JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. The judgment in Calendar Case No. 13 of 2001, dated 16.07.2007, on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (for short “the learned Special Judge”), is under challenge in the present Appeal filed by the unsuccessful accused. 2. The Accused Officer (AO) faced charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”). The learned Special Judge on conclusion of trial, found the AO not guilty of the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act but found him guilty of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and, accordingly convicted him under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer 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 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 4. The State, represented by Range Inspector-I, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer by name L.V. Gopal Swamy, Assistant Audit Officer, worked in Local Fund Office at Kakinada pertaining to Crime No. 4/RC-RJY/2000 of ACB, Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that AO is a “Public Servant” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. LW.1 – Voleti Venkata Visveswara Sastry was the Head Master of MP Elementary School, S. Atchutapuram, E.G. District. LW.1 submitted his arrears bills in the Office of the Mandal Educational Officer, Kakinada Rural Mandal on 03.05.2000, which was forwarded to the AO on 26.05.2000. In fact, the arrears bills were handed over by LW.1 in the office of AO after duly verified by the MEO, Kakinada. The arrears bills file was kept on his table by the AO without putting his initial on the file. In fact, the arrears bills were handed over by LW.1 in the office of AO after duly verified by the MEO, Kakinada. The arrears bills file was kept on his table by the AO without putting his initial on the file. AO informed to his Junior Audit Officer (LW.5 – E. Ravindra Kumar) that he would see the file in the second week of May, 2000. LW.1 met the AO about his pending bills, but the AO asked him to come after 10 days. LW.1 could not meet the AO in the month of May, 2000 due to pressure of work. On 05.06.2000 at about 10:30 a.m., LW.1 met the AO in the office and enquired about his bills. The AO demanded Rs.2,000/- for processing the arrears bills, but LW.1 expressed his inability to pay the demanded amount. LW.1 reluctantly agreed to pay the demanded amount. As LW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe, he approached LW.11, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Rajahmundry and filed a written complaint dated 05.06.2000. The complaint was registered as Crime on 06.06.2000 after making antecedents enquiry. On 06.06.2000, LW.11, arranged the trap party and went to the Office of AO. LW.1 paid the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- to the AO on demand. On receiving the tainted amount, AO kept the amount in his Scooter’s front box. Meanwhile, the ACB people trapped the AO, seized the tainted amount, and conducted chemical examination, which proved positive. On the same day, AO was arrested and released on bail by the DSP. After completing investigation, prosecution obtained permission vide G.O.Ms. No. 189, dated 30.12.2000, from the Finance and Planning Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence the charge sheet. 5. 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. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to PW.4 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-10, Exs.P.1(a) to P.1(f) and MOs.1 to MO.7 were marked. Further, Ex.X-1 was also marked during the course of cross-examination of PW.3. 7. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to PW.4 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-10, Exs.P.1(a) to P.1(f) and MOs.1 to MO.7 were marked. Further, Ex.X-1 was also marked during the course of cross-examination of PW.3. 7. 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 denied the same and submitted his written statement and reported defence witnesses. 8. The contention of AO in the written statement is that he never received arrear bills filed under Ex.P-1 and he never made acknowledgment about the receiving of file. Unless the District Audit Officer (PW.3) endorse on the file, the file will not come to him and he did not receive the file from PW.3. PW.1 never met him prior to 06.06.2000 and he never demanded any amount from PW.1. On 06.06.2000 at about 04:45 p.m. while he was in his Chambers and perusing the files, PW.1 entered his Chamber, introduced himself as V.V.V. Sastry, working as Teacher in the Elementary School and asked about his arrears. Meanwhile, his Attender brought the Tea for him. At the same time, his son L. Sreedhar Babu came to his chamber and informed that he parked the Scooter in the portico of the Office building and key is available with the scooter as he forgot to bring the scooter key. He informed to PW.1 that he is not the concerned authority to approve the Bills and District Officer is the proper authority and he left the Chambers. At that time, one Srinivasa Rao, Attender was present. He underwent cardiac surgery in November, 1999 and he was on leave for about 2 months. Due to his ill-health, his son used to drop him on Scooter in the Office and sometimes he used to drive the scooter. Due to his ill-health, he was not applying the kick to start the scooter. Hence, he went to the portico along with his Attender. As his Attender was applying the kick to start the scooter, PW.1 came there and gave shake hand with his right hand and took leave from him. He was about to sit on the scooter. Meanwhile, the ACB people came there and took him to the Office, conducted chemical test on his hands. As his Attender was applying the kick to start the scooter, PW.1 came there and gave shake hand with his right hand and took leave from him. He was about to sit on the scooter. Meanwhile, the ACB people came there and took him to the Office, conducted chemical test on his hands. At that time, his blood pressure was raised and he was allowed to take rest and he narrated the events to the ACB Officials that he never demanded any amount and never received the amount from PW.1. He was not allowed to go near the scooter. He has not produced Ex.P-1 file. The AO filed his medical prescriptions issued by the Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), Hyderabad. Further, the AO got examined DWs.1 and DW.2 on his behalf. 9. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record made specific findings that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for bribe prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap and that prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act but the learned Special Judge made a finding that the act of the accused in receiving an amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 would tantamount to the offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. 13(2) of the PC Act and accordingly convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as above. 10. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in C.C. No. 13 of 2001, filed the present Criminal Appeal. 11. As the appellant died during pendency of the Appeal i.e., on 27.03.2015, the wife of the appellant is permitted to prosecute the Appeal vide order in Crl.A.M.P. No. 1759 of 2016. 12. With regard to acquittal of the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act, the State did not file any Appeal challenging the same. 13. 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 was 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? 13. 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 was 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 that AO by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant obtained an amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 in the manner as alleged? (3) Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act beyond reasonable doubt and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Special Judge? POINT No. 1: 14. Though there is a ground raised in the grounds of Appeal as if the prosecution did not prove a valid sanction but the evidence on record goes to prove that the AO never raised any objection for marking of Ex.P-10 – sanction order through the chief-examination of PW.4 – Investigating Officer. Even during the course of hearing of the present Appeal, the said aspect is not raised. However, the fact remained is that Ex.P-10 – sanction order was marked with consent and further a perusal of Ex.P-10 proves that the sanctioning authority after application of mind as to the allegations in the case of the prosecution, granted sanction to prosecute the accused for the offences alleged against him. Hence, the prosecution before the trial Court proved that AO was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and further proved a valid sanction to prosecute him. POINT Nos. 2 and 3: 15. PW.1 is no other than the de-facto complainant. The crucial allegations in Ex.P-2 are that on 05.06.2000 when PW.1 met the AO in his office about his pending bills, AO demanded him to pay Rs.2,000/- towards bribe. This is the allegation in Ex.P-2. Further allegation is on the date of trap i.e., on 06.06.2000, AO demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.2,000/-. Now, coming to the evidence of PW.1, in his evidence, he spoke about pendency of the official favour with AO. This is the allegation in Ex.P-2. Further allegation is on the date of trap i.e., on 06.06.2000, AO demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.2,000/-. Now, coming to the evidence of PW.1, in his evidence, he spoke about pendency of the official favour with AO. According to him, the MEO, Kakinada sent a letter in the month of May, 2000 to the Audit Officer pertaining to PW.1 for sanction. Ex.P-1 is the made up file which contains the letter. Ex.P.1(a) bears the signature of LW.3 – P. Satyanarayana. Ex.P-1 also consists of Ex.P.1(b) and Ex.P.1(c). In the second week of May, 2000 at 10:00 a.m., he went to AO and requested him to sanction the arrears due to him. He asked him to come after 10 days. On 05.06.2000, he visited the Office of AO at 10:00 a.m. and again requested to sanction the amount of Rs.37,000/- in connection with the bills forwarded to him by LW.3 – P. Satyanarayana. AO replied that a sum of Rs.2,000/- was to be paid towards bribe for sanction. He expressed his inability. AO did not hear his request. So, he lodged a report. On the same day at 03:30 p.m. he went to the Office of DSP, ACB, Rajahmundry and lodged a report – Ex.P-2. He spoke about the pre-trap proceedings that were happened on 06.06.2000 at 01:00 p.m. in the office of Inspector, ACB, Kakinada and the procedure followed by the DSP, ACB, Kakinada with regard to verification of his report with the help of mediators and further application of phenolphthalein powder to the amount of Rs.2,000/- produced by him etc., His evidence insofar as the post-trap proceedings is that on 03:45 p.m. they left the office of Inspector, ACB, Kakinada and proceeded to the office of AO. He requested the AO to sanction his arrear bills. AO asked him whether he brought the demanded amount. He replied in positive. AO asked him to wait for some time. He waited in the Office till 05:30 p.m. At 05:30 p.m. AO took him to ground floor, where he demanded Rs.2,000/- and he paid the same to AO. AO took charge of the amount of Rs.2,000/- with his right hand and kept it in the scooter dicky. Thereafter, he moved up to gate and gave signal. He waited in the Office till 05:30 p.m. At 05:30 p.m. AO took him to ground floor, where he demanded Rs.2,000/- and he paid the same to AO. AO took charge of the amount of Rs.2,000/- with his right hand and kept it in the scooter dicky. Thereafter, he moved up to gate and gave signal. After receiving the signal, the DSP, ACB and trap party members rushed into the office of AO, caught hold of the AO and he informed to them that he paid the amount to AO. He was asked to wait outside for some time. After some time, he was called inside and he was enquired by the DSP, ACB. 16. PW.2 is the trap mediator and he spoke about the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. The substance of his evidence with regard to post-trap is that on receiving pre-arranged signal, they rushed to the spot and found AO and PW.1 and conducted chemical test to the right hand fingers of AO, which yielded positive result and the test conducted to left hand fingers yielded negative result and that the tainted amount was recovered at the instance of AO from his scooter dicky, which got tallied with the amount noted in the pre-trap proceedings. 