JUDGMENT : The judgment in Calendar Case No.23 of 2003, dated 20.06.2007, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), is under challenge in the present Appeal filed by the appellant/unsuccessful Accused Officer. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa District, Tirupati Range filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.1/RCT-TCD/2003 of ACB, Kadapa District, Tirupati Range under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’), alleging, in substance, that the Accused Officer by name Khaji Syed Rafiuddin worked as Divisional Engineer, DPE, APSPDCL, Kadapa District as such he is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. LW.1 – P. Chinna Bali Reddy, S/o. Obul Reddy, R/o.D.No.6/489, Sankarapuram, Kadapa Town is running R.R. Iron Work Shop at D.No.7/154-4 G, N.G.O. Colony, Kadapa Town since 1990. The shop is having electrical Service Connection No.32390 with 3 phases 5 K.V. deposit and using about 400 units per month and paying electricity charges regularly. 10 days prior to 01.01.2003, AO visited the shop of LW.1 and inspected the machinery in the shop and found 3 welding machines, 2 grinders, 1 drilling machine, 1 tube light, 2 bulbs and 5 plugs and informed to LW.1 that more capacity machines are there as against the existing deposit capacity and LW.1 has to pay the amount towards deposit for 20 K.V. LW.1 asked the AO to issue a notice for which he replied that he has to pay Rs.20,000/- if he issues a notice. He demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.3,000/- and also to pay Rs.500/- as monthly mamool. LW.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe. On 26.12.2002 and 31.12.2002 also AO visited the shop of LW.1 and reiterated his earlier demand and threatened that, if he fail to pay bribe amount, he would foist a case and cancel his Service Connection. LW.1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount. AO reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,500/- and asked him to be ready with the bribe amount and that he would come to his shop and collect the bribe amount on 02.01.2003. LW.1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount. AO reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,500/- and asked him to be ready with the bribe amount and that he would come to his shop and collect the bribe amount on 02.01.2003. Hence, LW.1 decided to give a report to ACB and accordingly presented the report with DSP, ACB, Tirupati Range, Kadapa. The pre-trap proceedings took place in the office of Inspector of Police, ACB, Kadapa on 02.01.2003 from 05:00 to 06:15 p.m. in the presence of S.N. Chakravarthi - Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, Kadapa and LW.2 - Y.V.V. Sreedhar, Senior Auditor, State Audit, Kadapa. On 02.01.2003 at 06:20 p.m., the DSP, ACB, Tirupati Range along with LW.1, LW.2 and LW.3 - mediators, reached the shop of LW.1. At about 06:40 p.m. AO came to the shop of LW.1 and demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1,500/- from LW.1. LW.3, the accompanying witness, heard the conversation that took place between LW.1 and AO. LW.1 asked the AO to sit a while to take a cup of coffee. LW.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. Trap party members received the signal and rushed into the shop of LW.1. The DSP, ACB, Tirupati subjected both hand fingers of AO to the chemical test and the test yielded positive result. On the request of DSP, ACB AO produced a wad of currency notes from his right side trouser pocket. Their particulars were tallied with pre trap proceedings. The DSP, ACB seized the above currency notes. The Chairman and Managing Director, AP Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Tirupati accorded sanction to prosecute the AO in a competent Court of law vide his proceedings dated 26.07.2003. Hence, the charge sheet. 4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and, after appearance of the AO, by complying the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the AO, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To bring home the guilt of the AO, the prosecution before the trial Court, examined PWs.1 to PW.7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20 and during the course of cross-examination of PW.1, Ex.D-1, the relevant portion in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement, was marked. 5. To bring home the guilt of the AO, the prosecution before the trial Court, examined PWs.1 to PW.7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20 and during the course of cross-examination of PW.1, Ex.D-1, the relevant portion in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement, was marked. Prosecution further got marked MOs.1 to MO.8. 6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, AO was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he stated that he has defence witnesses but he did not examine any defence witness and even he did not file any written statement. 7. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the AO guilty of the charges, as above, and convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for the charge under Section 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently and ordered for return of MO.3, amount of Rs.1,500/- to PW.1 and ordered for destruction of the other material objects, after Appeal time. 8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in C.C. No.23 of 2003, filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. During pendency of the Appeal, the Accused Officer was expired and his legal representative i.e., wife of the AO impleaded herself as per the order in I.A. No.3 of 2020, dated 02.02.2021. So, the present Appeal after the death of the appellant is pursued by the legal representative of the appellant/AO. 10. