JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent in C.C.No.9/2001, dated 28.03.2006 on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad recorded by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, in APTS CC.No.35 of 2001, dated 11.02.2009, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d)(I)&(II) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent was working as Deputy Director in the Industries Department. PW1 the defacto complainant was the owner of M/s.Maks Casting Private Limited, Uppal, R.R.Districrt. In January, 2000 pursuant to the scheme of Government of Andhra Pradesh giving incentives to Small Scale Industries, PW1 approached for the incentive certificate. The respondent issued a temporary incentive certificate and stated that permanent incentive certificate will be issued after six months. One month there after the Deputy Director (Accused Officer) visited the factory of PW1 and after inspecting company went back and called PW1 and asked him to met in his chamber. When PW1 met the Accused Officer (herein after called as ‘AO’) there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of issuing permanent incentive certificate. However on repeated requests by PW1 the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.30,000/- and to be paid in two installments. The said meeting was on 04.05.2000 and the AO allegedly asked bribe to be paid on 05.05.2000 i.e. next day. Aggrieved by the demand of bribe, PW1 approached the ACB office and addressed a letter to the Director General of ACB on 04.05.2000 that there was a demand of Rs.30,000/- and narrated all these facts. The said complaint was registered for the offences under Section 7 and 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act and trap was laid on 05.05.2000. Accordingly two independent witnesses were called by the DSP and arranged for the trap. Pre-trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P2 in the presence of trap party members and two independent witnesses i.e. the DSP and two inspectors. 3. Trap Party after conclusion of pre-trap proceedings at 3.20 p.m. on 05.05.2000 proceeded to the office of AO. At 4.30 p.m. PW1 and accompanying witness D.V. Rama Krishna (PW2) went into the office room of AO and found the AO sitting in a chair. 3. Trap Party after conclusion of pre-trap proceedings at 3.20 p.m. on 05.05.2000 proceeded to the office of AO. At 4.30 p.m. PW1 and accompanying witness D.V. Rama Krishna (PW2) went into the office room of AO and found the AO sitting in a chair. On demand of bribe by AO, PW1 offered the same and AO took out one bag, opened the zip of the bag and asked PW1 to put the tainted amount in the bag. Accordingly, tainted amount was placed in the said bag. Then the AO kept the bag on his rack beside him. Immediately, PW2 went outside and gave the prearranged signal to the trap party. On seeing the signal, trap party entered into the office of the AO and questioned the AO about receipt of amount from PW1. The AO stated that he did not receive any amount from PW1. When PW2 was questioned he stated that the AO did not receive any amount however he asked PW1 to keep the said amount in a hand bag and then placed it on the rack on his left side where AO was sitting. The DSP asked the AO to produce the amount, however, he refused to do so. The test on the hands of AO was negative. The other mediator was asked to remove the amount from the bag. After removing the said amount, post trap proceedings were conducted. The DSP there after handed over investigation to PW10. 4. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 7, 13(1)(D) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges were also framed for the said offences and after conclusion of trial AO was found not guilty. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri Vidyasagar Rao, submits that the learned Special Judge committed an error in acquitting the accused when the factum of demand and also subsequent acceptance was proved during the course of trial. Though the amount of Rs.15,000/- was recovered from the hand bag, false implication or planting the amount does not arise for the reason of the presence of PW2-an independent witness who specifically mentioned that it was the AO who had asked the defacto complainant-PW1 to place the said amount in the hand bag without touching the trap amount. Though the amount of Rs.15,000/- was recovered from the hand bag, false implication or planting the amount does not arise for the reason of the presence of PW2-an independent witness who specifically mentioned that it was the AO who had asked the defacto complainant-PW1 to place the said amount in the hand bag without touching the trap amount. For the said reason, the test conducted on the hands of the AO is of no consequence and the circumstances clearly indicate that official favour was pending with the AO i.e. issuance of permanent incentive certificate. As such, all the ingredients of demand, acceptance and pending official favour were proved by the prosecution and the learned Sessions Judge without looking into the evidence produced by the prosecution acquitted the respondent on untenable grounds. 6. He relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 571 and argued that once the factum of demand and acceptance was proved, presumption is raised under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the burden shifts to the Accused Officer to prove his case that the said amount was not towards bribe. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the premise to be established on the facts for drawing presumption was that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once such premise is established inference to be drawn is that the said gratification is accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. 7. He further relied on the Judgment of Supreme Court in Dhanvantrai Balwantrao Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 575 the said decision also discusses that in order to raise the presumption, prosecution has to prove that the AO received gratification other than illegal remuneration and once such receipt of amount is proved by the prosecution then presumption has to be raised. 8. The other Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaturdas Bhagwandas Pael v. The State of Gujarat, (1976) 3 SCC 46 also discusses under what circumstances presumption has to be raised i.e. once the initial burden of the prosecution is discharged regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. 9. 8. The other Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaturdas Bhagwandas Pael v. The State of Gujarat, (1976) 3 SCC 46 also discusses under what circumstances presumption has to be raised i.e. once the initial burden of the prosecution is discharged regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. 