents of Ex.X3 and X4 it will be appropriate to refer to the evidence of D.W.1, who was working as M.P.D.O., Kollipara. His evidence goes to show that he also attended the Akshara Deepthi along with the accused officer, but his evidence is silent as to when the said meeting started and when it was closed. His evidence goes to show that on 05.02.2001 Akshara Deepthi meeting was held at 3.00 PM to which the Nodal Officer-accused officer attended the meeting and that he also attended the said meeting. Ex.X3 is the relevant entry at page No.37 of Ex.X1 book showing the attendance of meeting by D.W.1 and the accused officer. Further, page No.38 of Ex.X1 shows that on 17.2.2001, Akshara Deepthi meeting was held in their office for which accused officer has attended and the relevant entry is marked as Ex.X4. It also states about the accused officer attending the Janmabhoomi in their office at 10.00 AM. But, however, in the cross-examination he admits that he cannot say whether any notice was issued to participate in the Akshara Deepthi meeting said to have been held on 05.02.2001. He further admits Ex.X3 does not disclose the closing time of the meeting. He also admits that no superior officer will check the register in respect of conducting the meetings and that it will be in his custody. According to him, one Mandal Literacy Officer is said to have scribed Ex.X3 and X4 headings and the names of the participants. He also admits that the time to be held was also not noted in Ex.X4. He categorically states the time is separately noted with different ink and pen in Ex.P5 and he cannot say who scribed it. However, he denies the suggestion that these documents were not maintained by their office as per the instructions and in usual course. He also denies the suggestion that he has not attended the meeting held on 05.02.2001 and 17.02.2001. However, he denies the suggestion that these documents were not maintained by their office as per the instructions and in usual course. He also denies the suggestion that he has not attended the meeting held on 05.02.2001 and 17.02.2001. From the evidence of D.W.1 it is very clear that this meeting was held in their office at 3.00 PM to which accused officer attended. That being the position, the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with Ex.P7, P8, which is to the effect that he met the accused officer in the morning at 10.30 AM, cannot be brushed aside. Further, the evidence of D.W.1 and Exs.X1, X3 and X4 do not indicate any time with regard to the meeting that was said to have been held on 17.02.2001. On the other hand, D.W.1 pleads ignorance about the entries made. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the entries noted in Ex.P11 have to be treated as genuine compared to the entries in exhibits marked as Ex.X1 to X8 cannot be found fault with. Viewed from any angle, it is very much clear that on both the occasions, P.W.1 met the accused officer in his office and on both the dates the accused officer demanded money from him. (D) Coming to the acceptance of money on 20.02.2001, the evidence of P.W.7, the mediator, goes to show that on 20.02.2001 all of them assembled in the office of P.W.12 at 12.00 noon and after complying with all pre-trap formalities, proceeded to the office of the accused officer at Tenali. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that when he went into the office of the accused officer, he did not find him, but his enquiries revealed that he left for somewhere. He waited there for about half an hour and thereafter the accused officer came to his office. After the arrival of the accused officer, he went into the room of the accused officer, met him and enquired about his license. The accused officer is said to have enquired with P.W.1 as to whether he brought the bribe amount, to which he gave a positive reply. So saying he picked out the amount from his pocket and when he was about to hand over the same, the accused officer asked him to keep the amount in diary which was found in front of his table and accordingly P.W.1 kept the tainted amount. So saying he picked out the amount from his pocket and when he was about to hand over the same, the accused officer asked him to keep the amount in diary which was found in front of his table and accordingly P.W.1 kept the tainted amount. The accused officer asked P.W.1 to call one Sastry and accordingly he informed the said Sastry and thereafter gave a pre-arranged signal to the trap party members, who, on receipt of the same, rushed into the office. When enquired as to where he kept the amount, he told the Dy.S.P. that the amount was kept in the diary and showed the same to him. The diary (Ex.P11) is an agricultural department diary. P.W.1 was asked to wait outside and later on he was called again, for recording his statement. When P.W.1 deposed about the statement recorded by the trap party members, he was declared hostile and he was subjected to cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor and also by the accused officer. From the evidence in chief of P.W.1 it categorically stands established that on the date of trap, he, along with other trap party members, proceeded to the office of the accused officer, where he waited outside for sometime and after the arrival of the accused officer he entered the office room of the accused officer, where on demand and on the instructions of the accused officer, the money was kept in the diary, which was on the table. Though the phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of the accused officer turned negative, but the place where the money was kept in the diary turned positive to phenolphthalein test. The main argument of the learned senior counsel Sri C.Nageswara Rao was to the effect that the diary was there on the table prior to arrival of the accused officer and the accused