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved that AO is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and whether the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the PC Act? 10. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved that AO is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and whether the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the PC Act? 2) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved pendency of the official favour in respect of the shop of PW.1 with AO in the manner as alleged? 3) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved that AO demanded the de-facto complainant to pay a bribe of Rs.3,000/- and later reduced it to Rs.1,500/- and in pursuance of such a demand, accepted the same on 02.01.2003 and further he obtained any pecuniary advantage by obtaining such amount? 4) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges framed against the AO beyond reasonable doubt and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Special Judge? 11. POINT Nos.1 to 4: Smt. P. Saraswathi, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the prosecution before the trial Court failed to prove a valid sanction. The person who issued the sanction was not examined by the prosecution and the learned Special Judge did not consider this important aspect. She would further contend that when the AO allegedly demanded bribe from PW.1 10 days prior to Ex.P-1, it is not known why he kept quiet without lodging any report with the ACB till 01.01.2003. Even after lodging Ex.P-1, FIR could be registered only on the next day. So, there is delay in lodging Ex.P-1 as well as registration of FIR, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. In fact, PW.1 consumed excess power as against the permissible limits for which he has to pay the penalty of huge amount and when AO visited the shop of PW.1 on 31.12.2002, he made a request to visit the shop in the presence of his sister-in-law only and, in that view of the matter only, on 02.01.2003 AO made a visit. Purposefully, PW.1 thrust the tainted amount in the trouser pocket of AO in spite of his resistance. So, apprehending that AO may take action for excessive consumption of the load of energy, PW.1 falsely implicated the AO. Purposefully, PW.1 thrust the tainted amount in the trouser pocket of AO in spite of his resistance. So, apprehending that AO may take action for excessive consumption of the load of energy, PW.1 falsely implicated the AO. Ultimately unable to bear the torture, AO died pendency of the present Appeal and his legal representative i.e., his wife is prosecuting the Appeal. PW.2, the mediator, was not a direct witness to the occurrence. However, he claimed that he was a direct witness to the occurrence. The prosecution did not prove pendency of the official favour. With the above said contentions, she would contend that the prosecution did not establish the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as such the Appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the respondent-State, would contend that there is no hard and fast rule that the FIR is to be lodged immediately after demand of bribe. In the cases of this nature, the culprit who made demand for bribe will go on making demand. Here, AO made demands thrice and ultimately PW.1 decided to lodge a report. So, there is no delay in lodging Ex.P-1. Having met with three demands, ultimately, PW.1 decided to lodge a report. ACB was not supposed to register the FIR immediately after receipt. So, after necessary verification only they could register the FIR on 02.01.2003. Recovery of the tainted amount from AO was not in dispute. AO himself admitted that on 31.12.2002 and 02.01.2003, he visited the shop of PW.1. He had no business to visit the shop of PW.1 without following the due process. So, AO demanded bribe so as to preclude himself from taking some action against PW.1. The case of the prosecution would come under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Prosecution proved a valid sanction. The learned Special Judge rightly analyzed the evidence on record and rightly convicted the accused as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Firstly, I would like to deal with as to whether there is a valid sanction obtained by the prosecution to prosecute the AO for the charges framed. 14. Prosecution proved a valid sanction. The learned Special Judge rightly analyzed the evidence on record and rightly convicted the accused as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Firstly, I would like to deal with as to whether there is a valid sanction obtained by the prosecution to prosecute the AO for the charges framed. 14. Coming to the evidence of PW.5, he is the Personal Officer in the office of Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL, Tirupati and according to him, R.V.Chalapathi, Chief General Manager, HRD, APSPDCL, Tirupati gave Ex.P-7 authorization to give evidence. He brought the file relating to sanction. He is the concerned clerk who processed the sanction order. They received necessary material from ACB with a request to issue sanction order. Thereafter, the file was sent to Assistant secretary, Deputy Secretary and then to the Chief General Manager and from him to Director of Operations. After obtaining their opinions, it was sent to the Chairman and Managing Director Sri K. Ranganadham. After satisfying himself, he issued Ex.P-8. He can identify the signature of Sri K. Ranganadham as he worked under him. During cross-examination, he denied that he does not know the signature of K. Ranganadham and that he is not competent to identify the signature and that he is deposing false. 