JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, dated 16.11.2007, in Calendar Case No. 3 of 2004, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’). 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 in Crime No. 6/RCT-TCD/2003 of ACB, Kadapa District, Tirupati Range alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). (i) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows: L. Narayana, Accused Officer (AO), worked as Mandal Surveyor in the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa Mandal, Kadapa District and he is a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. D. Nagapattabi Reddy – LW.1 is a native of Patha Kadapa Village. D. Jayalakshumma – LW.4 is the mother of LW.1. LW.4 is having Ac.2.72 cents of land in Survey No. 539 of Ukkayapalli village. The Government acquired some land to lay by-pass road in the said survey number. Therefore, LW.1, to know the boundaries of the remaining extent and its measurements, gave a requisition in the name of his mother with challan No. 10418 for Rs.100/- to MRO, Kadapa on 13.12.2002 for conducting survey of the land. The MRO endorsed the same to the AO. AO conducted survey on 25.02.2003. LW.1 approached the AO and requested him to supply survey report and sketch. AO instructed LW.1 to pay challan of Rs.100/- and apply for copy of the survey report and sketch. On 06.03.2003, LW.1 submitted a representation along with challan No. 43291 for Rs.100/- to the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa to get the survey report and sketch of the land. On 07.03.2003, LW.1 approached the AO and requested him to supply copy of the survey report and sketch of their land. AO demanded LW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification to do an official favour. On 10.03.2003 also when he approached AO with a request to furnish survey report and sketch, AO reiterated his earlier demand. On 07.03.2003, LW.1 approached the AO and requested him to supply copy of the survey report and sketch of their land. AO demanded LW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification to do an official favour. On 10.03.2003 also when he approached AO with a request to furnish survey report and sketch, AO reiterated his earlier demand. When LW.1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, AO reduced it to Rs.3,000/- and asked him to pay the same on 17.03.2003 evening at his office. LW.1 accepted to pay the bribe as he has no other go and approached the DSP, ACB, Tirupathi Range who was camping at Kadapa on 17.03.2003 and gave a report, which was registered as a case in Cr.No. 6/RCT-TCD/2003. (ii) Pre-trap proceedings took place in the office room of Inspector of Police, ACB, Kadapa on 17.03.2003 from 05:00 p.m. to 06.30 p.m. in the presence of P. Rasheed Khan (LW.2) and B. Somasekhar (LW.3), two mediators. On 17.03.2003 at 06:40 p.m., the DSP, ACB, Tirupati along with LW.1 and mediators – LW.2 and LW.3 proceeded to the office of AO. AO could be successfully trapped when he demanded LW.1 to pay the bribe amount and accepted the same. The bribe amount was recovered from the possession of AO. The chemical test conducted to the both hands of AO yielded positive result. The entire proceedings were drafted in the office of MRO, Kadapa on 17.03.2003. (iii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded sanction to prosecute the AO in a competent Court of law vide G.O.Ms.No. 1063 of Revenue (Vigilance-IV), Department, A.P., Hyderabad dated 23.10.2003. Hence the charge-sheet. 4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law. After appearance of the accused and on complying Section 207 Cr.P.C. the learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the AO and explained the same to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution, during the course of trial, got examined PWs.1 to PW.7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-22, P.14(A), P.15(A) to P.15(E) and MOs.1 to MO.8. AO got marked Exs.D-1 to D-14 during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses. 6. 5. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution, during the course of trial, got examined PWs.1 to PW.7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-22, P.14(A), P.15(A) to P.15(E) and MOs.1 to MO.8. AO got marked Exs.D-1 to D-14 during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses. 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 denied the same and filed his written statement. He further filed Exs.D-15 to D-33 but did not examine any defence witnesses on his behalf. 7. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the Accused Officer not guilty of the charges and accordingly acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful State, represented by Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range filed the present Appeal. 9. 