JUDGMENT : Originally, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Calendar Case No.19 of 2001 on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad were tried for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short, “P.C.Act”]. 2. Vide Judgment, dated 17.05.2006, the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad while acquitting Accused No.1, convicted Accused No.2 under both the counts and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under each of the counts. The substantive sentences were directed run concurrently. 3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 26.01.1999 Accused No.1 while working as Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram Mandal and Accused No.2 as Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Rudravaram Mandal, demanded a sum of Rs.1000/- each as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from Owk Chennaih and others, for doing an official favour, namely providing Ac.2.00 cents of land to Smt. Lachamma and five others under a scheme announced by S.C. Corporation. 4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under: i) P.W.1, a resident of Yellavanthula Village, Rudravaram Mandal, was eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. On coming to know that the S.C. Corporation was granting Ac.2.00 cents of land and that too for women, he along with one Maduleti Butchanna went to the M.R.O. office Rudravaram Mandal, met the M.R.O-Ramachandraiah (A1) and submitted their application. The said application was said to have been given on behalf of six persons. The M.R.O. informed them that he has no power to allot the land and that necessary directions are required to be given by the Collector. ii) Accused No.1 is said to have advised them to meet Accused No.2 who is working as Mandal Deputy Surveyor and get a sketch prepared. The averments in the Charge Sheet show that when they approached Mandal Deputy Surveyor (AO.2), he is said to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- to do official favour. ii) Accused No.1 is said to have advised them to meet Accused No.2 who is working as Mandal Deputy Surveyor and get a sketch prepared. The averments in the Charge Sheet show that when they approached Mandal Deputy Surveyor (AO.2), he is said to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- to do official favour. On 16.02.1999, Accused No.1 informed P.Ws.1 and 2 that applications for granting of land cannot be forwarded under the land purchase scheme to the Collector, Kurnool due to backlog of applications. It was further informed that these applications cannot be considered by the R.D.O. Thereafter, the accused Officer No.1 went on leave for two days. iii) While things stood thus, on 21.02.1999 while P.W.6- Additional Superintendent of Police was present in the office, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 approached him at 2.00 PM and preferred an oral complaint against A1 and A2 alleging that these two accused are demanding money. The said oral complaint was reduced into writing and the same is on record as Ex.P12. P.W.6 got conducted preliminary enquiry with regard to genuineness of the report and the antecedents of the Accused Officer. Being satisfied, he registered a case in Crime No.1/ACB-KUR/99 under Section 7 and Section 11 of P.C. Act and sent the original F.I.R. to the Court. Ex.P13 is the F.I.R. Thereafter, he secured two mediators K.V. Ashok Kumar, District Inspector Legal Metrology, Narasingrao Pet, Kurnool and K.C. Prakash Rao (P.W.3), Inspector Legal Metrology and conducted pre trap proceedings in his office. P.Ws.1 and 2 were introduced to the mediators. The mediators perused the report, questioned P.Ws.1 and 2 and about its content were satisfied with the contents of the complaint. iv) At the instance of P.W.6, the complainant (P.W.1) produced the bribe amount of Rs.800/- to be paid to the A1 and A2. The mediators took the currency notes, counted them and found it to be eight hundred rupee notes. The numbers of the notes were incorporated in the pre trap proceedings. One K. Pulla Reddy, searched the person of P.W.1 and ensured that he did not carry any currency or papers with him. Thereafter, the significance of the Phenolphthalein test was explained to P.W.1 and the mediators. The phenolphthalein powder was applied to currency notes and tainted money of Rs.800/- was kept in the shirt pocket of P.W.1. One K. Pulla Reddy, searched the person of P.W.1 and ensured that he did not carry any currency or papers with him. Thereafter, the significance of the Phenolphthalein test was explained to P.W.1 and the mediators. The phenolphthalein powder was applied to currency notes and tainted money of Rs.800/- was kept in the shirt pocket of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 were informed to approach the Surveyor (A2) in the office of M.R.O. and hand over the bribe only on his demand and not otherwise. P.W.6 further instructed P.W.1 to pass on the signal by wiping his face thrice with his towel, on acceptance of bribe amount by A2. The entire pre trap proceedings were reduced into writing vide Ex.P3. v) Thereafter, the entire trap party along with P.Ws.1 and 2 proceeded towards Rudravaram and reached the office of M.R.O. at 10.40 hours, and took vantage positions. vi) P.W.1 is said to have entered the office of M.R.O, but immediately came out of the office as A2 was not present in the office. In view of the information received that both the accused would come to the office during lunch time, the trap party remained at its position. At about 1.45 PM, P.W.1 informed the trap party that the Surveyor arrived at the