JUDGMENT : K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2006 passed in CC No.13 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada. 2. The accused officer was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). By his judgment dated 22.12.2006, the learned Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and MO.3 (cash of Rs.2,000/-) was ordered to be returned to PW.9 and MOs.1, 2 and 4 to 7 were ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. 3. The sum and substance of the charges against the accused officer is that he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. He was working as Supervisor in the Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank, Mangalagiri, Guntur district. Prior to 13.09.2000, he was alleged to have demanded an amount of Rs.17,700/-, at the rate of Rs.100/- each, for 177 applications for recommending the crop loans. That on 13.09.2000 evening at his residence, he demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards bribe from PW.9 as advance and in continuation of the above demand on 16.09.2000, at the office of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ippatam, further demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.2000/- from PW.9 as gratification other than legal remuneration for doing official favour of recommending the crop loans and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. He was further charged for demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.2000/- from PW.9 as gratification other than legal remuneration for doing official favour of recommending the crop loans and obtained for his pecuniary advantage of Rs.2000/- by abusing his position as public servant, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the de facto complainant and others applied for crop loans to the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Ipparam, Guntur district in the month of July, 2000 and the Secretary of the said Society submitted the loan applications, numbering to 177 to the accused officer. It is alleged that the accused officer demanded Rs.100/- as bribe for each application, totally Rs.17,700/-. The demand of bribe was informed to the Secretary by the complainant. On 13.09.2000 evening at about 5.00 PM, the complainant met the accused officer at his residence and the accused officer is alleged to have demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- as advance on behalf of the members of PACCS, Ippatam for recommending the crop loans and informed that he would receive the bribe amount on 16.09.2000 at the office of PACCS, Ippatam stationed at Mangalagiri. The complainant reluctantly agreed to pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs.2000/- and approached PW24 on 15.09.2000 at 9.00 AM and presented a written report. After observing formalities, P.W.22 registered the report of the complainant as a case in Crime No.14/ACB-VJA/2000 of Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Guntur, on 16.09.2000 and took up investigation. On 16.09.2000 at about 9.15 AM, the accused officer was successfully trapped by P.W.22 in the presence of P.W.21 and another, when he further demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- for recommending crop loans. His both hand fingers were subjected to chemical test and test conducted on his right hand fingers gave positive result. When P.W.22 asked the accused officer for tainted amount, the accused officer produced bribe amount of Rs.2000/- from his left upper shirt pocket. The serial numbers of tainted currency were found tallied with the serial numbers of the currency notes produced by the complainant during pre-trap proceedings. The inner linings of shirt pocket of accused officer was subjected to chemical test and it proved positive. P.W.22 seized the tainted amount and other material and prepared rough sketch. The serial numbers of tainted currency were found tallied with the serial numbers of the currency notes produced by the complainant during pre-trap proceedings. The inner linings of shirt pocket of accused officer was subjected to chemical test and it proved positive. P.W.22 seized the tainted amount and other material and prepared rough sketch. After obtaining prosecution sanction orders, a charge sheet was filed against the accused officer. 5. On appearance of accused officer, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act were framed against the accused officer, read over the contents and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 24 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25, Exs.X1 to X14 and MOs 1 to 7. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. 8. On behalf of the accused officer, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. 9. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Against the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 10. Subsequent to filing of the present Criminal Appeal, the appellant/accused officer died and, as per the orders of this Court dated 05.12.2012 in Crl.MP No.2276 of 2012, his wife was brought on record as LR of the deceased appellant/accused officer. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused officer submits that PWs.3 to 8 and 11 to 20 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile. He further submits that the learned Special Judge erred in convicting the accused officer basing on the evidence of PWs.9 and 10. On a perusal of the evidence of PWs.9 and 10 goes to show that they are colluded with each other and got the trap laid against the accused officer only at the behest of PW.10. He further submits that the learned Special Judge erred in convicting the accused officer basing on the evidence of PWs.9 and 10. On a perusal of the evidence of PWs.9 and 10 goes to show that they are colluded with each other and got the trap laid against the accused officer only at the behest of PW.10. Learned counsel has taken the Court to the evidence of PW.10 and submitted that the antecedents of PW.10 are not up to the standard and number of criminal cases were registered against him. He further submitted that an enquiry was made as against PW.10 by the accused officer, in which PW.10 was found guilty. He further strenuously contended to the extent that as on the date of trap, the loan applications which were made by the villagers have not reached the accused officer and when such is the case the question of making a demand of Rs.2000/- by the accused officer could not arise. He has further taken this Court to the evidence of PW.1, which shows that the applications that were made by the villagers were recovered from the Paid Secretary, who examined as PW.10. Apart from PW.1, PW.22 also states to the extent that the said file was recovered from PW.10. 12. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB contended that the amount was recovered from the accused officer and the sodium carbonate solution test proved positive. She further submitted that in view of the fact that all the essential ingredients were satisfied, the learned Judge has rightly convicted the accused officer for the aforesaid offences, which calls for no interference by this Court. 13. Heard both side and perused the material on record. 14. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the accused officer has made out any case to convert the order of conviction into order of acquittal. 15. A perusal of the entire evidence on record goes to show that PW.1 was working as Manager in Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank, Mangalagiri Branch during relevant period of time. He only narrates as to when applications have been made by the villagers, how the applications would be routed through the office in processing the applications. 15. A perusal of the entire evidence on record goes to show that PW.1 was working as Manager in Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank, Mangalagiri Branch during relevant period of time. He only narrates as to when applications have been made by the villagers, how the applications would be routed through the office in processing the applications. According to him, firstly a member has to submit the application for granting loan to the concerned Secretary, who would verify whether he borrowed any loan previously and forward the same to the concerned Manager with his remarks. Thereafter, the Manager, in turn, send for remarks of the Supervisor of the concerned area limits. The accused officer was the Supervisor during the relevant period of trap. According to PW.1, the Paid Secretary PW.10 has not submitted the loan applications of the loanees till the date of trap. He further admitted that after receiving loan applications from the concerned Paid Secretary, the Manager will put the initial thereon with date stamp and send it to the loans clerk who will enter in the relevant registers and then forward the same to the concerned Supervisor for scrutiny. The process involved in scrutinizing the loan applications is laborious. 16. Admittedly, as on the date of trap, the accused officer did not receive the loan applications for the reason that the said applications were recovered from the Paid Secretary i.e. PW.10, according to PW.1. 17. PW.2 is one of the agriculturists. He only speaks to the extent that one Sankara Rao informed him that the accused officer was demanding Rs.100/- for each member of applications, hence, no relevance can be given to the evidence of said witness. 18. PWs.3 to 8 and 11 to 20 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. 19. PW.9 is the informant. He is the Member of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Ippatam. According to him, he and other members of the society gave 177 crop loan applications to PW.10, which according to him were given to the accused officer. According to PW.9, PW.10 informed him to pay an amount of Rs.100/- for each loan application which was demanded by accused officer. He is the Member of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Ippatam. According to him, he and other members of the society gave 177 crop loan applications to PW.10, which according to him were given to the accused officer. According to PW.9, PW.10 informed him to pay an amount of Rs.100/- for each loan application which was demanded by accused officer. On 13.09.2000, it is alleged that PW.9 met the accused officer in his house during morning hours and requested him for sanctioning of loan to the members of their society, where the accused officer is alleged to have made a demand of bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- out of the demanded bribe amount on 15.09.2000 i.e. Saturday, during morning hours to his office at Mangalagiri. As PW.9 was not willing to pay the said amount, he filed report Ex.P7 before the Inspector, ACB. 20. On 15.09.2000 at about 09.00 AM, PW.22 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Vijayawada, received telephonic information that the District Inspector, ACB received Ex.P7 report from PW.9. On that, PW.22 instructed the District Inspector (who was not examined), to cause discrete enquiries about the antecedents of PW.9 and the accused officer and accordingly he submitted his report by way of endorsement on Ex.P7 at 6.00 AM on 16.09.2000. Thereafter, PW.22 registered the same as a case in Crime No.14/ACB/VJA/2000 of ACB, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada for the aforesaid offences and submitted original FIR Ex.P24 in the Court. On 16.09.2000 at about 06.30 AM, PW.22 commenced pre-trap proceedings in his office by following all the essential ingredients of pre-trap proceedings along with mediators. Ex.P21 is pre-trap proceedings. On 16.09.2022 at about 8.15 AM, PW.9, PW.22 and others proceeded in jeep and car to Mangalagiri to the office of the accused officer. 