JUDGMENT : The judgment in Calendar Case No.41 of 2001, dated 01.11.2007, 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 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. During pendency of the Appeal, the appellant died and Rapeti Bharathi Devi, wife of the original appellant, is brought on record as his legal representative to prosecute the Appeal vide order in I.A. No.2 of 2020, dated 06.02.2020. 4. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 5. The Case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, is as follows: (i) The Accused Officer by name Rapeti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, worked as Veterinary Assistant at Veterinary Dispensary, Chinagadili, Visakhapatnam from 01.06.1998 till he was placed under suspension i.e., on 18.04.2001. Thus, the AO is a “Public Servant” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. (ii) LW.1 – Dr. K. Bharat Ramesh, worked as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon of Veterinary Dispensary, Chinagadili, Visakhapatnam from 01.06.1998 to 25.08.2000. He was suspended from service on 25.08.2000. Prior to that, he submitted his TA bills for the months of February and March, 1999 to the office of LW.3 – Kolli Krishna Murthy Naidu, Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, Visakhapatnam. (ii) LW.1 – Dr. K. Bharat Ramesh, worked as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon of Veterinary Dispensary, Chinagadili, Visakhapatnam from 01.06.1998 to 25.08.2000. He was suspended from service on 25.08.2000. Prior to that, he submitted his TA bills for the months of February and March, 1999 to the office of LW.3 – Kolli Krishna Murthy Naidu, Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, Visakhapatnam. Those bills were not returned from the office of Assistant Director, after sanction, till the date of his suspension. The de-facto complainant used to visit the Veterinary Dispensary, Chinagadili and used to enquire AO about his TA bills. Finally, on 07.03.2001, LW.1 visited the Veterinary Dispensary, Chinagadili and enquired AO about the TA bills. Accused informed to him that the TA bills were received from the office of Assistant Director and they are to be sent to the Treasury after getting the bills signed by LW.4 – Kolla Nagaraju, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Full Additional Charge, Chinagadili. He requested the accused to expedite the said process as he was in need of money. Then the AO for showing official favour in sending the TA bills after getting the signatures of the in charge Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, demanded him to give his consent for the deduction of Rs.400/- as bribe from out of the total amount of the TA bills for the months of February and March, 1999, at the time of disbursement, else he would delay the process. He requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount but the accused paid a deaf year. As there was no other go, he reluctantly gave his consent to the accused stating that Rs.400/- can be recovered from the AO from out of the total amount of the TA bills. Later, he lodged a report with LW.8 – D.V.S. Bhaskara Raju, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam on 17.03.2001 at 09:00 a.m. The DSP, ACB on 18.03.2001 at 05:30 a.m. registered it as a case in Crime No.R/RC-WLR/2001 for the aforesaid offences and investigated into. On 18.03.2001 at 06:00 a.m. he secured the presence of LW.5 – K. Bhaskar, Assistant Engineer, and LW.6 – P.V. Satyanarayana, Draughtsman in the office of Executive Engineer, I & CAD, Visakhapatnam Division as mediators and conducted pre-trap proceedings from 06:30 a.m. to 07:30 a.m. He asked LW.2 – P. Suryarao, Auto Driver, Pedagadili, Visakhapatnam to act as accompanying witness. On 18.03.2001 at 06:00 a.m. he secured the presence of LW.5 – K. Bhaskar, Assistant Engineer, and LW.6 – P.V. Satyanarayana, Draughtsman in the office of Executive Engineer, I & CAD, Visakhapatnam Division as mediators and conducted pre-trap proceedings from 06:30 a.m. to 07:30 a.m. He asked LW.2 – P. Suryarao, Auto Driver, Pedagadili, Visakhapatnam to act as accompanying witness. On verification of all the pockets of shirt and pant of LW.1 and LW.2, no cash was found. (iii) On 18.03.2001 at 09:10 a.m. AO was caught red-handed at Veterinary Dispensary, Chinagadili, Visakhapatnam when reiterated his earlier demand and deducted Rs.417/- (Rs.400/- as demanded by the accused and Rs.17/- for stamps etc.,) from the total two TA bills amount of Rs.2,867/-. The AO paid Rs.2,450/-to LW.1 out of the total amount of Rs.2,867/- though he obtained the signatures of LW.1 in the acquittance register for the actual bills amount. During post trap, the DSP, ACB in the presence of mediators verified all the pockets of shirt and pant of LW.1 and LW.2 and found Rs.2,450/- with LW.1 and there was no money with LW.2. The deducted amount of Rs.417/- was recovered from the left side shirt pocket of AO at his instance. The DSP, ACB seized the connected records and the deducted amount. AO offered an explanation that he deducted Rs.400/- from the TA bills amount of LW.1 so as to give the same to the District Treasury and Rs.17/- was deducted to meet other expenses and he did so with the consent of the complainant. (iv) The government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms. No.136, dated 27.10.2001, of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (AH-1) Department, issued sanction order to prosecute the AO in a Court of law. Hence the charge sheet. 