premises of M.R.O. He then entered the premises of M.R.O; came out a litter later, and passed on the pre arranged signal. Upon which, P.W.6 and others entered the office of M.R.O. P.W.1 showed A2 to the trap party, whose identity was ascertained. When enquired about the M.R.O., it was informed that AO.1 had gone to Tirupati and he is on leave. At the instance of P.W.6, one P.V. Ramanappa prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers. At his request, A2 rinsed his right hand fingers in one of the solution. The colour less solution turned pink into colour. Thereafter, A2 rinsed his left hand fingers in the second glass tumbler which too turned pink in colour. The resultant solutions are marked M.Os.3 and 4. When asked about the bribe amount, A2 took out a bunch of currency notes from his right side pocket of his pant along with a hand kerchief and placed them on the table. The mediators compared the note numbers with the denominations mentioned in the pre trap proceedings and found them to have tallied. When asked about the bribe amount, A2 took out a bunch of currency notes from his right side pocket of his pant along with a hand kerchief and placed them on the table. The mediators compared the note numbers with the denominations mentioned in the pre trap proceedings and found them to have tallied. M.O.5 is the bunch of currency notes seized after the trap. The hand kerchief was also subjected to Phenolphthalein test which turned into light brown colour. M.O.7 is the resultant solution. A2 also produced bunch of keys from the right side pant pocket and a black colour purse which contained Rs.970/- in different denominations. When asked about the said amount, it was informed that he carried the said amount from his home, which is to be returned to Adinarayana from whom he had borrowed. vii) At that point of time, P.W.6 asked AO.2 to produce the application forms given by P.W.1 and others. It was informed that the said applications are with AO.1, under lock and key. After collecting all the necessary documents, a post trap panchanama Ex.P6 was prepared incorporating the explanation given by the A2. Further investigation in this case was taken up by P.W.7-Inspector of Police who verified the investigation done. Later on a Charge Sheet came to be filed by another Inspector of Police who was examined as P.W.8. 5. The said case was taken on file and numbered as Calendar Case No.19 of 2001 on the file of learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases; City Civil Court at Hyderabad. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them. 6. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 to 11. Out of eight witnesses examined for the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 to 11. Out of eight witnesses examined for the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. After the closure of the Prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which they denied, but however, no defence evidence was adduced on their behalf. 8. Since the money was recovered from the accused and in the absence of any plausible explanation for the presence of tainted amount in the pant pocket of the accused and as an official favour was pending consideration before the AO.2, the trial Court convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that pending appeal, the appellant died. Hence, the L.Rs of A2 are brought on record to pursue the matter. 10. Sri Badeti Venkata Ratnam, learned counsel for appellant mainly submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime. Relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in N. Vijaykumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (2) ALD(Crl) 23 (SC) = MANU/SC/0051/2021 and also the judgments of the Supreme Court in C.M. Girish Babu vs. C.B.I., Cochin, (2009) 3 SCC 779 = MANU/SC/0274/2009 and B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 = MANU/SC/0245/2014 would contend that when the prosecution has failed to prove demand, mere recovery of money by itself is not be sufficient to convict the accused. 11. On the other hand, Sri S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent/ACB would contend that though P.Ws.1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case, but there is enough material available on record to show that the tainted money was recovered from the appellant/A2. He further submits that applications were given to A2 for assignment of lands under a scheme and to process the said applications, the accused has demanded money. He further submits that the issue as to whether a demand is required to be established is no more res integra in view of the judgment in M. Narsingarao vs. State of A.P. [ 2001(1) SCC 691 ]. 12. He further submits that the issue as to whether a demand is required to be established is no more res integra in view of the judgment in M. Narsingarao vs. State of A.P. [ 2001(1) SCC 691 ]. 12. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 13. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as the entire case of the prosecution with regard to demand and acceptance sets upon their evidence. Though, both of them have turned hostile, it would just and proper to refer to their evidence. P.W.1 who was eking out his livelihood as coolie was a resident of Yellavathula Village. P.W.2 who accompanied P.W.1 was also a resident of the same village. His evidence discloses that he came to know about the grant of Ac.2.00 cents of land per person by the S.C. Corporation and more particularly, such grant was for women. Pursuant thereto, P.W.1 along with others went to the M.R.O. office, Rudravaram Mandal, met the M.R.O. and submitted the applications. The M.R.O. is said to have been informed that he has no power to grant to sanction and that it is the Collector who is to do the needful and that he has not received any such orders from the Collector so far. The rest of the evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that on the very same day, P.W.1 and others met the D.S.P, who enquired as to whether any help is required from his side and the D.S.P. also enquired as to whether M.R.O. or Surveyor would accept any money? P.W.1 informed the D.S.P. that he cannot say whether the M.R.O. or Surveyor would take money. But, D.S.P. seems to have told them that by any means the money has to be handed over to them and that he should help them. Thereafter, he met the D.S.P. in the presence of the mediators where the D.S.P. gave an amount of Rs.800/- to P.W.1, which the two mediators took it from P.W.1, noted the numbers of that notes and thereafter the importance of Phenolphthalein test was said to have been explained to P.W.1. The above evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that his evidence is silent with regard to any demand of money by the M.R.O. or the Surveyor. The above evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that his evidence is silent with regard to any demand of money by the M.R.O. or the Surveyor. 14. Coming to the payment of money, the evidence of P.W.1 discloses that from the office of D.S.P., the entire trap party went to the office of M.R.O. When P.W.1 entered the office and enquired with the clerk about the availability of the M.R.O., it was informed to him that M.R.O. is on leave. He came out and informed the same to trap party. The D.S.P. then enquired whether the Surveyor was available and he was informed that he is in the office. The D.S.P. asked P.W.1 to go to office and somehow give money to the Surveyor. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 (hostile) that when the Surveyor was washing his hands, P.W.1 went near him and kept the money in his hands. The accused is said to have thrown the money stating that he does not require the amount and that he never demanded any money. A verbal altercation took place between both of them which attracted the attention of the people. At that point of time, D.S.P. and others entered the room and asked the accused to remove the things which are in his pocket, A2 is said to have removed the papers and placed them on the table. When asked about the money, A2 informed the D.S.P that he has not accepted any money and that he has thrown the same. P.W.1 also informed the D.S.P. that the Surveyor has thrown the money stating that he does not want anything. At that stage, the witness was declared hostile. Therefore, the evidence in chief of P.W.1 neither proves demand nor acceptance of money. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court, cross-examined the witness after declaring him hostile. But, a suggestion that the M.R.O. demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe with regard to assignment of land, was denied by him. However, P.W.1 admits that on 26.01.1999 he along with others met AO.1 and filed application for grant of Ac.2.00 cents of land, but to a suggestion that AO.1 asked them to go and meet AO.2 Surveyor is denied. It was also suggested to P.W.1 that AO.2 demanded money and that they have paid Rs.400/- but the same was denied. However, P.W.1 admits that on 26.01.1999 he along with others met AO.1 and filed application for grant of Ac.2.00 cents of land, but to a suggestion that AO.1 asked them to go and meet AO.2 Surveyor is denied. It was also suggested to P.W.1 that AO.2 demanded money and that they have paid Rs.400/- but the same was denied. However, he admits that on 16.02.1999 himself and P.W.2 met AO.2 in his office and enquired about their applications. All the suggestions with regard to demand, reduction in the quantum of amount and payment were denied by him. The suggestion that a statement was made to D.S.P. about the demand made by A1 and A2 was denied. The rest of the cross-examination of this witness relates to post trap proceedings and the manner in which they went to the office of M.R.O. and the arrival of AO.2 in the office at 2.45 PM. 16. P.W.2 accompanied P.W.1 at that time when they made an application to AO.1 and also at the time when they went to the office of D.S.P. His version in chief-examination is exactly in pari-materia with the evidence of P.W.1. Though, he claims to have accompanied P.W.1 whenever he visited the office of AO.1 and AO.2, but his evidence is silent with regard to the demand and acceptance of money as bribe by AO.2. 17. In so far as the payment of money is concerned, the evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that when P.W.1 gave money to AO.2, he did not accept the same stating why money is being paid to him. Then, P.W.1 kept that amount in the hand kerchief which is in his hand, which he threw it. This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution. He was also cross-examined but nothing useful came to be elicited to show that there was any demand or acceptance of money as bribe for doing a favour. 18. As stated earlier, the evidence of these two witnesses does not establish demand and acceptance of money as projected by the prosecution witnesses. 19. P.W.3 is the mediator, who deposed about the pre trap and post trap proceedings. 18. As stated earlier, the evidence of these two witnesses does not establish demand and acceptance of money as projected by the prosecution witnesses. 