officer has kept the money stealthily in the diary and foisted a false case. The question would be now whether the diary was there on the table prior to the arrival of the accused officer or whether the said diary was brought along with the accused officer by his attenders. The same was tried to prove through the evidence of D.W.3. The question would be now whether the diary was there on the table prior to the arrival of the accused officer or whether the said diary was brought along with the accused officer by his attenders. The same was tried to prove through the evidence of D.W.3. It was suggested to all the witnesses that D.W.3 was present in the office and that too in the chambers of the accused officer along with P.W.1 prior to the arrival of the accused officer, but the same was denied by the material witnesses. However, D.W.3, in his evidence, deposed that on the date of trap i.e., on 20.02.2001 he went to the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture to enquire into the subsidy of the power sprayer. At that time, the accused officer was not present in the office and he was told by the attender that he was on camp and asked him to wait in the room of the accused officer. By that time, P.W.1 was also sitting in the room of the accused officer. According to him, P.W.1 was handling one diary, which contains picture of sunflower and he also noticed keeping of the same on the table of the accused officer. He was enquired by P.W.1 about the purpose of his visit. According to him, at about 4.00 PM, the accused officer and one Ravi Kumar, Attender, entered in his room. P.W.3 kept the file brought by him along with the accused officer on the table of the accused officer. Accused officer enquired P.W.1 about the purpose of his visit. At that point of time, about five or six persons entered the office. At this stage, it is to be noted that the evidence of D.W.3 runs contra to the defence taken by the accused officer. The evidence of D.W.3 show that when the accused officer asked P.W.1 the purpose of his visit and on being informed that he came there for license, the accused officer is said to have informed him that he does not have knowledge about his license and asked him to meet the Senior Assistant and then P.W.1 left the office of the accused officer. That being the position, the version of D.W.3 has to be viewed with suspicion. That being the position, the version of D.W.3 has to be viewed with suspicion. It is no body’s case nor it is the case of the accused officer that P.W.1 left the office on being told by the accused officer that he is not aware about his license. Apart from that, the evidence of D.W.3 is as bald as anything. While the evidence in chief shows that he came there to enquire about the subsidies of power sprayer, there was no necessity for him to wait till the arrival of the Assistant Director of Agriculture to enquire about the subsidy, he could have, as well, enquired from the other members of the office as to whether there is any subsidy of the power sprayer. Apart from that it is very doubtful to believe that the two strangers would be allowed to sit in the chambers of the accused officer even before the arrival of the accused officer. As stated earlier, the plea of the appellant is that money was kept in the diary, which was already on the table, but, the evidence of D.W.3, which was sought to be relied upon to prove the same, cannot be accepted. There is any amount of doubt as to whether really he was present in the chambers of the accused officer at that time, since the purpose for his visit to the office could have been enquired with other members in the office and there was no need for him to wait in the chambers of the accused officer to find out as to whether there was any subsidy. Further, the prosecution examined P.Ws.3 to 5 to prove that this diary was brought into the chambers of the accused officer along with the other files, but all the three witnesses did not support the prosecution case. By that it does not mean that the version of the accused officer that the diary was already there on the table stands established, firstly for the reason that such a plea was not taken at the earliest point of time, that is when the accused officer was examined immediately after the trap. On the other hand, the plea was that he was not aware about the payment of any bribe. On the other hand, the plea was that he was not aware about the payment of any bribe. Secondly, as seen from the argument advanced, Ex.P11 diary from where the tainted amount was seized, was on the table, on the alleged date of trap and in his absence, amount was planted there without his knowledge. A reading of the evidence relating to Ex.P11 would establish that whenever the accused officer was on camp, he will make relevant entries therein including the timings. The entry dated 20.02.2011 in Ex.P11 show the places where the accused officer was on that day and time of his return to his office i.e., at 4.00 PM. The said entries were made by the accused officer in his own handwriting with pencil. The fact that the entries in Ex.P11 contains the handwriting of the accused officer is not disputed. If really diary-Ex.P11 was left on the table of the accused officer, such an entry namely about he returning to the office at 4.00 PM will not find place. It is not the case of the defence that immediately after coming into the office he made the entries on 20.02.2001. The entries made by the accused officer in his own handwriting with pencil substantially establish that he has not left the tour diary in his office room and it was with the accused officer all through during the day. The entries dated 20.02.2001 in Ex.P11 not only relates to the date of forward journey, but also contains entries relating to return journey. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri S.M.Subhani, the diary was with the accused officer and after he reached the office, the money was asked to be kept in the diary by the accused officer. For all the reasons narrated above, I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and having regard to the evidence of other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.3, 12, 13 and Exs.P7 and P8 (though not substantive piece of evidence) but as the same get corroboration from all quarters, in my view, the case of the prosecution stood established and the findings of the trial court that the amount of Rs.2,500/-was accepted as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing a favour warrants no interference. 16. 16. Though the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the apex court in Meena v. The State of Maharashtra, 2000 CrlLJ 2273, wherein the Apex Court held as under : “9. The essential ingredients to be established to indict a person of an offence under Section 5(I)(d) of the Act are that he should have been a public servant, that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person. Likewise, Section 161 IPC, requires that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant, that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive or reward fording or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. Like any other criminal offence, the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise by proper proof of acceptance of the illegal gratification, the vital ingredient, necessary to be established to procure a conviction for the offences under consideration. 10. We have bestowed our careful thought to the submissions made on either side, in the light of the evidence on record. We are of the view that neither the quality of the materials produced nor their proper evaluation could, in this case, be held sufficient to convince or satisfy the judicial conscience of any adjudicating Authority to record a verdict of guilt, on such slender evidence. Indisputably, the currency note in question was not recovered from the person or from the table drawer, but when the trap party arrived was found only on the pad on the table and seized from that place only. The question is as to whether the appellant accepted in and placed it on the table or that the currency note fell on the pad on the table in the process of the appellant refusing to receive the same by pushing away the hands of PW-1 and the currency, when attempted to be thrust into her hands. PW-2, one of the panch witnesses, who accompanied PW-1, as a shadow witness, when he tried to give the bribe, did not support the prosecution case. PW-2, one of the panch witnesses, who accompanied PW-1, as a shadow witness, when he tried to give the bribe, did not support the prosecution case. He has been treated hostile and his evidence eschewed from consideration by the courts below. The lady Constable, Victoria, another shadow witness, who first arrived on the spot after the signal was given by PW-1, was not examined at the trial. Law has always favoured the presence and importance of a shadow witness in the trap party, not only to facilitate such witness to see but also overhear what happens and how it happens also. In this case, the role of Victoria was to enter first and hold the hands of the accused immediately after the acceptance of the bribe amount and she was stated to have done that, as planned. For reasons best known, such a vital and important witness has been withheld by the prosecution, from being examined Jagdish Bokade, who scribed the application dated 13.8.1986 for getting copies and who admittedly was all along with PW-1 and gave even the idea of lodging a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, has also been withheld from being examined. The other person, who was present at the place of occurrence though cited initially as witness, was not examined by the prosecution but later was got examined as DW-1 and evidence of this person completely belies the prosecution story. The corroboration essential in a case like this for what actually transpired at the time of the alleged occurrence and acceptance of bribe is very much wanting in this case. Even the other panch witness, PW-5, categorically admitted that even as the Inspector of Police, PW-6, arrived, the appellant gave the same version that PW-1 tried to force into her hands the currency note which she turned down by pushing it away, and his evidence also does not lend credibility to the case of the prosecution. The contradictory version of PW-1 of the very incident when earlier examined in departmental proceedings renders his testimony in this case untrustworthy. PW-3, the Head Copyist, seems to be the brain behind all these and that PW-1 as well as Jagdish Bokade appear to be working as a group in this affair and despite the blunt denial by PW-3, his closeness to PW-1 and Jagdish Bokade stand well substantiated. PW-3, the Head Copyist, seems to be the brain behind all these and that PW-1 as well as Jagdish Bokade appear to be working as a group in this affair and despite the blunt denial by PW-3, his closeness to PW-1 and Jagdish Bokade stand well substantiated. All these relevant aspects of the case seem to have been completely overlooked by the courts below.” 17. The above judgment, in my view, may not be of any help to demolish the version of the prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, the court held that facts relevant were overlooked and acquitted the accused. But, the case on hand is totally different. 18. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.12 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Vijayawada. The bail bond of the appellant shall be cancelled forthwith and he shall surrender to the Court for serving the sentence imposed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.