JUDGMENT : This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the State, being represented by the District Inspector, Krishna, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, through the Standing Counsel-cum- Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, challenging the judgment, dated 20.01.2007 in C.C.No.16 of 2004, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, whereunder the learned Special Judge, found the respondent herein i.e., Accused Officer (“AO” for short) not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short). 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, being represented by the District Inspector, Krishna, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.5/ACB-RCT-VJA/2003 of ACB, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging in substance, as follows: (i) Sri Pallapolu Venkata Nageswara Rao, S/o late Kotaiah, who was working as Assistant Manager, Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Vijayawada, is the AO as on 05.03.2003. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (ii) Sri Yaradesi Nageswara Rao S/o Tirupatiah (L.W.1- died), a resident of Kothagudem, Khammam District, is the absolute owner of a Car bearing Registration No.A.P.7/V/4817. It was given for hire to the Zonal Office of the AO from September, 2000 to March, 2002 on the name of Venkateswara Travels and Tours, Vijayawada. As per the agreement, bills were paid for the period from September, 2000 to December, 2000 @ Rs.11,750/- per month. Later the bills relating to the period from January, 2001 to March, 2002 were kept pending despite repeated requests of the complainant. At last the bills were prepared in the month of May, 2002 and proceedings were given, sanctioning an amount of Rs.1,48,652/- in favour of the complainant and a copy of the proceedings was also given to the complainant. (iii) On 04.03.2003 the complainant (L.W.1) went to the office of the AO and enquired about his bill. Then the AO demanded him to pay Rs.6,000/- as bribe for doing an official favour of releasing the bills and further threatened that he would continue to keep the bills pending unless he was bribed. (iii) On 04.03.2003 the complainant (L.W.1) went to the office of the AO and enquired about his bill. Then the AO demanded him to pay Rs.6,000/- as bribe for doing an official favour of releasing the bills and further threatened that he would continue to keep the bills pending unless he was bribed. When the complainant expressed his inability, the AO directed him to pay at least Rs.2,000/- on 05.03.2003 at his office to receive the Demand Draft and to pay the remaining Rs.4,000/- after encashment of the D.D., for which the complainant reluctantly agreed and approached P.W.7-the Trap Laying Officer and presented a report, who, after observing the necessary formalities, registered a case and investigated into. (iv) On 05.03.2003 the AO was successfully trapped by the Trap Laying Officer when he demanded and accepted the demand of Rs.2,000/- at his office from the complainant and when S.C. solution test was conducted to the inner linings of the right side pant pocket and both hands of the AO, it proved positive. The Trap Laying Officer seized the tainted amount, connected documents, and resultant solutions in the presence of the mediators and entrusted the Inspector to make further investigation, who examined the witnesses and submitted draft final report and after receipt of sanction order, filed charge sheet. (v) The Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Hyderabad passed sanction of prosecution orders vide his proceedings No.1139/APPCB/HO/Estt./E-1/2003-1684, dated 21.01.2004 to prosecute the AO. Hence, the charge sheet. 4. The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and after appearance of the AO and after complying necessary formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A.O and explained the same to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the guilt against AO, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 8. AO got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2 during the cross examination of P.W.3. 5. In order to prove the guilt against AO, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 8. AO got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2 during the cross examination of P.W.3. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, AO was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same and stated that he never demanded or accepted the bribe amount from the complainant (L.W.1). The complainant (L.W.1) bore grudge against him as his hire charges was reduced to the extent of 20% by the Head Office, thinking that AO responsible for the same. The complainant (L.W.1) came to him and received D.D. and gave some money to him stating that he would take back the same after having lunch, as his zip bag was in torn condition. Thus, he never demanded or accepted any bribe. 6. The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the A.O not guilty of the charges framed against him and accordingly, acquitted him under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the same, the State, being represented by the District Inspector, Krishna, Vijayawada Rang, Vijayawada, filed the present Criminal Appeal. 7. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution has proved the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO beyond reasonable doubt and as to whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal delivered by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada? Point:- 8. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Appellant, would contend that before the Court below the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8. By virtue of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the official favour in respect of the work the defacto-complainant (L.W.1), who died during the course of trial, was categorically proved by the prosecution. On the date of trap, it is the AO, who delivered the D.D. to the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) after taking a receipt from him. It is not the case of AO that defacto-complainant (L.W.1) took the D.D. from some other staff. On the date of trap, it is the AO, who delivered the D.D. to the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) after taking a receipt from him. It is not the case of AO that defacto-complainant (L.W.1) took the D.D. from some other staff. So, the findings of the trial Court that no official favour was pending are not sustainable under law and