15. The fact that PW.5 worked under K. Ranganadham, Chairman and Managing Director of APSPDCL, is not in dispute. So, when he worked under him for a considerable period of time, he had acquaintance with the signatory of Ex.P-8. To prove the signature like on Ex.P-8, the person who issued the sanction need not be examined. As can be seen from Ex.P-8, it shows the application of mind of the sanctioning authority. Having regard to the report of PW.1, pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, and having looked into the allegations, the Chairman and Managing Director decided to issue the sanction order. In my considered view, considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge rightly held that the prosecution proved a valid sanction. 16. Now, I would like to deal with as to whether prosecution proved that there was an official favour pending with AO in respect of the work of PW.1. The relevant evidence of PW.1 in this regard is that he was running R.R. Iron Shop in D.No.7/154-4 G, NGO Colony, Kadapa. 16. Now, I would like to deal with as to whether prosecution proved that there was an official favour pending with AO in respect of the work of PW.1. The relevant evidence of PW.1 in this regard is that he was running R.R. Iron Shop in D.No.7/154-4 G, NGO Colony, Kadapa. Previously, it was in the name of his elder brother who died in the year 1991. The shop is having electricity Service Connection of 3 phase bearing No.32390 with load of 5 KW. There was average consumption of 400 units per month. He was paying electricity charges regularly. AO was working as Divisional Engineer in Electricity Department. 10 days prior to 26.12.2002, AO came to his shop, checked three welding machines, two grinders and one drilling machine, one tube light, two bulbs, five switches and stated that he was using more capacity than the permitted capacity and that a fine of Rs.20,000/- has to be imposed against him. He told him to send the notice and that he would pay the same. AO told him that if he issues a notice, he has to pay Rs.20,000/- as penalty. He demanded to pay a bribe of Rs.3,000/- as to pay Rs.500/- per month as mamool. He expressed his inability. Again, on 31.12.2002, AO came to his shop and reiterated his earlier demand and threatened to file a case if he fail to pay the bribe amount, his service connection would be disconnected. He expressed his inability to pay the said amount. AO told him that he has to pay at least Rs.2,500/- and that he would come to his shop on 02.01.2003 at 05:00 p.m. So, he decided to lodge a report and accordingly presented Ex.P-1. He further spoke about the pre-trap proceedings involving the mediators, himself and ACB personnel. Insofar as the pre-trap proceedings are concerned, his evidence is that one constable kept the amount in his left side upper shirt pocket and the DSP, ACB asked him to give the amount only on further demand of AO. His evidence with regard to the post-trap is that after pre-trap, they all started in a Jeep and reached to his shop. He and one of the mediators went to his shop. Within 5 or 6 minutes, AO came to his shop and demanded bribe amount. His evidence with regard to the post-trap is that after pre-trap, they all started in a Jeep and reached to his shop. He and one of the mediators went to his shop. Within 5 or 6 minutes, AO came to his shop and demanded bribe amount. He paid the bribe amount to AO, who received the same with his right hand and kept the same in his pant pocket without counting the same due to confidence on him. Witness again says that firstly AO was about to count the amount and stated that he is having confidence in him. Then, he told him that he would get A coffee and asked him to sit in the shop. AO sat on a chair in the verandah of the shop. Then, he came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. DSP, ACB and other raid party members came there and asked him to be away for 10 minutes. After half an hour, he was called and DSP recorded his statement. 17. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, on behalf of the accused, it is elicited that PW.1 has knowledge that if the installed load is more than the connected load, consumer has to pay the security deposit and also the penalty. When the officials of the Electricity Department inspect and found the above facts, they will issue a notice to the consumer. These answers are in tune with the evidence of PW.3, who was examined by the prosecution on certain procedural aspects. 