17. Prosecution further examined PW.3 to speak about the procedural aspects. According to him, concerned school Headmaster would prepare the pay bills and he will send them to MEO and MEO, after verification, will send the same to the Audit Officer, Local Funds for verification and release of grant. Ex.P.1(a) bears the seal of Assistant Audit Officer. He did not receive Ex.P-1 made up to his office. The Assistant Audit Officer will verify and scrutinize the bills with the assistance of his staff members. 18. PW.4 is the Trap Laying Officer who deposed in tune with the evidence of PW.2 – mediator. 19. AO got examined DW.1 the then Attender in his office. Though he was cited as a prosecution witness, prosecution did not examine him. The substance of the depositions of DW.1 and DW.2 will be discussed hereafter while appreciating the defence of AO. 20. Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that it is a case where the AO was alleged to be trapped in the ground floor when he demanded and accepted the bribe amount. Prosecution alleged two dates for demand of bribe. 20. Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that it is a case where the AO was alleged to be trapped in the ground floor when he demanded and accepted the bribe amount. Prosecution alleged two dates for demand of bribe. One was on 05.06.2000 and another was on the date of trap. Learned Special Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, negated the case of prosecution by holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand, dated 05.06.2000, as on that entire day, AO was attending a meeting from 10:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. which was born out by the record. With regard to the demand during the post-trap, the learned Special Judge disbelieved the case of prosecution. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge rightly extended an order of acquittal in favour of the AO. Without there being any demand, which is a sine-qua-non even to prove the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the learned Special Judge proceeded to convict the AO under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act, which is wholly un-sustainable. He would rely upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2015 (10) SCC 152 and State of Kerala and Another vs. C.P. Rao, 2011 (6) SCC 450 to contend that mere recovery of the tainted amount is not at all sufficient to convict the AO either for charge under Section 7 of the PC Act or Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the AO had consistent defence throughout. According to him, he was suffering with ill-health. DW.2 is the son of the AO who used to bring the scooter to the office of AO for his convenience. Even AO was not able to start the scooter with his legs and used to take the help of DW.1 to kick start the scooter. DW.2 on the date of trap brought the scooter and parked the same in the ground floor and went to his father and stated that he forgot to bring the scooter key to his father and it was lying with the scooter for which AO replied that he is going to ground floor and there is no need for him to bring the key. By then, PW.1 was in the room of AO and heard the conversation between AO and DW.2. The defence of AO is that by hearing such conversation, PW.1 went into the ground floor and planted the amount in the dicky of the scooter with the help of available key. During cross-examination PW.1 admitted that he shook hands with AO in the ground floor. So, the defence of AO is that when he shook hands with the right hand of AO, the phenolphthalein powder traces contacted with the right hand of AO as such it yielded positive result. Apart from this, the tainted currency was of 100 rupee notes 20 in number. Bribe monger tendency would be to count the cash after accepting the bribe and if that was done, there was a chance for contact of phenolphthalein powder to his both hands. Here, the fact that the left hand of AO yielded negative result means that AO did not deal with the tainted amount at all. The evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 goes to falsify the case of prosecution. Even otherwise, mere recovery of the tainted amount is not sufficient to convict the AO. Absolutely, when the demand is missing from the evidence, the AO cannot be convicted for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The learned Special Judge misdirected himself to convict the AO without there being any proof of demand as such the impugned judgment is wholly un-sustainable and the Appeal is liable to be allowed. 21. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the respondent-State, seeks to support the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that it is a fact that the prosecution did not file any Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Special Judge in giving the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand. However, there is no dispute that AO dealt with the tainted amount. AO has to account for as to how he received the amount. AO denied receipt of the tainted amount and examined DW.1 and DW.2 but the trial Court did not believe their evidence. The citations relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant have no application to the case on hand. AO has to account for as to how he received the amount. AO denied receipt of the tainted amount and examined DW.1 and DW.2 but the trial Court did not believe their evidence. The citations relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant have no application to the case on hand. AO accepted the amount from PW.1 by corrupt and illegal means as such there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. With the above submissions, she would contend that the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. Before going to appreciate the case of prosecution with regard to the charges under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act, it is pertinent to look into the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court exonerating the AO for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act. A look into those findings is absolutely necessary because the contention of the appellant is that when the prosecution failed to prove the demand, which is a sine-qua-non to prove the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Conviction of AO under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act in the absence of a demand is not sustainable. 23. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, he deposed that on 05.06.2000, he made up his mind to lodge a report against the AO to the DSP, ACB, Kakinada and at 03:00 p.m. he went to the Office of DSP, ACB and at 03:30 p.m. he lodged the report. He did not have prior acquaintance with AO prior to 05.06.2000. He denied that he did not visit the Office of AO in the month of June, 2000 i.e., 05.06.2000. He denied that on 05.06.2000 AO did not attend the office and he attended the District Level Meeting and he did not meet him on 05.06.2000. The accused got elicited favourable answers from the mouth of PW.3 in his cross-examination. The evidence of PW.3 in cross-examination is that on 05.06.2000 meeting of Assistant Audit Officers was held in the Chambers of the Audit Officer and it was presided over by Regional Deputy Director and minutes were prepared for that meeting. The accused got elicited favourable answers from the mouth of PW.3 in his cross-examination. The evidence of PW.3 in cross-examination is that on 05.06.2000 meeting of Assistant Audit Officers was held in the Chambers of the Audit Officer and it was presided over by Regional Deputy Director and minutes were prepared for that meeting. He admitted that AO had attended that meeting and it was held from 10:30 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. AO was present in that meeting and he was present in his office throughout the meeting. AO signed on the minutes prepared in that context along with other Assistant Audit Officers as well as Audit Officer and Regional Deputy Director. He further stated in cross-examination that on 05.06.2000 monthly review meeting was held in the office of Audit Office, Local Funds, Kakinada and minutes were drawn and he was present in the said meeting and AO also attended that meeting. 14 Officers attended the meeting and all of them signed in the minutes book. Ex.X-1 is the minutes pertaining to Page Nos.21 to 34 of the review meeting held on 05.06.2000. 24. As seen from Ex.X-1, it is very clear that the minutes were recorded at Page Nos.21 to 34 of Ex.X-1 and AO was present in the Chambers of Audit Officer from 10:30 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. PW.1 in cross-examination deposed that on 05.06.2000, he remained in the absence of AO for about half an hour. With regard to the evidence of PW.1 that AO demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- on that day, except the solitary evidence of PW.1, there was no corroborative evidence in support of that. On the other hand, the own witness of the prosecution i.e., PW.3 categorically deposed that AO was present in the meeting from 10:30 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. Though it was elicited in the re-examination of PW.3 that AO office i.e., the Office of Assistant Audit Officer, Mandal Parishat was located near Railway Station, Kakinada, which is 3 K.Ms away from Audit Office, where the review meeting was held, nothing was suggested to PW.3 on behalf of prosecution that there was a chance for AO to attend his office at 10:30 a.m. and thereby to attend the Audit Office also without delay. Absolutely, it is never the case of prosecution. Absolutely, it is never the case of prosecution. So, the learned Special Judge looking into this evidence elaborately made a finding that there was no possibility for PW.1 to approach AO on 05.06.2000 as alleged and as there was no possibility to attend the Office of AO on that day, there was no question of demand by AO to PW.1 to pay the bribe. The learned Special Judge disbelieved the case of prosecution in this regard. 25. Turning to the demand during post-trap also the learned Special Judge was not inclined to believe the evidence of PW.1 on the ground that there is no evidence except the evidence of PW.1. There is no denial of the fact that PW.2, the accompanying witness, was not a witness to observe the events between PW.1 and AO on the date of trap. The evidence of PW.2, the accompanying witness and PW.4 – Trap Laying Officer was only to speak that on receipt of pre-arranged signal, they rushed to the ground floor and found AO and that they conducted chemical test to the right hand fingers and the left hand fingers of AO and that the amount was recovered from the scooter dicky. So, they were not witnesses to observe the actual events happened between PW.1 and AO. Looking into the evidence, the learned Special Judge was inclined to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the demand during the post-trap. 26. As this Court already pointed out, the State accepted the judgment of the learned Special insofar as the acquittal under Section 7 of the PC Act is concerned and did not file any Appeal whatsoever before this Court. So, virtually, the finding of facts recorded by the learned Special Judge were that the prosecution failed to prove the demand, dated 05.06.2000, and further demand during the post-trap became final. This Court in the absence of any such Appeal cannot delve into those aspects in view of the well settled legal position. 