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 official favour in respect of the work of PW.1 pending 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.5,000/- and later reduced it to Rs.3,000/- and in pursuance of such a demand, accepted the same on 17.03.2003 and further he obtained any pecuniary advantage from the de-facto complainant within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act? (4) Whether the prosecution 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? POINT Nos. 1 to 4: 10. PW.1 is the de-facto complainant, who lodged Ex.P-7 report with DSP, ACB, Tirupati Range. PW.2 is the mahazar witness for pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. PW.3 is the Deputy Tahsildar in the office of MRO, who was examined on certain procedural aspects. POINT Nos. 1 to 4: 10. PW.1 is the de-facto complainant, who lodged Ex.P-7 report with DSP, ACB, Tirupati Range. PW.2 is the mahazar witness for pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. PW.3 is the Deputy Tahsildar in the office of MRO, who was examined on certain procedural aspects. PW.4 is one Bandaru Pullaiah, who was a farmer in the village and whose lands were also surveyed along with the lands of mother of PW.1. PW.5 was examined by the prosecution to prove the sanction order under Section 19 of the PC Act. PW.6 is the Trap Laying Officer and PW.7 is the Investigating Officer. 11. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor, would contend that the case of the prosecution is very specific that under the cover of Ex.P-1, the mother of PW.1 made an application to survey her lands. Along with Ex.P-1 application, PW.1 enclosed a challan of Rs.100/-(Ex.P-2), and xerox copy of title deed in favour of his mother (Ex.P-3). AO gave notice to the mother of PW.1 on 09.02.2003 proposing to survey the lands on 25.02.2003 and, according to the case of prosecution, it was done. When PW.1 applied to get the survey report under Ex.P-5 application, and enclosed with a challan under Ex.P-6, AO demanded bribe. So, there were demands prior to Ex.P-1, PW.1 lodged Ex.P-7 report. AO could be successfully trapped in the post-trap proceedings when he demanded and accepted bribe amount from PW.1. Prosecution proved the pendency of official favour. PW.1 fully supported the case of prosecution with regard to the allegation of demand by AO to pay the bribe and acceptance of the bribe on further demand on the date of trap. PW.1 supported the case of prosecution which has corroboration from Ex.P-7. Recovery of the tainted amount from AO was not in dispute. AO forwarded the thrust theory during the course of trial. On erroneous appreciation of the evidence, the learned Special Judge gave findings that the prosecution did not prove pendency of official favour and further there was a possibility for PW.1 to thrust the currency notes in the left trouser pocket of AO. Further, prosecution proved a valid sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The prosecution has the benefit of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. Further, prosecution proved a valid sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The prosecution has the benefit of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and extended an order of acquittal as such Appeal is liable to be allowed setting-aside the judgment of the learned Judge. 12. Sri M. Ravindra, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent/AO, would contend that the very allegation in Ex.P-7 is that by 25.02.2003 AO could complete the survey relating to the lands of mother of PW.1 and it is born out from the evidence that it was not completed by then and it could be completed by 07.03.2003 only. So, prior to 07.03.2003, AO could not complete the survey work. By 07.03.2003, he could complete the survey and submitted report to MRO. So, by 25.02.2003, AO was not capable of completing the survey on account of various circumstances brought in evidence. So, there was no question of issuing survey report by 06.03.2003, pursuant to the so called application under Ex.P-5 coupled with Ex.P-6 challan. There were several difficulties which come in the way of AO by virtue of the conduct of PW.4 in completing the survey which is evident. So, there was no question of making demand to pay the bribe prior to Ex.P-7, which was lodged on 17.03.2003. The defence of the AO is that PW.1 thrust the amount into his left trouser pocket. As AO could not complete the survey on 25.02.2003, on account of various reasons, and AO could complete the survey on 07.03.2003 by showing some lesser extent in respect of the land of mother of PW.1, PW.1 bore grudge as such falsely implicated him in this case. The defence theory was upheld by the learned Special Judge with valid reasons. Mere recovery of the tainted amount, in the light of the defence of AO, is not sufficient to convict the AO. The learned Special Judge, on through appreciation of the evidence on record, extended an order of acquittal which is not liable to be interfered with. 13. Firstly, I would like to refer here the substance of Ex.P-7. Mere recovery of the tainted amount, in the light of the defence of AO, is not sufficient to convict the AO. The learned Special Judge, on through appreciation of the evidence on record, extended an order of acquittal which is not liable to be interfered with. 13. Firstly, I would like to refer here the substance of Ex.P-7. As seen from Ex.P-7, which is the report lodged by PW.1, the mother of PW.1 had lands in Survey No. 539 in an extent of Ac.2.72 cents and she made an application (Ex.P-1) on 13.12.2002 for survey of the land and AO surveyed the land on 25.02.2003 and when PW.1 requested AO to furnish the details of the survey, he insisted for another application with challan and on 06.03.2003 he went to MRO Office, Kadapa met the Deputy MRO and filed the Petition in the name of his mother with necessary challan. He again met the AO on 09.03.2003 and sought to furnish the details of survey for which he demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- and again on 10.03.2003, when he met AO, he demanded Rs.5,000/- and later reduced it to Rs.3,000/- and directed him to pay the same in the evening of 17.03.2003. This is the substance of the allegation. 