6. 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(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) 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. 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to PW.5 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-20, P-4(a), P-4(b), P-12(a) and P-12(b) and MO.1 were marked. 8. 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to PW.5 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-20, P-4(a), P-4(b), P-12(a) and P-12(b) and MO.1 were marked. 8. 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 got filed his written statement contending, in substance, that PW.1 worked as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the Veterinary Dispensary, Chinagadili during 01.06.1998 to 25.08.2000. PW.1 was suspended from service on certain allegations and when Dr. B. Nagabhusana Rao, Joint Director, Kakinada was appointed as Enquiry Officer, and he examined AO along with other employees as witnesses during that enquiry against PW.1. Since then PW.1 developed grudge against him. PW.1 is in the habit of making false complaints against the employees in the Department and a Criminal case was registered against him by III Town Police under SC & ST Act as he abused one Appa Rao, Driver, by touching his caste. He (AO) worked as Assistant under PW.1 for about two years and PW.1 was the Drawing Officer and he never received any illegal gratification during his service. He presented the TA bills of AO in the Sub-Treasury. He informed to PW.1 that employees in the Sub-Treasury were demanding Rs.200/- as bribe to each TA bill as the bills were old. He also informed to him that he is not willing to pay any amount to the Treasury people. Thereupon, PW.1 instructed him to manage the Sub-Treasury people by any means. Even after that, he informed to PW.1 that no amount is payable to the Treasury people. He never demanded any amount as bribe from PW.1. He obtained the signatures of Dr. K. Nagaraju, the then Full Additional Charge of Veterinary Dispensary, Chinagadili on the bills and presented in the Sub-Treasury Office. On 07.03.2001, he brought the amount of two bills but PW.1 did not turn up to the office to receive the same. On 18.03.2001, PW.1 came to the office and he paid the bills amount of Rs.2,867/- to PW.1. After receiving the amount, PW.1 offered some amount to him but he refused to receive. No amount was recovered from his shirt pocket and he did not produce any amount. PW.1 and ACB Police created a false trap and implicated him falsely. On 18.03.2001, PW.1 came to the office and he paid the bills amount of Rs.2,867/- to PW.1. After receiving the amount, PW.1 offered some amount to him but he refused to receive. No amount was recovered from his shirt pocket and he did not produce any amount. PW.1 and ACB Police created a false trap and implicated him falsely. 9. In furtherance of his defence, AO examined DW.1 – T. Reddy Rao, Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Kakinada to prove that a departmental enquiry was conducted against PW.1 and that he (AO) was a witness in the same and through DW.1 he got marked Ex.X-1 – copy of enquiry report, dated 23.10.2001. 10. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides, and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record made specific findings that the AO is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and that the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him. The learned Special Judge further gave a finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act but proved the charge 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. 11. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in C.C. No.41 of 2001, filed the present Criminal Appeal. 12. As against the finding of the learned Special Judge with regard to Section 7 of the PC Act, the State did not file any Appeal. So, the scope of this Appeal is confined to decide as to whether prosecution proved the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. 13(2) of the PC Act or not. 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 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? 