27. Now the simple question that falls for consideration is whether there is acceptable evidence to show that AO accepted the amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 without there being any demand and if so whether it amounts to criminal misconduct in terms of Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (i) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 27. Now the simple question that falls for consideration is whether there is acceptable evidence to show that AO accepted the amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW.1 without there being any demand and if so whether it amounts to criminal misconduct in terms of Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (i) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Firstly, with regard to the factual analyzation of the evidence in this regard, the defence examined DW.1 and DW.2 to contend that PW.1 planted the amount into the dicky of the scooter taking advantage of the fact that DW.2, son of AO, while parking the scooter in the ground floor forgot to get the keys with him to AO and told the same to AO and the said conversation was heard by PW.1, who was present by then and taking advantage of it, he planted the amount in the dicky. It is also his contention that PW.1 admitted in cross-examination that in the ground floor he shook hand with the right hand of AO as such there was a possibility for contacting the phenolphthalein substance with the right hand of AO and that is why his right hand yielded positive result. This is one line of contention and in support it, AO would rely upon the evidence of DWs.1 and DW.2. Another line of contention is that proving of demand is a sine-qua-non to prove the charges under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act and that the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy (1st supra), referring to its earlier decision in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. 2014 (13) SCC 55 held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is gravamen of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act as such even mere recovery of the tainted amount would not prove the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 28. Firstly, I would like to analyze the evidence with regard to factual scenario. The evidence of DW.1 is such that he was working as Attender in the Office of AO. It is a fact that DW.1 was cited as prosecution witness (LW.6) but as the prosecution could not examine him, AO chosen to examine him in support of his defence. Firstly, I would like to analyze the evidence with regard to factual scenario. The evidence of DW.1 is such that he was working as Attender in the Office of AO. It is a fact that DW.1 was cited as prosecution witness (LW.6) but as the prosecution could not examine him, AO chosen to examine him in support of his defence. The substance of the evidence of DW.1 is that on 06.06.2000 at 04:40 p.m. AO called him to give tea available in the flask. Then, he noticed a person sitting opposite to the AO in the Office room of AO. After trap, he came to know that the said person was PW.1. When he was serving tea to the AO, AO’s son namely Sridhar came to Office and told to his father that he brought Chetak scooter but forgot its keys and he would get the keys. AO’s son also told to his father that he parked the scooter in the office compound. Thereafter, he came out from the office. When AO’s son Sridhar was talking to his father, PW.1 was present. At about 05:30 p.m. on the instructions of AO, he locked the office and came down with AO. Then, he and the AO reached portico in the ground floor, by then PW.1 was standing in the portico at the scooter. PW.1 went away after obtaining leave from AO. AO used to take his help to start the scooter and when he was about to start the scooter, some officers came to the premises and directed them to remain as we were. DW.1 took charge of the office keys of AO and opened the office on the directions of those persons, who are the ACB officials. This is the substance of the evidence of DW.1. There was evidence of DW.2 in support of the defence theory that the son of AO i.e., DW.2 brought the scooter and forgot to get the keys to AO and the keys were with the scooter in the ground floor. 29. The learned Special Judge disbelieved the defence theory in this regard. It is to be noted that the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/-was 20 with 100 rupees denominations. There is no dispute that the right hand fingers of AO yielded positive result and left hand fingers of AO yielded negative result. 29. The learned Special Judge disbelieved the defence theory in this regard. It is to be noted that the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/-was 20 with 100 rupees denominations. There is no dispute that the right hand fingers of AO yielded positive result and left hand fingers of AO yielded negative result. The contention of AO is that if really he accepted Rs.2,000/- from PW.1, on demand, as bribe, he would have counted the same with his both hands as the denomination was 20 in number and there was no probability for him to keep the amount without counting in the scooter dicky. It is to be noted that, according to PW.1, he just handed over the amount to AO in the ground floor and the AO took the amount with his right hand and kept the same in the scooter dicky. I find some considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that if really there was a demand to get Rs.2,000/- as bribe and when the denomination was 20 in number of 100 rupees, no bribe monger would straightaway put the amount in the scooter dicky, especially when he took the amount in the ground floor without there being presence of other staff members. The fact that AO did not count the amount probabilizes the defence theory, in my considered view. So, AO was alleged to have dealt with the amount with his right hand only without there being any counting with his both hands. The conduct of AO as projected by the prosecution in this regard is against the probabilities. During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that on 06.06.2000 he met the AO in the ground floor and gave shake hand and went away after giving signal to the constable. It is to be noted that it was not the instruction given to PW.1 by the DSP, ACB that he can as well shake hand with the AO. PW.1 had knowledge that the amount was offered with phenolphthalein powder. He was supposed to carry the instructions just by handing over the amount to AO on further demand. He had no business to shake hand with AO. PW.1 had knowledge that the amount was offered with phenolphthalein powder. He was supposed to carry the instructions just by handing over the amount to AO on further demand. He had no business to shake hand with AO. In my considered view, now the probability is that even if the amount was planted in the dicky in view of the defence of AO there was every probability for contacting of phenolphthalein powder from the right hand of PW.1 with the right hand of AO. In my considered view, AO was able to probabilize his defence basing on the admissions made in the cross-examination. Though PW.1 denied in cross-examination that there was strained relationship between his office with the Union of Teachers Association but PW.3, the Audit Officer, Local Funds, Kakinada admitted in cross-examination that he heard that there was strained relationship between the Office of AO and the Teachers Union Association. 