18. The evidence of PW.3 is that after trap on 14.03.2003, at the request of Inspector, ACB, Kadapa, he inspected the shop of PW.1 at Kadapa and found that the Service Connection No.32390 is with the sanctioned load of 5000 watts and found that it was under usage of 6440 watts, which is not an offence but, it has to be regularized by paying development charges and additional security deposit. During his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, this fact is not in dispute. In other words, PW.1 used excessive load of consumption of power is not in dispute. During his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, this fact is not in dispute. In other words, PW.1 used excessive load of consumption of power is not in dispute. It is to be noted that the specific case of the prosecution is that 10 days prior to Ex.P-1, AO made a visit to the shop of PW.1 and told him that he utilized excessive power consumption and that if he issues notice, he has to pay Rs.20,000/- as such demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.3,000/- and to pay mamools regularly i.e., Rs.500/- per month. Ex.P-1 refers the dates of demand as 26.12.2002 and 31.12.2002. Though there is some discrepancy as to whether AO made a visit to the shop of PW.1, 10 days prior to 26.12.2002 or 10 days prior to Ex.P-1 but Ex.P-1 reads that it was 10 days prior to Ex.P-1. So, this type of discrepancy is not going to affect the case of prosecution in any way. 19. During cross-examination of PW.1, AO did not dispute the visit made by him to the shop of PW.1 on 31.12.2002 as well as on 02.01.2003. The defence of AO in this regard is that on 31.12.2002 AO told to PW.1 that he inspected the shop with regard to excessive load and that he (PW.1) has shown the electricity service bills to AO and that electricity service connection was in the name of his brother. On that he wanted to inspect the shop, for which PW.1 made a request to inspect the shop in the presence of his sister-in-law after 06:00 p.m. on 02.01.2003. The denial made by PW.1 in this regard is that he insisted AO to make visit on 02.01.2003 in the presence of his sister-in-law. So the fact that AO found excessive usage of consumption of energy by PW.1 is not in dispute. So, as the Divisional Engineer who made inspection of the shop of PW.1 and as he found excessive usage of energy, he was supposed to initiate appropriate action against PW.1 for recovery of the amount in connection with the procedure. So, the visit made by AO on 31.12.2002 to the shop of PW.1 and on 02.01.2003 on the date of trap is not in dispute. So, the visit made by AO on 31.12.2002 to the shop of PW.1 and on 02.01.2003 on the date of trap is not in dispute. So, in respect of the excessive consumption of energy by PW.1, AO was supposed to take some action against him, as such it is quite clear that the official favour in respect of excessive usage of energy by PW.1 was pending with AO. 20. Here, the allegation of the prosecution is that AO demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.3,000/- and further to pay every month Rs.500/- for forbearing to do an official function. The allegation of the prosecution quietly attracts Section 7 of the PC Act. Considering the same, the evidence on record is suffice to say that prosecution has proved the pendency of official favour to be performed by AO in respect of work of PW.1. 21. Coming to the crucial allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by PW.1, PW.1 fully supported the case of prosecution. He spoke about the demands prior to 26.12.2002 and 31.12.2002 and also on 02.01.2003 i.e., on the date of trap. The evidence of PW.1 has corroboration from the contents of Ex.P-1 report. Apart from this, as evident from the evidence of PW.2, the mediator in the pretrap and post-trap proceedings, he was a public servant. He worked as Senior Auditor in the Office of District Audit Officer, State Audit, Kadapa. He testified that upon the instructions of District Audit Officer, he attended the ACB Office at Kadapa and verified about the contents of copy of FIR with PW.1. He spoke about the pre-trap proceedings. His specific evidence is that during the pre-trap proceedings, DSP, ACB instructed him and PW.1 to go the shop of PW.1 and also instructed one constable to observe the things there. The fact that PW.2 accompanied PW.1 is spoken by PW.1. The evidence of PW.2 with reference to the posttrap is that he and PW.1 were sent to the shop of PW.1. Both of them were discussing with regard to the material. Within 5 minutes, AO came to the shop and demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe amount. PW.1 removed the amount from his pocket and gave the same to AO. The evidence of PW.2 with reference to the posttrap is that he and PW.1 were sent to the shop of PW.1. Both of them were discussing with regard to the material. Within 5 minutes, AO came to the shop and demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe amount. PW.1 removed the amount from his pocket and gave the same to AO. AO received the same with his right hand and tried to count the same with his both hands but he did not count it and stated that entire amount would be there and kept the amount in his right side pant pocket. So, PW.2 was a witness to observe the events between PW.1 and AO and, according to him on further demand of AO, PW.1 paid the bribe amount to him. It is to be noted that PW.2 was a public servant who has no animosity whatsoever against the AO. The evidence of PW.2 coupled with the evidence of PW.6, the Trap Laying Officer, proves that the tainted amount was recovered from the trouser pocket of AO. These facts are not in dispute in the entire cross-examination of PW.2, the mediator and PW.6, the Trap Laying Officer. So, the evidence of PW.6 is also that on receiving pre-arranged signal, they rushed into the shop of PW.1 and they conducted chemical test to both hand fingers of AO, which yielded positive result and AO produced the tainted amount from his right side back pant pocket. The evidence proves that the serial numbers of the tainted amount which were noted in the pre-trap were tallied with the post-trap proceedings. Even AO did not dispute the fact that the tainted amount was recovered from his possession. So, there is categorical evidence of PW.1 with regard to the demands prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap and insofar as the demand made by AO on the date of post trap is concerned, it has support from the evidence of PW.2. Recovery of the demanded amount was from the trouser pocket of AO proved the fact that AO received the tainted amount. 