14. There is no dispute that under Ex.P-1, which was enclosed with copy of Ex.P-2 challan, there was an application requesting the revenue authorities to survey the land of mother of PW.1. Ex.P-3 is the title deed in respect of the land of mother of PW.1. As evident from Ex.P-4, AO gave notice proposing to survey the land of the mother of PW.1 on 25.02.2003. It is the case of prosecution that AO completed the survey on 25.02.2003 but in spite of request from PW.1 and further, in spite of submission of Exs.P-5 and P-6 i.e., the applications with challan, on 06.03.2003 AO demanded bribe. So, this is the sum and substance of the allegations in Ex.P.7. 15. PW.1 in his deposition supported the case of prosecution in this regard. He spoke about Exs.P-1 to P-6. His evidence is that Exs.P-5 and P-6 were given by him in the MRO Office on 06.03.2003. So, the substance of his evidence is that AO completed the survey on 25.02.2003. He spoke about the demands dated 07.03.2003, 10.03.2003 and 17.03.2003. He spoke about the lodging of Ex.P-7. He spoke about Exs.P-1 to P-6. His evidence is that Exs.P-5 and P-6 were given by him in the MRO Office on 06.03.2003. So, the substance of his evidence is that AO completed the survey on 25.02.2003. He spoke about the demands dated 07.03.2003, 10.03.2003 and 17.03.2003. He spoke about the lodging of Ex.P-7. He further spoke about the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. His evidence in substance relating to the post-trap is that when he went to the office of AO between 07:00 and 07:10 p.m. by seeing him, AO enquired him whether he brought the amount demanded by him and he answered in affirmative and then AO took him to a verandah in the Office, where he demanded the amount and then he gave the amount into his right hand and AO transferred the amount to his left hand and kept it in his left side pant pocket. The AO instructed him to come on the next day to take the survey particulars. Then, he came out from the office and wiped his face thrice with his handkerchief as a signal to the trap party. Within two or three minutes of his signal, the trap party members came there. The ACB Inspector asked him to wait outside and after that he was examined by the ACB. 16. PW.2 is the mediator for the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. He spoke about the events happened during the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. His evidence is that on receipt of pre-arranged signal, they rushed into the Office of AO and chemical test was conducted to both hand fingers of AO, which yielded positive result and the tainted amount was recovered from the left side trouser pocket of AO. 17. The evidence of PW.6 – Trap Laying Officer is same as that of the evidence of PW.2. 18. Prosecution examined PW.3, the Deputy Tahsildar, who spoke about the factum of originals of Exs.P-10 and P-11 i.e. PW.1 brought the same claiming survey report and sketch. Exs.P-10 and P-11 are no other than the xerox copies of Exs.P-5 and P-6. 19. Prosecution examined PW.4 namely B.P. Pullaiah, whose lands were also surveyed and his evidence is that he also gave an application to AO. He filed an application with challan to the Revenue Authorities to survey his land and to fix boundaries. Exs.P-10 and P-11 are no other than the xerox copies of Exs.P-5 and P-6. 19. Prosecution examined PW.4 namely B.P. Pullaiah, whose lands were also surveyed and his evidence is that he also gave an application to AO. He filed an application with challan to the Revenue Authorities to survey his land and to fix boundaries. Jayalakshmamma, mother of PW.1, also filed an application to survey her land and fix boundaries. AO came to survey the lands on 25.02.2003. He adds that as there were Japan Babul trees, the AO could not survey the lands. 20. Insofar as the fact that the AO is a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act, as such the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him are concerned, they are not under dispute in the present Appeal on behalf of the respondent/AO. Apart from this, the evidence of PW.5 coupled with Ex.P-21 proved a valid sanction to prosecute AO for the charges leveled against him. 21. Firstly, this court would like to deal with as to whether the prosecution proved that there was pendency of official favour in respect of the work of PW.1 with AO in the manner as alleged in Ex.P-1. 