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 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 that AO by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant deducted a sum of Rs.417/- from PW.1, out of the TA bills amount payable to PW.1, though he obtained signature of PW.1 for entire TA bills amount of Rs.2,867/-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 against the AO beyond reasonable doubt and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Special Judge? POINT No.1: 14. Insofar as this point is concerned, absolutely, there was no dispute, whatsoever, that AO was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Insofar as the finding that the prosecution obtained a valid sanction, it appears that Ex.P-20 sanction order was marked through the evidence of PW.5 with consent and there was no contention, whatsoever, before the learned Special Judge suspecting the validity of the sanction. Apart from that, Ex.P-20 reveals that on considering the allegations of the prosecution and considering the material available on record, with the due application of mind, the sanctioning authority accorded sanction to prosecute the AO under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act. Even in the grounds of Appeal and during course of hearing, these aspects are not at all in dispute. Hence, this point is answered accordingly. POINT Nos.2 & 3: 15. PW.1 is no other than the de-facto complainant. There was no dispute that he was suspended from service on the ground of some allegations and in respect of the TA bills of February and March, 1999, they were submitted prior to his suspension. Those facts were not in dispute. His evidence insofar as the material aspects are concerned is that he filed two separate TA bills for the months of February and March, 1999. Those facts were not in dispute. His evidence insofar as the material aspects are concerned is that he filed two separate TA bills for the months of February and March, 1999. Ex.P-1 is the TA bill for the month of February, 1999 and Ex.P-2 is the TA bill for the month of March, 1999. Exs.P-1 and P-2 were presented on 20.04.1999 and 12.06.1999 respectively before the Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, Visakhapatnam. They were sanctioned from the Assistant Director and those bills were returned to the Dispensary for presentation in the Treasury. Veterinary Assistant would present the bills after obtaining sanction of the Veterinary doctor. He used to receive subsistence allowance from AO. On 07.03.2001, he met AO in the dispensary and enquired about the TA bills. AO informed to him that the bills were received from Assistant Director and he will present before the Treasury and he further informed him that he would deduct Rs.400/- from the TA bills. He expressed his un-willingness to pay the demanded amount but he agreed to pay Rs.200/- but AO did not accept for it. Finally, he was forced to agree for Rs.400/-. AO informed him that he will present the bills on 13th or 14th after obtaining the signatures of the Assistant Surgeon and he asked him to come after 15th to collect the amount. As he was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the ACB officials on 17.03.2001 and filed Ex.P-1 – written report. The DSP, ACB enquired him about the genuineness of complaint and asked him to come on 18.03.2001 at 06:30 a.m. Accordingly, he went to the ACB office on the next day along with LW.2 – Surya Rao, Auto Driver. The mediators enquired him about the genuineness of his report and he confirmed it. DSP, ACB instructed him to pass the signal immediately after AO deducting the demand amount from his TA bills. The DSP, ACB also enquired LW.2 – P. Surya Rao, whether he is willing to act as accompanying witness for which he agreed. DSP, ACB instructed him to watch the incidents between him and the AO. At about 08:30 a.m. they left the ACB Office and proceeded to the office of AO. He and Surya Rao proceeded to the Veterinary Hospital, Chinagadili and one Apparao – Inspector followed them. They went into the Hospital. AO was sitting on a chair. DSP, ACB instructed him to watch the incidents between him and the AO. At about 08:30 a.m. they left the ACB Office and proceeded to the office of AO. He and Surya Rao proceeded to the Veterinary Hospital, Chinagadili and one Apparao – Inspector followed them. They went into the Hospital. AO was sitting on a chair. Veterinary Assistant Surgeon was not there by then. AO picked up the acquittance register from the table drawer. He (PW.1) signed in the acquittance register pertaining to his two TA bills at Page No.121. Ex.P-4 is the acquittance register. Ex.P-4(a) and Ex.P-4(b) are the relevant entries of two TA bills. After obtaining his signatures, AO picked up a wad of currency notes, counted the currency notes and gave an amount of Rs.2,450/- to him. The remaining currency notes in the wad were kept in the shirt pocket of AO. AO informed him that he deducted Rs.400/-from the TA bills amount and also took Rs.17/- apart from Rs.400/-. Then he gave a signal to LW.2 to pass on the signal to the ACB officials. Within one minute ACB officials entered into the office premises. The ACB officials disclosed their identity and on questioning the AO disclosed his identity to the DSP, ACB. The