9. Learned special counsel further argued that the Special Judge having found that the work was pending had clearly committed error only on the basis of the Sodium carbonate test on the hands of PW1 turning negative and the amount being found in a bag. The prosecution has produced convincing evidence to say that PW1 has deliberately avoided to receive the money with his hands but asked PW1 to place the amount in the bag. For the said reasons, the Judgment of acquittal has to be reversed. 10. Learned Counsel for AO submits that the well reasoned Judgment of the learned Special Judge cannot be interfered with unless glaring discrepancies are shown in the findings of the Special Judge. In cases of acquittal the appellate Courts cannot interfere with the acquittal order with undue haste but strong reasoning is required to reverse such finding. 11. He relied upon the Judgment in Rakesh and others v. State of Haryana, 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (SC) and argued that presumption of innocence is in favour of accused and further gets fortified by the order of acquittal. In the said circumstances compelling and very strong reasons have to be shown to differ from the finding of acquittal. 12. He also relied on another Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Jayaswamy v State of Karnataka, 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 189 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that to overrule or disturb the trial Court’s acquittal there has to be substantial and compelling reasons to do so. Unless the trial Court’s conclusions are palpably wrong there cannot be any interference by the appellate Court. 13. He relied on the Judgment of A.P. High Court in Akurathi Yellamanda v. State ACB, Vijayawada, 2021 (2) ALD (Crl.) 662 (A.P.) wherein it is held that mere recovery is not sufficient to raise presumption and infer guilt. 14. Unless the trial Court’s conclusions are palpably wrong there cannot be any interference by the appellate Court. 13. He relied on the Judgment of A.P. High Court in Akurathi Yellamanda v. State ACB, Vijayawada, 2021 (2) ALD (Crl.) 662 (A.P.) wherein it is held that mere recovery is not sufficient to raise presumption and infer guilt. 14. The Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court relied upon by the Counsel, in State v. Anup Kumar Srivastava, 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 740 (SC) it was held that proof of demand is sine qua non for establishing an offence of bribe under Section 7 and 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 15. In another Judgment, Raveen Kumar v. State of Himahal Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 5375 the Supreme Court reiterated the powers of the appellate Court in case of appeals in re-appreciating and reweighing of the evidence to draw conclusions. 16. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the learned Special Judge did not agree with the case of the AO that PW1 bore grudge against A1 for the reason of reducing the total assets of the factory to Rs.7,53,521/- as a result of which PW1 was put to a loss of Rs.11,67,957. The reason was that PW1 came to know about the AO reducing the value of the assets of factory only on 05.05.2000 i.e. on the date of trap, as such, the ground of grudge leading to false trap was disbelieved. However, the learned Special Judge found that the prosecution could not establish that there was a ‘demand’ that was made by PW1 on the basis of the following circumstances; (i) the tainted amount was not received by the accused from PW1. (ii) the said amount was found in the zip bag which was kept in the rack beside his seat. (iii) The said amount was not produced by the AO when the post trap proceedings took place. (iv) Phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of the AO was negative. (v) During the post trap proceedings AO specifically stated that he has not taken any amount (vi) Prosecution did not establish beyond doubt that Rs.15,000/- was received by AO for which reason presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn in favour of the prosecution. 17. (iv) Phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of the AO was negative. (v) During the post trap proceedings AO specifically stated that he has not taken any amount (vi) Prosecution did not establish beyond doubt that Rs.15,000/- was received by AO for which reason presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn in favour of the prosecution. 17. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (1) Supreme 609 , held as follows : “10…… “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge : (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.4729-30 of 2020 of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 18. The sine qua non for proving a case of bribe is demand. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 18. The sine qua non for proving a case of bribe is demand. In the present case though complaint was lodged by the AO regarding demand the said factum of demand was not proved by the attending circumstances. On the trap date, admittedly PW1 and PW2 met AO. However, the recovery of the amount was from a hand bag which was placed in the rack in the office. Though PW1 and PW2 stated that AO had demanded the said amount, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances as narrated above in the finding of Special Judge, it can be safely concluded that the amount was planted in the bag. 19. The test on the hands of AO proved negative and the prosecution was not able to prove that the hand bag belongs to the AO. The amount was not recovered at the instance of AO to infer the factum of recovery to fall within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of the recovery of the amount from the AO or at the instance of AO, the said recovery cannot be attributed to the AO and it cannot be conclusively said that there was a demand and consequent to which the AO had accepted the amount. At the earliest point of time the AO had denied receiving any amount and the ACB had in fact recovered the money at the instance of PW2 and PW9. 20. The finding of the learned Special Judge is based upon logical reasoning and in the peculiar facts and circumstances when the factum of demand was not proved by the prosecution, there are no compelling reasons or circumstances to take a different view from that of the trial Court. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by the State fails and accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any, shall stand closed.