19. P.W.3 is the mediator, who deposed about the pre trap and post trap proceedings. Though, this witness does not speak about any demand made by A2, but, with regard to recovery of money, his evidence shows that at about 1.45 PM, P.Ws.1 and 2 informed him about the Surveyor reaching the office and accordingly both going inside the office. According to him, few minutes thereafter, P.W.1 came out and gave a pre arranged signal, pursuant to which, all of them went inside the office. After identifying A2, Phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the hands of the accused which proved positive. His evidence further discloses that an amount of Rs.800/- was recovered from the right side pant along with kerchief and the same was kept on the table. The Phenolphthalein test was conducted on the pant pocket and hand kerchief also proved positive. This witness was also cross-examined at length. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 admits that there is no mention in Ex.P6 post trap proceedings that the complainant came out and gave the pre arranged signal as to where the co-complainant was and what was his act. Though, P.W.3 stated that hand kerchief which was taken out from his right side pant pocket was neatly folded but the same is not reflected in Ex.P6 proceedings. 20. From the evidence of P.W.3, it is very clear that he is not the competent witness to speak about the demand, but can only speak about the recovery of money. His evidence does not anywhere indicate the demands made by the accused prior to acceptance of money. 21. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the evidence of Investigation Officer, the prosecution failed to prove demand of money as bribe by the appellant/A2 the Surveyor. Though, the evidence of P.W.2 does not establish recovery of money from the person of AO.2 but the evidence of P.W.3 the mediator establish recovery of money from the pant pocket of the accused, for which an explanation is given by the accused, which came to be incorporated in the post trap panchanama. Though, the evidence of P.W.2 does not establish recovery of money from the person of AO.2 but the evidence of P.W.3 the mediator establish recovery of money from the pant pocket of the accused, for which an explanation is given by the accused, which came to be incorporated in the post trap panchanama. Even accepting the recovery of money as true, the issue is whether the same is sufficient to convict the accused, more so, having regard to the inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 22. In N. Vijaykumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [cited (1) supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with an identical situation viz., where the prosecution failed to prove demand, held as under: "12. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can he made to the judgments of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala MANU/SC/0274/2009 : (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0245/2014 : (2014) 13 SCC 55 . In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court. The relevant paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in the case of B. Jayaraj (supra) read as under: "7. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court. The relevant paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in the case of B. Jayaraj (supra) read as under: "7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [MANU/SC/0981/2010 : (2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and CM. Girish Babu v. CBI [MANU/SC/0274/2009 : (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1]. 23. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police and Anr, (2015) 10 SCC 152 = MANU/SC/1012/2015, the Apex Court held as under: “Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Dealing with the same, the Court observed as under: "The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under." The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through His Legal Representative v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0809/2017 : (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 136, as under: "23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." 24. In State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, 2013 (3) MLJ (Crl) 565 = MANU/SC/0776/2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification'. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraph No. 7 of the said judgment, which reads thus: "7. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person." 25. From the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to, it is very clear that in order to prove the charges under Sections 7 and 13 of 1988 Act, the prosecution has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that mere recovery thereof de-hors proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge for the aforesaid sections (N. Vijaykumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu). 26. Thus, in the given set of circumstances where the prosecution failed to prove demand and having regard to the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, I am of the view that it is a fit case where benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused. State of Tamil Nadu). 26. Thus, in the given set of circumstances where the prosecution failed to prove demand and having regard to the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, I am of the view that it is a fit case where benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the Judgment dated 17.05.2006, in Calendar Case No.19 of 2001 on the file learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are set aside and he is acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.