true version of AO was incorporated and AO informed to the DSP, ACB that he paid only Rs.2,450/- after deducting the amount. He also informed that he deducted the amount for the expenses of Treasury and also for him. On questioning by DSP, ACB, AO picked up the amount from his shirt pocket and gave the same to one of the mediators, who counted it as Rs.417/-. He handed over the received amount to the mediators and it was counted and found as Rs.2,450/-. Except the said amount, no other amount was found in his shirt and pant pockets and also in the shirt and pant pockets of LW.2. He was asked to wait outside the office along with LW.2. Later, he was called inside and he was examined. He also gave his statement under Ex.P-5 to the concerned Magistrate. 16. PW.2 is the mediator and he supported the case of prosecution. He spoke about his enquiry with PW.1 as to the contents of Ex.P-3. DSP, ACB instructed LW.2 – P. Surya Rao to observe the events between AO and PW.1. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted under Ex.P-7. He also gave his statement under Ex.P-5 to the concerned Magistrate. 16. PW.2 is the mediator and he supported the case of prosecution. He spoke about his enquiry with PW.1 as to the contents of Ex.P-3. DSP, ACB instructed LW.2 – P. Surya Rao to observe the events between AO and PW.1. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted under Ex.P-7. They started at 08:35 a.m. at Visakhapatnam and reached at 08:50 a.m. to the office of AO. PW.1 and LW.2 proceeded to the veterinary hospital followed by Inspector. At about 09:10 a.m. they received a signal from Inspector – M. Appa Rao and immediately they rushed to the veterinary hospital. On seeing the ACB officials, AO got perturbed and on questioning, AO informed that he deducted Rs.417/- from the TA bills amount of PW.1 towards treasury expenditure and the balance was paid to PW.1. AO picked up the amount of Rs.417/-from his shirt pocket and produced it before the DSP, ACB. The mediators counted and found it as Rs.417/-, which was seized by the DSP, ACB under MO.1. AO also picked up Rs.50/- from his back side pant pocket and stated that it was his personal amount. PW.1 produced the amount from his shirt pocket and it was found as Rs.2,450/-. DSP examined PW.1 and later seized the records produced by AO. Ex.P-4 is the acquittance register. Through his examination, Ex.P-4, Ex.P-9, Ex.P-10, Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12, Ex.P-13, Ex.P-14-A, Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16 were marked. Witness identified his signatures on Ex.P-4 and Exs.P-9 to P-16. Later, the DSP, ACB arrested the accused and released him on his personal bond. 17. Prosecution examined PW.3 – K. Nagaraju, Veterinary Surgeon, regarding certain procedural aspects and his evidence is that he received the TA bills under Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 from the then Assistant Director on 08.03.2001. He signed on Exs.P-1 and P-2 on 08.03.2001. On the same day the bills were presented and he signed thereon. The AO presented the bills in the Treasury. The bills were passed in the Treasury on 14.03.2001 and the bills amount was encashed. The bills amount was kept in U.D.Pay Register as PW.1 was not available. PW.1 was not present though information was given to him about the encashment of bills amount. Ex.P-12(a) is the relevant entry in U.D. Pay Register at Page No.112 pertains to the keeping the TA bill amount in U.D. Pay Register. Ex.P-12(a) bears his signature. The bills amount was kept in U.D.Pay Register as PW.1 was not available. PW.1 was not present though information was given to him about the encashment of bills amount. Ex.P-12(a) is the relevant entry in U.D. Pay Register at Page No.112 pertains to the keeping the TA bill amount in U.D. Pay Register. Ex.P-12(a) bears his signature. Ex.P-12(b) is another relevant entry pertains to another TA bill of PW.1 at Page No.113. AO duty is to disburse the salary and TA bills to PW.1 though he was a Drawing Officer. AO used to attend to the ministerial work in the Hospital. On the date of disbursement of TA bills amount and the trap, he was not in the hospital at Chinagadili and he was at Pendurti Hospital. 18. Prosecution examined PW.4 – P. Surya Rao, Auto Driver, the accompanying witness to observe the events between PW.1 and AO. He supported the case of prosecution. He spoke that he accompanied PW.1 to the office of DSP, ACB, where the DSP, ACB asked him to observe the events between PW.1 and AO. During the post-trap, they reached veterinary dispensary. AO informed PW.1 that his TA bills amount was realized and asked him to sign in the Register. PW.1 signed in the Register. AO picked up currency notes from his pant pocket and out of the wad, Rs.417/- was deducted and the remaining was paid to PW.1. The AO kept the amount in his pant pocket. At that time, he (PW.4) was by the side of PW.1. PW.1 gave a signal to him to pass the signal to the Inspector of Police, ACB