JUDGMENT : A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 18.03.2008, in Calender Case No.2 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’) where under the learned Special Judge found the Accused Officer (AO) guilty of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) and convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. The learned Special Judge acquitted the AO under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the charge under Section 13(1)(c) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 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 case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet filed by the State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District in Crime No.22/ACB-RCO-EWG/2002, under Section 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) and (e) of the PC Act is that the AO by name Telidevara Vasudeva Rao worked as Junior Assistant in the Office of the District Collector and Magistrate, West Godavari District from 1994 to 27.09.2002 as such he is a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. (i) The AO indulged during his period of working in corrupt practices by abusing his official position. He used to demand and accept bribe amounts from the Small Savings Agents working under the Palacole Head Post Office jurisdiction. Therefore, a surprise check was conducted on 27.09.2002 from 04: 00 to 06.15 p.m. at Small Savings Agents Association Room. LW.18 – M. Hanumantha Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB obtained permission vide Memo No.68/DE-EWG/2002, dated 22.10.2002, and registered a case in Crime No.22/ACB-RCO-EWG/2002 under Section 13(1)(d) and (e) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. LW.18 conducted surprise check with the assistance of LW.19 – Inspector, ACB and his staff in the presence of mediators and found an amount of Rs.20,490/- in the possession of AO. LW.18 conducted surprise check with the assistance of LW.19 – Inspector, ACB and his staff in the presence of mediators and found an amount of Rs.20,490/- in the possession of AO. On examination of LWs.1 to LW.11 namely Renduchintala Sesha Mallikarjuna Sharma, Vanemsetti Lakshmi Narasimham, Bondada Venkateswara Rao, Bondada Venkata Satya Nagendra Ajay Kumar, Tadi Satyanarayana, Madani Surya Chandra Rao, Null Srinivas, Emani Venkata Satyanarayana Kumar, Thota Mohan Satya Sai Dattatreya Sri Rama Murthy, K. Raja Reddy and Devata Naga Satya Venkata Sri Rama Rao, they admitted that they have paid the bribe amounts at the rate of 2% on the incentives they received, as per the demands made by AO, after taking their incentives demand drafts for the business done by them for the financial year 2001-2002. AO could not account for properly the amount of Rs.20,490/-, as such it was seized from his possession. The act of the AO constitutes an offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and further under Section 13(1)(e) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. (ii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the competent authority to take action against AO, accorded sanction to prosecute the AO vide G.O.Rt.No.1881, dated 29.09.2023 of Revenue (VIG-IV) Department. Hence, the charge sheet. 4. The learned Special Judge, took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and, after appearance of the AO, by complying the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, framed charges under Section 13(1)(c) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 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. 5. To bring home the guilt of the AO, the prosecution before the trial Court, examined PWs.1 to PW.18 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and MO.1 – cash of Rs.20,490/-. 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 stated that he has defence witnesses. 7. In furtherance of the defence, AO got examined DW.1 and marked Exs.D-1 to D-7. 8. 6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, AO was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same and stated that he has defence witnesses. 7. In furtherance of the defence, AO got examined DW.1 and marked Exs.D-1 to D-7. 8. The learned Special Judge, on conclusion of the trial and after hearing both sides, found the AO guilty of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act, convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him as above. However, the learned Special Judge found the AO not guilty of the charge under Section 13(1)(c) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act and accordingly acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 9. Felt aggrieved of the conviction and sentence, as above, the unsuccessful Accused Officer in C.C. No.2 of 2004, filed the present Criminal Appeal. 10. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved that AO is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and whether the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the PC Act? 2) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved that, on 27.09.2002, the AO committed criminal misconduct by collecting the amounts by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his official position obtained pecuniary advantage within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act in the manner as alleged? 3) Whether the judgment, dated 18.03.2008, in C.C. No.2 of 2004 is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? 11. POINT No.1: Insofar as this point is concerned, the findings of the learned Special Judge considering Ex.P-17 – G.O.Rt. No.1881, dated 29.09.2003, and considering the evidence of PW.15 – Section Officer, Revenue Vigilance Department, is that prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the AO. The finding of the learned Special Judge is not in dispute even in the grounds of Appeal. However, a perusal of the evidence of PW.15, coupled with Ex.P-17 proves the fact that the sanctioning authority, after due consideration and application of mind, accorded sanction to prosecute the AO. This point is answered accordingly. The finding of the learned Special Judge is not in dispute even in the grounds of Appeal. However, a perusal of the evidence of PW.15, coupled with Ex.P-17 proves the fact that the sanctioning authority, after due consideration and application of mind, accorded sanction to prosecute the AO. This point is answered accordingly. POINT Nos.2 & 3: 12. As seen from the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 are the Small Savings Agents who were alleged to have parted with the amounts as demanded by AO while distributing the demand drafts to them towards the incentives received for the business done by them for the financial year 2001-2002. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 – R. Sesha Mallikarjuna Sarma, who was one of the agents, he deposed that in view of their turnover, Government used to give incentives and he used to receive 1% from the Postal Department and 1% from the State Government i.e., District Collector. For the business carried on by him for the financial year 2001-2002, he has to get a total incentive of Rs.1,17,000/-. He knows that AO used to distribute the incentives by way of demand drafts by coming to their office (Small Savings Agents Association Room) at Palakollu, West Godavari District. He received the incentive DD through AO on 27.09.2002 on prior intimation from him. He intimated the same to other agents i.e., LWs.2 to LW.11. LWs.2 to LW.11 also received their respective incentive demand drafts from the AO. AO came to their office in a car to distribute their incentive demand drafts. Either to AO or to anybody, either he or any other agent did not pay any amount towards bribe. The chit of the calculation shown to him is not in his hand writing. PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution. The learned Special Public Prosecutor before the trial Court got declared him as hostile and during his cross-examination, he denied the case of the prosecution and that he stated as in Ex.P-1 (161 Cr.P.C. statement). 13. The chit of the calculation shown to him is not in his hand writing. PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution. The learned Special Public Prosecutor before the trial Court got declared him as hostile and during his cross-examination, he denied the case of the prosecution and that he stated as in Ex.P-1 (161 Cr.P.C. statement). 13. The defence counsel elicited from his cross-examination that after the AO left in the hire car, he was brought back to the room by the ACB officials and AO informed to the ACB officials that an amount of Rs.20,490/- found in his possession was towards the loan obtained by him i.e., a sum of Rs.19,500/- on execution of a promissory note from P. Suryanarayana Rao of Eluru and that he was proceeding to Rajahmundry to handover the amount to his brother-in-law, who was in need of money. 14. PWs.2 to PW.11, the agents who were given the demand drafts by AO towards the incentives in view of their turnout, also did not support the case of prosecution. Their evidence is that they did not pay any amount to AO towards bribe and that they have taken over their incentive demand drafts from the AO. The learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined them and they denied that they stated before the Inspector, ACB as in Exs.P-2 to P-12. So, the agents who were examined by the prosecution as PWs.1 to PW.12 did not speak of any demand attributable to AO. 15. Coming to the evidence of PW.13, he was a mediator to the mahazar reflecting the events. 16. PW.14 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB to speak about the events that were conducted under the mahazar. His evidence in substance is that he summoned PW.13 to his office and disclosed the purpose of summoning PW.13 and then they went to Palakollu town in a jeep and stopped their vehicle near to the Small Savings Agents room at about 12: 45 noon. They took vantage position at 04:00 p.m. and observed AO boarding the car. They rushed there and apprehended him. He revealed to AO about his identity. AO was holding a suitcase. They brought AO to the association hall. He asked the AO about collection of bribe amounts. AO opened the suitcase and they found a sum of Rs.20,490/-. The amounts were verified. They rushed there and apprehended him. He revealed to AO about his identity. AO was holding a suitcase. They brought AO to the association hall. He asked the AO about collection of bribe amounts. AO opened the suitcase and they found a sum of Rs.20,490/-. The amounts were verified. The AO produced Rs.4,500/- claiming that it was his personal amount. The version of AO was recorded in the mahazar. Ex.P-13 is the Agents Incentive Distribution Register for the year 2002-2003 and Ex.P- 14 is a paper chit containing the particulars of amounts written therein, found in the suitcase, which were seized by him. He enquired PWs.1 to PW.11 who were present by then. Ex.P-15 is the mediators’ report, which was served to AO. MO.1 is the cash of Rs.20,490/- seized by him. This is the sum and substance of the evidence of PW.14. The evidence of PW.13 was also similar as that of the evidence of PW.14. 17. Sri Badeti Venkata Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant, would vehemently contend that absolutely there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that pursuant to the demand or pursuant to the corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his official position, AO collected MO-1 cash from PWs.1 to PW.12. They did not support the case of prosecution. To sustain the conviction even under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act, especially clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, demand is the sine-qua-non. It is repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several decisions. The prosecution did not prove that Ex.P-14, the so called chit was in his handwriting. The prosecution alleged that under Ex.P-14, AO noted down the amounts he collected towards bribe from the respective agents. No bribe monger would make a note of collection of the bribe amounts. Prosecution miserably failed to prove that it was prepared by AO. The defence of AO was that he borrowed a sum of Rs.19,500/- from DW.1 and kept the amount with him so as to handover to his brother-in-law, who was in need of money and on that day, he brought the