30. Apart from this, another legal issue is that when the prosecution failed to prove the demand, as alleged, whether accepting of the amount by AO would amount to criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) and (b) and 13(2) of the PC Act. As evident from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy (1st supra), mere recovery of the illegal gratification from the possession of AO would not be sufficient to bring home the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy (1st supra) elaborately dealt with this issue relying upon its earlier decision in B. Jayaraj (3rd supra). It is appropriate to extract the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para Nos. 22 and 23, which are as follows: “22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence Under Sections 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the 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. 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. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence Under Section 7 and not to those Under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) & (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption Under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 23. 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 therefor, 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. 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 thereunder.” 31. Now, in view of the above principles and even in view of the language in Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the PC Act, the prosecution is bound to prove the demand even to prove the charges under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act runs as follows: “13. Now, in view of the above principles and even in view of the language in Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the PC Act, the prosecution is bound to prove the demand even to prove the charges under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act runs as follows: “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct: (a) ……………… (b) ……………… (c) ……………… (d) If he: (i) By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.” 32. Therefore, Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the PC Act contemplates obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means. Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act contemplates obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by any public servant by abusing his position. The language employed, as above, goes to show that there should be a demand by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. So, when the learned Special Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution with regard to the demands dated 05.06.2000 and 06.06.2000 during post-trap, logically in the absence of demand, conviction under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is not at all sustainable. Virtually, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not believable as per the findings of the learned Special Judge. Those findings are not sought to be challenged by way of any Appeal by the State. 33. Having considered the above, I am of the considered view that on facts, AO was able to probabilize the defence theory. Even otherwise, mere recovery of the tainted amount is not sufficient to convict the accused in the absence of demand, as contemplated under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. In view of the legal position, demand is a sine-qua-non even to prove the charge under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. Even otherwise, mere recovery of the tainted amount is not sufficient to convict the accused in the absence of demand, as contemplated under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. In view of the legal position, demand is a sine-qua-non even to prove the charge under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. In my considered view, having recorded an order of acquittal for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act on the ground that prosecution failed to prove the demand, the learned Special Judge totally erred in recording a conviction against AO for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Hence, I am of the considered view that the judgment, dated 16.07.2007, in C.C. No. 13 of 2001 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam is not sustainable under law and facts and liable to be interfered with. 34. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting-aside the judgment, dated 16.07.2007, in C.C. No. 13 of 2001 insofar as conviction and sentence of the AO under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is concerned as such AO shall stand acquitted of the aforesaid charge. The legal representative i.e., the wife of the appellant/AO is entitled to claim refund of the fine amount, if any paid, after Appeal time is over. Further, the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- shall be confiscated to State and the material objects are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over, if available before the trial Court. 35. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment along with the trial Court record, if any, to the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam on or before 20.12.2023. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. A copy of this judgment shall also be forwarded to the Head of the Department of AO for information and further action, if any. 36. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.