and accordingly, he came out from the office and passed the signal to DSP, ACB. Immediately, the trap party members entered into the office of AO. He was examined by the DSP, ACB. 19. PW.5 is the Investigating Officer, who spoke about registration of FIR basing on the report prepared by PW.1 and the submission of FIR to the concerned Court under Ex.P-19. He spoke events in the pre-trap as deposed by PW.2. His test of evidence is consistent with the mediator – PW.2 with regard to the events happened in the post-trap. 19. PW.5 is the Investigating Officer, who spoke about registration of FIR basing on the report prepared by PW.1 and the submission of FIR to the concerned Court under Ex.P-19. He spoke events in the pre-trap as deposed by PW.2. His test of evidence is consistent with the mediator – PW.2 with regard to the events happened in the post-trap. His evidence is that after receipt of pre-arranged signal, they rushed into the office of AO and found the amount of Rs.417/- with the AO and further they counted the amount with PW.1, which was found as Rs.2,450/- and that he got recorded the statement of AO in the post-trap proceedings and further he verified the cash of Rs.50/- from AO, which was claimed to be his personal amount and he further spoke about seizure of certain documents. 20. AO got examined DW.1, whose evidence is that he brought the enquiry file relating to PW.1 and Ex.X-1 is the copy of enquiry report. 21. Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, would vehemently contend that when AO allegedly obtained the consent of PW.1 by illegal means on 07.03.2001 so as to deduct a sum of Rs.400/- out of the TA bills amount payable to PW.1, why PW.1 kept quiet till 17.03.2001, without taking the said fact to the notice of his superiors or to the notice of the ACB officials. According to the evidence of PW.3, TA bills of PW.1 were encashed even by 14.03.2001 and the cash was lying in the office because PW.1 did not turn up. Ex.X-1 reveals that an enquiry was conducted against PW.1, where AO was also one of the witnesses. Though the report under Ex.X-1 was submitted at a later point of time, subsequent to the trap, but PW.1 had knowledge that AO was going to give evidence against him. It is altogether a different aspect that though some of the charges against PW.1 were held to be not proved, but the fact remained is that there was a possibility for PW.1 to bore grudge against AO. PW.1 was a litigant who was indulging in making un-necessary complaints against the superior officers. So, his evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution. PW.1 was a litigant who was indulging in making un-necessary complaints against the superior officers. So, his evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution. The learned Special Judge having made a finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act erred in holding that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. AO was not capable of passing any orders so as to do official favour. On this count, the learned Special Judge extended an order of acquittal. He would submit that it was a fact as borne out by the evidence that AO informed to PW.1 that the Treasury people were demanding the amount but he (AO) was not willing to give any amount to the treasury people to get the sanction orders on the bills of PW.1. On the date of trap, AO duly obtained the signatures of PW.1 in the acquittance register for the entire TA bills amount drawn and returned the entire TA bills amount to PW.1 but PW.1 offered to give a sum of Rs.400/- so as to give to the Treasury people and AO refused to receive it. Later, PW.1 went away and in the meantime ACB officials reached to the office of AO. No amount was recovered from the AO, as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5 is not at all believable. The true version of AO was not incorporated in the post-trap proceedings. PW.1 was not bound to sign in the acquittance register if really he did not receive the entire amount of his TA bills. Having acknowledged the receipt of entire TA bills amount, he cannot depose that AO deducted a sum of Rs.417/- from his TA bills. The evidence of PW.3 was also clear that by 14.03.2001 itself the amount payable to PW.1 was received in the office and it was kept pending un-necessarily as PW.1 did not turn up. Prosecution did not explain the delay as to why PW.1 did not lodge report till 17.03.2001. PW.4 claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and his evidence is not at all reliable. DSP, ACB did not secure the presence of PW.4. PW.1 brought PW.4 for the reasons best known. So, he is a planted witness. Prosecution did not explain the delay as to why PW.1 did not lodge report till 17.03.2001. PW.4 claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and his evidence is not at all reliable. DSP, ACB did not secure the presence of PW.4. PW.1 brought PW.4 for the reasons best known. So, he is a planted witness. Learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2015 (10) SCC 152 , State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Rao, 2011 (6) SCC 450 and B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., 2014 (13) SCC 55 to contend that to bring the home guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the prosecution has to establish the demand. Apart from this, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is not available to the case of prosecution insofar as the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is concerned. He would further submit that on account of the trauma, which the AO had suffered, he died during pendency of the Appeal and his legal hear is prosecuting the present Appeal. With the above submissions, he seeks to allow the Appeal. 22. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the respondent-State, would contend that the duties of AO were to disburse the amount received out of the bills after obtaining necessary acknowledgments. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5 is quite consistent. AO had no probable say as to how he was possessing Rs.417/- with him on that day. He claimed only Rs.50/- found in his another pocket as that of his personal amount. The evidence of the Investigating Officer and mediator is also consistent in this regard. During the post trap, AO categorically admitted that he deducted an amount of Rs.400/- to give to Treasury people. There was evidence to show that pockets of PW.1 and AO were thoroughly searched and the amount that was found with PW.1 was only Rs.2,450/- but not Rs.2,867/-. So, it is very clear that the amount that was recovered from the AO i.e., Rs.417/- was the deducted amount by him out of the amount payable to PW.1. There was evidence to show that pockets of PW.1 and AO were thoroughly searched and the amount that was found with PW.1 was only Rs.2,450/- but not Rs.2,867/-. So, it is very clear that the amount that was recovered from the AO i.e., Rs.417/- was the deducted amount by him out of the amount payable to PW.1. PW.2, the mediator, was a witness who for the first time acted as a mediator in the case on hand. He had no motive at all to implicate the accused. PW.1 brought PW.4 to ACB office and when the trap laying officer enquired as to whether he was willing to act as an accompanying witness, he gave his consent. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 was not at all shaken. Learned Special Judge on the ground that AO was not capable of passing any orders so as to sanction the bill, extended an order of acquittal. It is a fact that the State did not file any Appeal insofar as the acquittal under Section 7 of the PC Act is concerned but the evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent in respect of the case of the prosecution but for want of any Appeal by the State as against the acquittal under Section 7 of the PC Act, she is advancing the arguments under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. With the above said contentions, learned Standing counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB seeks to dismiss the Appeal. 23. As seen from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, the reason set forth for extending an order of acquittal is that the question of doing any official favour and disfavor by AO to PW.1 does not arise because AO was not a competent person to pass any orders so as to do any official favour. However, there was also a finding that a duty was cast upon the AO to disburse the cash between the employees in the office and the learned Special Judge made a finding that AO was discharging his official functions by disbursement of the amounts though he was not capable to pass any orders to do any official favour. This Court refrained itself from giving any finding with regard to the above touching Section 7 of the PC Act, as the State did not choose to prefer any Appeal. This Court refrained itself from giving any finding with regard to the above touching Section 7 of the PC Act, as the State did not choose to prefer any Appeal. Hence, I will confine myself to decide as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. There is no dispute about the duties of the AO to disburse the amounts to the employees out of the amounts of the bills. 24. Turning to the defence of AO, during the course of cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that he agreed to give Rs.200/- to the AO when he demanded Rs.400/-. He did not make complaint to PW.3 or any higher officials about the demand made by AO. His bills were pending for about two years in different stages i.e., in A.D. Office. He met the AO on 07.03.2001. He denied a suggestion that AO informed him that the Treasury people are demanding Rs.400/- as the TA bills were old but he is not willing to pay the demand amount to the treasury people. He denied that he instructed the AO to pay some amount and to get the bills but AO did not accept his instructions. He denied that though he got information on 14.03.2001 about the encashment of bills, he did not contact the AO between 07.03.2001 and 17.03.2001. He denied that AO did not deduct Rs.417/- from the TA bills amount and the alleged deducted amount is not recovered from AO and that they created the proceedings. He denied that he had knowledge that AO is going to be examined as a witness in the departmental enquiry against him. It is true that he was suspended on a complaint. He denied that he implicated the AO falsely. 