22. The case of the prosecution is very specific that by 25.02.2003, AO could complete the survey and when PW.1 sought for survey report and sketch, he was compelled to make another application under Ex.P-5 along with Ex.P-6 on 06.03.2003 and later, he demanded for bribe. During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that on 25.02.2003 AO surveyed the land and by the time of preparation of the statement of survey by AO, he along with his mother and other riots signed, which is copy of Ex.D-6. He further deposed that he does not know whether B.P. Pullaiah, filed Contempt Case No. 219 of 2003 alleging that Revenue Officials disobeyed the Court orders. He admitted that on 07.03.2003, AO visited and surveyed the lands and has shown the boundaries and prepared a statement in which B.P. Pullaiah and others signed, which is Ex.D-7. He admitted that in Ex.D-2 plan, AO has shown the land lost by B.P. Pullaiah as No. 5 and the land lost by his mother as No. 2. AO submitted his report on 07.03.2003 to the MRO. He admitted that in Ex.D-2 plan, AO has shown the land lost by B.P. Pullaiah as No. 5 and the land lost by his mother as No. 2. AO submitted his report on 07.03.2003 to the MRO. He denied that on 07.03.2003, he insisted AO to show as if his mother lost Ac.1.03 cents and B.P. Pullaiah lost Ac.0.50 cents and to send a report to that effect for which AO refused and hence he bore grudge against AO. During the course of cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that the report was submitted by AO to the MRO, Kadapa on 26.02.2003, which is Ex.D-8. As seen from Ex.D-8, the contents are such that on 26.02.2003, AO submitted a report to MRO stating that he went to the land on 25.02.2003 along with his Village Secretary to survey the land of B.P. Pullaiah, applicant, and fix boundaries. The applicant was present and after completion of survey work in the presence of applicant and other persons, applicant left without intimation and he was not present though he was called in the evening and he could not survey the lands relating to survey Nos.580 and 581 as applicant did not produce the relevant records and pattadar pass books. He assured to complete the survey at a later time. So, Ex.D-8 discloses that the survey could not be completed on 25.02.2003. Apart from this, PW.3 admitted about the factum of Ex.D-9 report, which discloses that AO could complete the survey only on 07.03.2003. Exs.D-8 and D-9 were marked through the prosecution witnesses. Apart from this, PW.1, categorically submitted in cross-examination about the survey of his land by AO on 07.03.2003. He further deposed that on 07.03.2003, AO visited and surveyed the land and fixed the boundaries and prepared a statement, in which B.P. Pullaiah, himself and others signed, which is Ex.D-7. 23. Therefore, basically the allegation in Ex.P-7 that AO completed the survey on 25.02.2003 has no support from the answers spoken by PW.1 and PW.2 in their cross-examination. It is born out from the record that AO could only complete the survey on 07.03.2003. So, the evidence of PW.1 that after 25.02.2003, he requested for survey report and sketch and on 06.03.2003, for survey report and sketch, he made an application under Ex.P-5 enclosed with necessary challan under Ex.P-6 had no support from the factual aspects. It is born out from the record that AO could only complete the survey on 07.03.2003. So, the evidence of PW.1 that after 25.02.2003, he requested for survey report and sketch and on 06.03.2003, for survey report and sketch, he made an application under Ex.P-5 enclosed with necessary challan under Ex.P-6 had no support from the factual aspects. An application like Ex.P-5 can be made by any person enclosing a challan. So, by 06.03.2003, survey was not conducted. So, the so called demands by AO either prior to 06.03.2003 or immediately after 25.02.2003 does not arise. Ex.P-5 application was not addressed to AO but it was addressed to Mandal Revenue Officer. Apart from this, it was said to be handed over to PW.3, the Deputy Tahsildar. So, apart from this, there was an admission from PW.1 that AO submitted his report to MRO on 07.03.2003. So, the survey report was to be given by MRO or the Deputy MRO to PW.1. So, the very allegation in Ex.P-7 that AO completed the survey on 25.02.2003 as such he demanded bribe for getting the survey report and sketch is interlinked with the demand for bribe. So, by 25.02.2003, AO was not capable of doing any official favour insofar as furnishing of survey report and sketch, as by then survey was not completed. Even as on the dates of Ex.P-5 and P-6, i.e., 06.03.2003 AO was not capable of processing the request of PW.1 for giving the survey report or sketch, because, the survey was not completed by then. Considering the same, it is very difficult to believe that official favour in respect of processing of survey report and sketch of PW.1 was pending with AO in the manner as alleged. Apart from this, when the AO duly submitted his report with sketches to the concerned MRO, he was not supposed to furnish survey report and sketch to PW.1 directly. Apart from this, by virtue of the answers spoken by him in cross-examination, it is very clear that even in respect of the survey done on 07.03.2003, there was an occasion for PW.1 to look into the survey plan under Ex.D-2 and also report under Ex.D-7. These are the documents that were marked during the course of cross-examination of PW.1. So, undoubtedly, from 25.02.2003 till 06.03.2003, AO had no occasion to think over to give any survey report or sketch to PW.1. These are the documents that were marked during the course of cross-examination of PW.1. So, undoubtedly, from 25.02.2003 till 06.03.2003, AO had no occasion to think over to give any survey report or sketch to PW.1. On 07.03.2003 only he could complete the survey and submitted report to the MRO. Hence, it is very difficult to say that official favour in respect of the work of PW.1 was pending with AO either prior to 07.03.2003 or subsequent thereto. The learned Special Judge in this regard on thorough analyzation of the evidence made adverse findings against the case of the prosecution. 