21. According to PW.9, he proceeded to the office of accused officer and found the accused officer and PW.10 were sitting in a room. On seeing PW.9, the accused officer is alleged to have demanded bribe amount. He replied affirmatively and gave the same to the accused officer and he took the same with his right hand and kept the same in his shirt pocket. Thereafter PW.9 came out of the office and gave a signal to PW.22. 22. According to PW.22, in Ex.P23 it has been mentioned that he asked PW.9 to proceed to the office of PACCS along with PW.10. Thereafter PW.9 came out of the office and gave a signal to PW.22. 22. According to PW.22, in Ex.P23 it has been mentioned that he asked PW.9 to proceed to the office of PACCS along with PW.10. Accordingly, they both went into the office of accused officer and after they entered into the office of PACCS, PW.22 and others laid the trap by taking vantage positions. 23. The version given by PW.22 is contradictory to the version given by PW.9. According to PW.9, when he visited the office, he found the accused officer along with PW.10. On the contrary, PW.22 states that both PWs.9 and 10 had gone to the office together and thereafter PW.22 had laid the trap. 24. PW.10 is the Paid Secretary in the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Mangalagiri. According to him, about 177 members of the society have applied for crop loan in the month of July 2000 and submitted applications for processing. After scrutiny, in turn, he gave applications to the accused officer for his remarks. It is pertinent to mention here that once the applications were scrutinized by the Paid Secretary, the same have to be forwarded to the Manager, who, after initiating the process by attestation, has to forward the same to the accused officer, who is Supervisor of the concerned area limits for his remarks. According to PW.10, on the date of trap, while he was going to office, PW.9 met him at a distance of one furlong to his office. They both went to the office. Subsequently, he says that he opened the key of the office room and went into the room. Accused Officer also followed him while they were entering into the room. While they were seated in the office room, PW.9 came to the office room and on noticing him accused officer enquired whether he brought the demanded bribe amount. PW.9 replied positively and gave the amount to the accused. 25. PW.22 categorically stating that both PWs.9 and 10 had gone together to the office of accused officer speaks volumes. There is absolutely no explanation as to why both of them together had gone to the office of accused officer. The version of PW.22 that both PWs.9 and 10 had gone to the office by itself shows that both of them were known to each other. 26. There is absolutely no explanation as to why both of them together had gone to the office of accused officer. The version of PW.22 that both PWs.9 and 10 had gone to the office by itself shows that both of them were known to each other. 26. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused officer strenuously contended with regard to the antecedents of PW.10. There is any amount of hostility between accused officer and PW.10. A suggestion was made to PW.10 that the accused officer made a report against him alleging that he boosted up the expenditure of their Society. PW.10 admitted that accused officer submitted several reports against him and in pursuant to the same, two enquiries were initiated against him i.e. one under Section 51 of the Cooperative Societies Act and another is under domestic violence. He further admitted that he was suspended for two years based on the enquiry report. It is also admitted by PW.10 that enquiry officer observed in his report that he is unfit to continue as a Secretary and recommended for his termination on 23.07.1999. He further admitted that under Section 51 of the Cooperative Societies Act, the Enquiry Officer recommended to initiate criminal action against him. By virtue of the suggestions made to PW.10, which were acceded to, by him, it can safely be inferred that there is any amount of animosity between the accused officer and PW.10. 27. A reading of the material in conjunction with the evidence of PW.10, there being animosity between PW.10 and accused officer. The action of PW.10 going to the office of accused officer along with PW.9 would lead to a rising of once eye brow whether the alleged incident is said to have taken place as suggested by the prosecution or not. 28. A suggestion was given to PW.22 to the extent that when PW.9 approached the accused officer and offered to pay the tainted amount, the accused officer refused with his right hand and then PW.9 thrusted the tainted amount in his shirt pocket, but the said explanation given by the accused officer was not mentioned by PW.22 in Ex. P23. The spontaneous explanation given by the accused officer also concurs with the version given in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that amount was thrusted in the pocket of accused officer by PW.9. 29. P23. The spontaneous explanation given by the accused officer also concurs with the version given in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that amount was thrusted in the pocket of accused officer by PW.9. 29. A conjoint reading of all the aspects go to show that there is any amount of hostility between PW.10 and accused officer because based on the reports given by the accused officer as against PW.10, enquiries were conducted. In pursuant to the enquiry being conducted, PW.10 was convicted in the enquiry and he was terminated for a period of two years. The very fact would draw a conclusion that there is enmity between PW.10 and accused officer and he was waiting for an opportunity to settle the scores with the accused officer. 