25. As evident from the evidence of DW.1, coupled with Ex.X-1, the name of AO was shown as one of the witnesses in the proposed departmental enquiry against PW.1. It is to be noted that it is not the defence of AO before PW.1 that by the time of his report, he was examined as a witness in the departmental enquiry. On the other hand, the defence of AO before PW.1 is that he had knowledge that AO will be examined as a witness in the departmental enquiry. It is to be noted that it is not the defence of AO before PW.1 that by the time of his report, he was examined as a witness in the departmental enquiry. On the other hand, the defence of AO before PW.1 is that he had knowledge that AO will be examined as a witness in the departmental enquiry. Merely because PW.1 was a charged officer in a departmental enquiry in which AO was cited as one of the witness, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. Apart from this, regarding the delay in lodging report, the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW.1 is very specific that AO has to do some process to get the bills encashed i.e., to get the signatures of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and to process the bills before the Sub-Treasury and to get the same processed. It is the specific case of prosecution and the evidence of PW.1 that AO informed to PW.1 that he will present the bills in Treasury on 13th or 14th after obtaining the signatures from the Assistant Veterinary Surgeon and that he was asked to come after 15th to collect the bills amount. There is no hard and fast rule that PW.1 should have lodged the report either on 07.03.2001 or immediate thereto. Though, it is the defence of AO that bills were encashed on 14.03.2001, there is nothing in the evidence to show that PW.1 was duly intimated on 14.03.2001 to come and collect his bills amount. So, the fact that the bills of PW.1 were encashed on 14.03.2001 does not lead to a conclusion that PW.1 had knowledge of those facts. I do not find any merit in the contention of AO on these aspects. 26. As seen from the defence of AO, there is no dispute that on 18.03.2001 he was trapped. Now, the Court has to see as to whether the manner in which ACB claimed to have laid the trap is bona-fide or not. There is evidence of PW.1 in support of this. PW.4 the accompanying witness fully supported the case of prosecution. Nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW.4 – accompanying witness to disbelieve his testimony. Absolutely, there was no animosity between PW.4 and AO. The fact that PW.4 accompanied PW.1 to the ACB office on 18.03.2001 is not at all improbable. PW.4 the accompanying witness fully supported the case of prosecution. Nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW.4 – accompanying witness to disbelieve his testimony. Absolutely, there was no animosity between PW.4 and AO. The fact that PW.4 accompanied PW.1 to the ACB office on 18.03.2001 is not at all improbable. According to the evidence let in by the DSP, ACB in this context, he asked PW.4 as to he was willing to act as an accompanying witness, for which PW.4 agreed. So, he supported the case of prosecution with regard to the conversation between PW.1 and AO and the fact that AO deducted a sum of Rs.417/-and gave rest of the amount to PW.1. PW.2 – mediator deposed in cross-examination that he did not act as a mediator in any ACB cases prior to this case. So, absolutely, PW.2 was not a stock witness to ACB. He was Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department, who had no motive at all to depose in support of the case of prosecution and against AO. Apart from the evidence of PW.2, there is evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 to prove the fact that the deducted amount of Rs.417/- was recovered from the possession of AO. Apart from this, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.5 proves the fact that ACB officials have taken every precaution to search even the pockets of PW.1 and PW.4 subsequent to the trap. Except the amount handed over by AO i.e., Rs.2,450/- to PW.1 nothing could be found from the pockets of PW.1 and PW.4. On the other hand, the amount of Rs.417/- was recovered from the possession of AO. The defence of AO is that such amount was not recovered from his possession. It is to be noted that the duties of AO were to process the bills and disburse the necessary amount under due acknowledgment. The defence of AO was that he informed to PW.1 that the Treasury people were demanding money of Rs.200/- for