amount along with him and after completion of work, he wanted to go to his brother-in-law’s house to hand over the same. In furtherance of his defence, he examined DW.1 from whom he borrowed the amount under Ex.D-1 promissory note. In furtherance of his defence, he examined DW.1 from whom he borrowed the amount under Ex.D-1 promissory note. DW.1 in the course of chief-examination brought several documents including the ledgers and entries in the ledgers which were marked before the learned Special Judge under Exs.D-4 to D-7. It is not the case of prosecution that they were fabricated documents. On the ground that AO would have handed over the amount to his brother-in-law immediately when he allegedly borrowed the amount under Ex.D-1, the learned Special Judge disbelieved the defence theory. Accused was supposed to probabilize his defence basing on the preponderance of the probabilities. He was not supposed to prove his defence with same degree of proof which the prosecution has to do in establishing the guilt. The learned Special Judge without proper reasons disbelieved the defence theory. Even otherwise, the prosecution has to stand on its own legs. Except a circumstance that amount was recovered from the possession of AO, prosecution had no favourable circumstance to connect the AO with the offence alleged. In support of his contentions, 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 , Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, AIR (1977) SC 170. The very raid claimed to be conducted by PW.14 suffers with any amount of improbabilities. When they reached the Small Savings Agents Association Room at 12:30 noon, it is not known why they waited till 04: 00 p.m. They could have intervened in the meantime and caught hold of the AO red handedly while he was allegedly collecting the bribe amounts. At any rate, without there being any demand proved by the prosecution, the conviction and sentence of the AO is against the principles laid down as such the Appeal is liable to be allowed. 18. Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum- Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the respondent- State, would contend that AO had no probable defence and he failed to explain how he came into possession of MO.1 properly. Any amount of falsity can be found in the case of AO because when he allegedly borrowed the amount on 24.09.2002, why he waited till 27.09.2002 without handing over the amount to his so called brother-in-law who was suffering with ill-health. Any amount of falsity can be found in the case of AO because when he allegedly borrowed the amount on 24.09.2002, why he waited till 27.09.2002 without handing over the amount to his so called brother-in-law who was suffering with ill-health. Though PWs.1 to PW.12 turned hostile to the case of prosecution, prosecution can as well prove the case basing on other circumstances. The fact that AO was found in possession of huge amount was a circumstance favouring the case of prosecution. The pendency of official favour was another circumstance favouring the case of prosecution. The fact that AO failed to prove his defence was also a circumstance favouring the case of prosecution. Apart from that PW.13 – mediator supported the case of prosecution and that the true version of AO was recorded in the mahazar. They have no reason to distort the version of AO. AO stated before the DSP, ACB in the mahazar that the agents voluntarily gave amounts to him as such he accepted the same. It was not adhered to during the course of defence. With the above submissions, she would contend that there are no merits in the Appeal as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. Firstly, I would like to deal with the contention of the prosecution that AO is alleged to have stated before the DSP, ACB in the mahazar that he accepted the amounts when the small savings agents voluntarily gave them. It is to be noted that PWs.1 to PW.12 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The so called version of AO recorded in the mahazar was nothing but inculpating him in the commission of the offence, which would amount to confession, in my considered view. Basing on the so called version of AO, prosecution cannot be expected to prove the guilt against the accused. Hence, the contention of prosecution in this regard deserves no merit. 20. Admittedly, it is a case where PWs.1 to PW.12 did not support the case of prosecution. As evident from the charges, the charge relating to Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is in tune with Section 13(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. Hence, the contention of prosecution in this regard deserves no merit. 20. Admittedly, it is a case where PWs.1 to PW.12 did not support the case of prosecution. As evident from the charges, the charge relating to Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is in tune with Section 13(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. So, the case of prosecution is that AO by corrupt or illegal means obtained for himself the MO.1 – cash which is nothing but a valuable thing or obtained pecuniary advantage and further AO, by abusing his official position as public servant, obtained for himself MO.1. This is the sum and substance of the allegation. So, the charge is relating to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It is a case where PWs.1 to PW.12 gave a clean chit to the AO. Apart from this, according to PW.1, during his cross-examination by the defence counsel, AO put forth a version that out of Rs.20,490/- a sum of Rs.19,500/- was towards the loan obtained by him under promissory note from P. Suryanarayana Rao of Eluru which was meant to be given to his brother-in-law at Rajahmundry. So, from the evidence of PWs.1 to 12, demand is missing. 21. At this juncture, this Court would like to refer here the legal principles to prove the guilt under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., 2014 (13) SCC 55 held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii)of the PC Act and, in the absence thereof, the charge would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. 