24. Turning to the allegations of demand as attributed in Ex.P-7 by PW.1 against AO, it is no doubt true that he adhered to the case of prosecution. 25. Now, the simple question that falls for consideration is whether PW.1 is a reliable witness and his evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the Court so as to believe the allegation of demand. The fact that prosecution failed to prove the official favour in respect of the work of the mother of PW.1 pending with AO, in the manner as alleged, is coming in the way of prosecution to contend that AO demanded bribe. So, absolutely when AO was not the proper person to furnish survey report and sketch to PW.1 and further when Exs.P-5 and P-6 were said to be submitted before PW.3, it is very difficult to believe the case of prosecution that AO demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe either prior to Ex.P-7. With regard to the allegations of demand, during the post-trap, it is a fact that PW.1 deposed the same in support of the case of prosecution. The very defence of the accused is that during the survey, he happened to show some lesser extent in respect of the land of PW.1 for which there was a demand from PW.1 to show some more extent of land of his mother for which he refused as such he bore grudge against him. 26. It is to be noted that the defence of the accused before PW.1 is that PW.1 thrust the tainted amount into his left side trouser pocket. 26. It is to be noted that the defence of the accused before PW.1 is that PW.1 thrust the tainted amount into his left side trouser pocket. He denied a suggestion that in view of the report and plan of AO, dated 07.03.2003, he felt fear that he may lose compensation for an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of land and that they have to pay back the same to the Government and as AO did not agree to write report in his favour, he bore grudge and implicated the AO in a false case. He denied a suggestion that he forcefully thrust the amount in the left side pant pocket of AO, though he resisted his act with his hands and his hands came into contact with the tainted amount. It is to be noted that in the post-trap proceedings, there is a version from the AO that PW.1 forcibly kept a bundle of currency notes in his left side pant pocket and rushed away. So, the defence of AO has a basis from the contents of the post-trap proceedings. It is not that first time during the course of trial AO put forth such a defence. As this Court already pointed out the very allegation in Ex.P-7 as if PW.1 could complete the survey on 25.02.2003 was negated by virtue of the answers in cross-examination. Apart from this, there is no dispute that PW.1 twisted the facts in Ex.P-7 as if survey was completed by 25.02.2003. The various circumstances referred to by this Court, as above, goes to prove that there was no occasion for AO to make a demand for bribe as he was not the person who has to handover survey report and sketch to PW.1 because, he already submitted survey report to MRO and Deputy MRO in fact received Exs.P-5 and P-6, as per the evidence of PW.3. In a case of this nature, accused can succeed basing on the preponderance of the probabilities. 27. Having regard to the above circumstances and as the evidence of PW.1 is not at all reliable, it is un-safe to believe his evidence that during the post-trap AO demanded him to pay the bribe and accepted the same. The possibility of PW.1 thrusting the bribe amount into the pant pocket of AO cannot be ruled out. In my considered view, the learned Special Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The possibility of PW.1 thrusting the bribe amount into the pant pocket of AO cannot be ruled out. In my considered view, the learned Special Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The reasons recorded by the learned Special Judge in extending an order of acquittal in favour of the AO cannot be said to be un-reasonable. It is needless to mention here that in an Appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court cannot interfere with the judgment of the trial Court, unless the judgment is perverse or un-reasonable. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Special Judge, I do not find any tenable reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court, which is with cogent reasons. Hence, there are no merits in the Appeal as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 28. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 29. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.