each bill, but, he was not willing to do so. He had no business to intimate the said fact to PW.1. If really, the treasury people were demanding money from AO, for processing the bills of PW.1, he was duty bound to intimate the same to his superior officers against such Treasury people. So, the defence set forth by AO cannot stand to any reason. He had no business to intimate the said fact to PW.1. If really, the treasury people were demanding money from AO, for processing the bills of PW.1, he was duty bound to intimate the same to his superior officers against such Treasury people. So, the defence set forth by AO cannot stand to any reason. Apart from this, AO set forth a defence that PW.1 received the total amount of the bills but tried to return a sum of Rs.400/- to him (AO) with a request to pay the same to Treasury people for which he refused. This defence of AO was not at all probabilized in any way. The version of AO in the post-trap is that he deducted a sum of Rs.417/- to give the same to the treasury people. Absolutely, PW.2, the mediator, had no reason to distort the so called version of AO in the post-trap proceedings. As evident from Exs.P-1 and P-2, the bills were for a tune of Rs.1,196/- and Rs.1,671 respectively. Total amount was of Rs.2,867/- In Ex.A-4 acquittance register, there were entries under Ex.P-4(a) pertaining to Rs.11,96/- and further under Ex.P-4(b) pertaining to Rs.1,671/- in which the signatures of PW.1 were obtained as if he acknowledged the total receipt of the amounts. As pointed out, an amount of Rs.417/- was recovered from the possession of AO. The amount that was found in possession of PW.1 and the amount that was found in possession of AO comes together to Rs.2,867/-. So, the evidence on record clinchingly proves the fact that AO though practically disbursed a sum of Rs.2,450/- but obtained the signatures of PW.1 as if he received Rs.2,867/- under stamp. AO failed to probabilize his defence that a sum of Rs.417/- was not recovered from him which was the deducted amount from PW.1. 27. Section 13(1)(d) 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; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage ; or” 28. The act of the accused squarely attracts that he by corrupt and illegal means and/or by abusing his position as a public servant obtained for himself an amount of Rs.417/- by deducting the same from the amount payable to PW.1. The act of the accused in taking the signatures of PW.1 for a sum of Rs.2,867/- though he disbursed only Rs.2,450/- is nothing but abusing his position as a public servant. The evidence on record clearly attracts Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. 29. Turning to the decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant, undoubtedly, mere recovery of the tainted amount is not sufficient to convict the accused. Those cases were relating to a direct trap when there were allegations under Section 7 of the PC Act and when the tainted amount was recovered from the possession of the accused. Here, as this Court already pointed out, the very act of the accused in obtaining the consent of PW.1 to deduct a sum of Rs.417/- is nothing but an act of the accused abusing his official position and it is also an act of the accused by corrupt and illegal means by making a demand. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy (1st supra), C.P. Rao (2nd supra) and B. Jayaraj (3rd supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that proving of demand is necessary to sustain the charges but here the evidence is very clear that AO obtained the consent of PW.1 by demanding him as such the prosecution categorically established the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the aforesaid decisions are of no use to the defence of AO. This Court already pointed out there is no Appeal filed by the prosecution challenging the order of acquittal under Section 7 of the PC Act. However, the evidence on record clearly proves the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The learned Special Judge on thorough analyzation of the evidence on record rightly found AO guilty of the same. Hence, the judgment is sustainable under law and facts and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 30. However, the evidence on record clearly proves the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The learned Special Judge on thorough analyzation of the evidence on record rightly found AO guilty of the same. Hence, the judgment is sustainable under law and facts and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in Calendar Case No.41 of 2001, dated 01.11.2007, on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. 31. As the appellant/AO died during pendency of the Appeal, there is no need to take any further steps. However, the Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment along with the trial Court, if any, to the trial Court within a period of one week. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.