22. It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Jayaraj (supra) while dealing with Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act held that proof of demand is a sine-qua-non even to the charge under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. 22. It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Jayaraj (supra) while dealing with Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act held that proof of demand is a sine-qua-non even to the charge under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Jayaraj (supra) are as follows: “22. …………. that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence Under Sections 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded 3 that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence Under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence Under Section 7 and not to those Under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) & (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption Under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise. 23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence Under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” 23. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence Under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” 23. Apart from this, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724, which is a Constitutional Bench decision, categorically held that to constitute the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, the demand is a sine-qua-non. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra), looking into Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act held in the case of obtainment, prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. It is also held that mere acceptance or receipt of illegal gratification without anything more could not make out an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d)(i)and(ii) of the PC Act. So, in view of the settled legal position, to succeed in the charge under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was a demand from the AO to pay the amounts from PWs.1 to PW.12. Admittedly, absolutely, evidence is missing in this regard. It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra) also held that when the complainant turned hostile or died and when there is no direct evidence to prove the demand, prosecution can as well succeed by establishing the demand basing on the circumstantial evidence. 24. In view of the above, now it is matter for appreciation as to whether there are any circumstances favouring the case of prosecution that AO demanded PWs.1 to 12 and accepted the amounts covered under MO.1. Prosecution set forth and projected Ex.P-14 as if during the course of enquiry by PW.14 with AO, AO picked up the said chit from the suitcase and placed before him that he noted down the particulars of the amounts collected by him from PWs.1 to PW.12. AO denied the case of prosecution in this regard. Ex.P-14 was purported to be prepared by AO noting down the particulars of the amounts received from PWs.1 to PW.12. It did not contain any signature. AO seriously disputed about the genuinity of Ex.P-14. AO denied the case of prosecution in this regard. Ex.P-14 was purported to be prepared by AO noting down the particulars of the amounts received from PWs.1 to PW.12. It did not contain any signature. AO seriously disputed about the genuinity of Ex.P-14. Had the prosecution established that Ex.P-14 was prepared by AO, it would have been a strong circumstance favouring the case of prosecution. Under the circumstances, in my considered view, as the prosecution failed to prove that Ex.P-14 was in the handwriting of AO that cannot be a basis to assume that AO collected the amounts from PWs.1 to PW.12. 25. In furtherance of the defence, there was evidence of DW.1 who testified that AO borrowed a sum of Rs.19,500/- from their Finance Corporation which was under the name and style of ‘Paideti Suryanarayanarao Financers’. According to his evidence, he was running a finance company. During his examination, Ex.D-1 - pronote was marked. The endorsement, dated 03.12.2003, which DW.1 made at the time of discharge of his loan amount by AO on the reverse of Ex.D-1 was marked as Ex.D-2. During his cross-examination by learned Special Public Prosecutor, it was elicited that Ex.D-1 was not in the name of Paideti Suryanarayana Financers but it was in his individual name. During the course of chief-examination, DW.1 deposed that he produced the original day book maintained by their finance company for the year 2002-2003, which contains an entry of Rs.19,500/- loan advanced to AO, which was marked as Ex.D-4. Further, he also produced original ledger book for the year 2002- 2003 under page No.25 and there was an entry of the loan advanced to AO, which was marked as Ex.D-5. He also produced day book for the year 2003-2004 and entry on 03.12.2003 relates to the repayment of the loan, which was marked as Ex.D-6 (of course Ex.D-6 is subsequent to the alleged offence). He also produced ledger book relating to the year 2003-2004 and at page No.25 it contains an entry with regard to repayment of the loan, which is marked as Ex.D-7. 26. What is borne out from the evidence of DW.1 coupled with Exs.D-4 to D-7 is that though DW.1 deposed that AO borrowed the amount from Paideti Suryanarayana Financers but Ex.D-1 was in his individual name but the entries in Exs.D-3 to D-7 were in the books of accounts of the Paideti Suryanarayana Rao Financers company. 26. What is borne out from the evidence of DW.1 coupled with Exs.D-4 to D-7 is that though DW.1 deposed that AO borrowed the amount from Paideti Suryanarayana Financers but Ex.D-1 was in his individual name but the entries in Exs.D-3 to D-7 were in the books of accounts of the Paideti Suryanarayana Rao Financers company. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rabindra Kumar Dey (supra), cited by learned counsel for the appellant, while dealing with the standard of proof with which the accused has to prove his defence, held as follows: “It is true that under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the onus of proving exceptions mentioned in the Indian Penal Code lies on the accused, but this section does not at all indicate the nature and standard of proof required. The Evidence Act does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. In fact, from the cardinal principles referred to above, it follows that, it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Section 5 of the Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds not because he proves his case to the hilt but because probability of the version given by him throws doubt on the prosecution case and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to have established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Once the accused gives a reasonable and probable explanation it is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the explanation is false. In a criminal trial, it is not at all obligatory on the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence and for the purposes of proving his version he can rely on the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses or on the documents filed by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the Court has to probe and consider the material relied upon by the defence instead of raising an adverse inference against the accused, for not producing evidence in support of his defence, because the prosecution cannot derive any strength or support from the weakness of the defence case. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs, and if it fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down”. 28. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs, and if it fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the entire edifice of the prosecution would crumble down”. 28. In view of the above, AO has to probabilize his defence basing on the preponderance of the probabilities. 29. The learned Special Judge made adverse comments against AO on the ground that when AO claimed to have borrowed the amount on 24.09.2002, under Ex.D-1, as to why he could not handover the amount immediately to his brother-in-law, who was in need of money due to ill-health. Apart from this, he negatived the case of AO on the ground that Ex.D-1 was in the individual name of DW.1 but not in the name of any Finance Company. It is to be noted that the standard of proof with which the accused has to probabilize his defence is only preponderance of the probabilities. The entries in the ledger books i.e., Exs.D-4 to Ex.D-7 cannot be overlooked unless there is something to suspect the same. Even otherwise, the prosecution cannot succeed in its case basing on the weakness in the defence of AO. Barring a circumstance that the amount was recovered from the suitcase of AO, there remained nothing to prove the essential ingredients of Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Ex.P-14 was not proved by the prosecution. In view of the settled legal position, mere recovery of the amount from AO would not lead to a conclusion that AO obtained the amount by using corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his official position as a public servant. Apart from the above, that according to the case of prosecution, PW.14 had reliable information that AO used to indulge in corrupt practices in obtaining the amounts from the Small Savings Agents and decided to catch hold of AO red handedly. So, when they claimed to have reached the place at 12: 00 or 12: 45 noon, they could have intervened in the middle so as to catch hold of the accused while obtaining the amounts from PWs.1 to PW.12. Their very case that they waited till 04: 00 p.m. till the entire collections by AO were over and then trapped the AO is nothing but improbable. Their very case that they waited till 04: 00 p.m. till the entire collections by AO were over and then trapped the AO is nothing but improbable. It is not a case where PW.14 enquired PWs.1 to PW.12 immediately when they went into the room of AO and came out after collecting the respective incentive demand drafts. Had PW.14 intervened in the middle, he would have obtained a valuable piece of evidence but that was not done in this case. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that evidence is lacking to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 30. From the conspectus, it clearly emerged that the prosecution utterly failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Though the evidence is lacking with regard to the allegations of demand directly and even when there are no circumstances favoring the case of prosecution, the learned Special Judge landed in an error in upholding the case of prosecution. The judgment of the learned Special Judge means that adverse comments were made against the AO basing on the defence set-up by him and the evidence of DW.1. The learned Special Judge did not look into the fact that the prosecution failed to make out the requirements of Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. At any rate, the conviction and sentence of the AO for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act is not at all sustainable under law and facts, as such he is entitled for an acquittal. 31. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting-aside the judgment, dated 18.03.2008, in C.C. No.2 of 2004 insofar as conviction and sentence of the appellant/AO under Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989 is concerned as such AO shall stand acquitted of the said charge. The appellant/AO is entitled to claim refund of the fine amount, if any paid, after Appeal time is over. 32. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment along with the trial Court record, if any, to the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada on or before 30.12.2023. The appellant/AO is entitled to claim refund of the fine amount, if any paid, after Appeal time is over. 32. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment along with the trial Court record, if any, to the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada on or before 30.12.2023. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. A copy of this judgment shall also be forwarded to the Head of the Department of AO for information and further action, if any. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.