22. Now, this Court has to look into the defence of the AO in this regard. Recovery of the demanded amount was from the trouser pocket of AO proved the fact that AO received the tainted amount. 22. Now, this Court has to look into the defence of the AO in this regard. During the cross-examination of PW.1 it was suggested to him that when he visited the shop of PW.1, he enquired about his sister-in-law and he told him that his sister-inlaw is on the way and asked him to sit there to have a coffee. It is further suggested to PW.1 that when AO turned towards his chair which was shown to him, it was PW.1 who thrust the amount in his pant pocket. PW.1 denied the said suggestion. So, the version of AO is that PW.1 thrust the amount into the trouser pocket of AO. It is to be noted that the incident in question was happened in the shop of PW.1. Admittedly, AO had no business to visit the shop of PW.1, without being borne out by any record, if there was excessive load of energy. He had to issue a notice for imposition of penalty. He did not do so. So, the very defence of the AO as if he visited the shop of PW.1 and was waiting for the arrival of sister-in-law of PW.1 cannot stand to any reason. Apart from this, the natural conduct of AO when PW.1 thrust the amount into his trouser pocket would be go out from the shop and to throw the amount on the face of PW.1. It is not the case of AO that he threw the amount on the face of PW.1, who thrust the amount into his pocket. Leisurely and at the instructions of DSP, ACB he took out the amount from his trouser pocket. So, the thrust theory set forth by AO cannot stand to any reason. 23. In my considered view, the prosecution categorically established the allegations of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount and further recovery of tainted amount from AO. Leisurely and at the instructions of DSP, ACB he took out the amount from his trouser pocket. So, the thrust theory set forth by AO cannot stand to any reason. 23. In my considered view, the prosecution categorically established the allegations of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount and further recovery of tainted amount from AO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724, presided over by a Constitutional Bench elaborately dealt with the essential ingredients of Sections 7, 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) and 20 of the PC Act and insofar as Section 7 of the PC Act is concerned on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the Court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the Section and such presumption has to be raised by the Court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. 24. Section 20 of the PC Act runs as follows: ? “20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration — (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.” 25. The prosecution has the benefit of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The defence of the AO with regard to the false implication is not tenable. In my considered view, AO failed to rebut the presumption available to the case of the prosecution under Section 20 of the PC Act. 26. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution before the trial Court categorically proved the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by AO from PW.1 prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap. The act of the AO in demanding PW.1 to pay bribe of Rs.3,000/- at first instance and later reducing it to Rs.1,500/- and acceptance of the same is nothing but an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. Further, the amount obtained by the AO would squarely attract the allegation that he obtained pecuniary advantage from PW.1 by demanding the bribe as such it would further establish the essential ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act. It is nothing but a criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13 of the PC Act. The prosecution before the trial Court proved the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in my considered view, the learned Special Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted and sentenced the AO. The prosecution before the trial Court proved the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in my considered view, the learned Special Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted and sentenced the AO. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as such the judgment, dated 20.06.2007, in C.C. No.23 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore stands confirmed. 28. As the Accused Officer died during pendency of the Appeal, no further steps are required to carry out the sentence. 29. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this judgment along with the trial Court to the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore within one (1) week from this day. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.