30. Further, it is relevant to mention here that when the villagers made applications for processing of loan, it is essential that the files have to reach the accused officer. Nothing is borne out of the record that the applications which have been filed by the villagers have reached the accused officer as on the date of trap and the same are still pending with PW.10. It is evident on the record that PW.2 categorically stated that the said applications were recovered from PW.10. At the initial stage, it is the version of PW.10 that it is he who demanded an amount of Rs.100/- on the pretext that the accused officer is demanding the said amount for processing the applications. It is not the version of accused officer that he is alleged to have made a demand for processing the applications. On a perusal of the antecedents of PW.10, it has been observed that PW.10 is unfit to continue as Secretary and recommended for termination on 23.07.1999 which itself goes to show that he is unbecoming of standards that have been laid down. By virtue of admissions made by PW.10, it can safely be inferred that he is a person of heavy load of bad antecedents. 31. Learned counsel for the accused officer has relied upon a decision reported in Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, (1976) 1 SCC 727 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus. “23. It is true that there is no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. 31. Learned counsel for the accused officer has relied upon a decision reported in Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, (1976) 1 SCC 727 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus. “23. It is true that there is no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. But where the witnesses have poor moral fibre and have to their discredit a heavy load of bad antecedents, such as those of PWs 1, 2, 7 and 8, having a possible motive to harm the accused who was an obstacle in the way of their immoral activities, it would be hazardous to accept their testimony, in the absence of corroboration on crucial points from independent sources. If any authority is needed reference may be made to R. P. Arora v. State of Punjab, (1972) 3 SCC 652 , wherein this Court ruled that in a proper case, the Court should look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person on the evidence of trap witnesses. 24. Well then, was such corroboration of the testimony of the interested witnesses forthcoming in the present case? In this connection, Mr. Mahajan referred to two circumstances: (i) the detention of Ramesh and (ii) the conduct of the appellant in keeping mum to the charge that he had received a bribe. Both these circumstances were not of a determinative tendency. Both were compatible with the innocence of the appellant. We have already discussed the first, and found that instead of advancing the case for the prosecution, it lends assurance to the explanation of the appellant that Ramesh had been brought for interrogation as he was roaming there in suspicious circumstances. 25. As regards the reticence of the appellant on the query made by the Inspector, we do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with a discussion of the question whether this conduct amounts to a statement made to a Police Officer in the course of investigation and as such is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Suffice it to say that even on the assumption that it was admissible as conduct and not as a 'statement' under Section 8, Evidence Act, its probative value in the circumstances of this case would be almost nil. Suffice it to say that even on the assumption that it was admissible as conduct and not as a 'statement' under Section 8, Evidence Act, its probative value in the circumstances of this case would be almost nil. The appellant explained that he did not protest and resist out of fear, that the Inspector might make matters worse for him, even for getting bail. It would not be unusual even for an honest Officer to be frightened out of wits on being suddenly accused of bribe-taking by a superior Officer.” 32. A perusal of the above decision shows that there is no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. In the present case on hand, the evidence of PWs.9 and 10 is essential for gestation of the case. No credence can be given to the evidence of a person with bad antecedents like PW.10 in the present facts and circumstances of the case, for the reason that once he was suspended for a period of two years and in the enquiry report it was recommended for his termination. The only evidence available is the evidence of PW.9 without there being any corroboration and more so there are much inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of PWs.9 and 10 to that of PW.22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW.9 cannot be accepted in toto, as there is any amount of inconsistencies in the said evidence. 33. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court comes to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused officer for the charges leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused officer has made out a case to convert the conviction into one of acquittal and as such the learned Special Judge erred in convicting and sentencing the accused officer as aforesaid. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge against the accused officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act are liable to be set aside. 34. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge against the accused officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act are liable to be set aside. 34. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the accused officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act in the Judgment dated 20.12.2006 in CC No.13 of 2002 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, are set aside. The accused officer is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and accordingly acquitted him of the said charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused officer shall be refunded to him. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.