facts. Unfortunately, the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) died and P.W.3, the accompanying witness, did not support the case of the prosecution. However, AO admitted that he received the amount from the defacto-complainant (L.W.1), but with a story that the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) handed over the same to him saying that he would take back after having lunch. The above version of the AO was not probablized, as such, presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arose and AO failed to prove the contrary. So, P.W.4-the mediator and P.W.7-the Trap Laying Officer and P.W.8-ACB Inspector, categorically spoken about the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. The amount was recovered from the physical possession of AO and chemical examination proved to be positive. The trial Court instead of convicting AO recorded an order of acquittal erroneously, as such, appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. After the matter is reserved for judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent (AO) filed written arguments in the Registry by serving a copy of the record to the learned counsel for the Appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there was no demand or acceptance of bribe and the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) died during the course of trial. The report under Ex.P.11 cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence. P.W.3, the brother-in-law of the defacto-complainant (L.W.1), who acted as accompanying witness, did not support the case of the prosecution. In fact, after the trap, P.W.1 addressed Ex.D.1 to ACB Court and further the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) addressed Ex.D.2 to the Court explaining the real facts. The presence of P.W.3 was not there at the time of pre-trap under Ex.P.6. Anyhow, P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove the official favour based on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. The trial Court rightly acquitted AO and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 10. The presence of P.W.3 was not there at the time of pre-trap under Ex.P.6. Anyhow, P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove the official favour based on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. The trial Court rightly acquitted AO and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 10. He would rely upon the judgments in (1) P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police & another, AIR 2015 SC 3549 , (2) B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., [2014(2) ALD (Crl.)73], (3) N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 CrlLJ 1353 and (4) Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR Online 2022 SC 1160 and contended that appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. The fact that AO was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the AO under the cover of Ex.P.10 is not in dispute. On the other hand, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.6 coupled with Ex.P.1 goes to prove that the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the AO. 12. The crucial allegations against AO is that AO demanded bribe of Rs.6,000/- on 04.03.2003 and later directed him to pay Rs.2,000/- initially with a direction to pay the remaining at a later time. So, as the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) was not willing to pay the same, he approached the ACB Dy.S.P., and presented a report. It is a fact that the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) before the Court below was not examined, as he died pending trial. In the light of the case of the prosecution and charges, the first aspect that has to be considered here is as to whether prosecution has proved that the official favour in respect of the work of defacto-complainant (L.W.1) was pending with AO on 04.03.2003 and further on the date of trap on 05.03.2003. 13. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, she was an Accountant in Zonal Office, Vijayawada. She knows AO, who worked as Assistant Manager. She was on duty on the date of trap. On that day AO handed over a D.D. to her for sending it to the concerned which belongs to the vehicle hire charges. Since she was not concerned to do, she returned the same to AO. She knows AO, who worked as Assistant Manager. She was on duty on the date of trap. On that day AO handed over a D.D. to her for sending it to the concerned which belongs to the vehicle hire charges. Since she was not concerned to do, she returned the same to AO. ACB, Dy.S.P., examined her. Ex.P.1 is the true copy of D.D. bearing No.031809, dated 27.02.2003 for Rs.1,48,652/-. 14. The evidence of P.W.2 is that she worked as Accountant in A.P. Pollution Control Board, Hyderabad. On 26.02.2003 she received the proceedings for issuance of D.D. for Rs.1,48,652/- towards the hire charges of Y. Nageswara Rao. They obtained a D.D. from State Bank of Hyderabad and forwarded the same under Ex.P.2 in order to distribute the same at Zonal Office. 15. Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, he worked as Senior Environmental Engineer, Vijayawada Zonal Office. He deposed that whenever Joint Chief Environmental Engineer is not available, he would attend and look after the administrative and accounts. On 03.03.2003 he received Ex.P.2 along with Ex.P.1 and made an endorsement to AO to attend the said work. Subsequently, he came to know that AO was trapped on 05.03.2003. 16. During the cross examination, P.W.1 stated that she received original D.D. and letter enclosed thereto from AO. Ex.P.2 is the letter of Chief Accounts Officer, dated 27.02.2003 addressed to Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Zonal Office, enclosing original of Ex.P.1. It is true that there is an endorsement on Ex.P.2, which is made by AO marking Ex.P.2 with D.D. to the Accountant and endorsement is initial by AO. AO handed over the original of Exs.P.1 and P.2 to her for disbursement. Usually, the procedure for return of D.D., is that D.Ds. will be given by the clerk concerned. It is not the practice in the office that Accountant would disburse the D.Ds. to the concerned. To her remembrance, she received original of Exs.P.1 and P.2 from the AO at about 11-30 a.m. on the date of trap. 17. P.W.2 in cross examination stated that the proceedings received by her contains that amount of 20% was cut as hire charges towards penalty. During re-examination, she admitted that Ex.P.2 do not disclose 20% cut was made out of the hire charges towards penalty. 17. P.W.2 in cross examination stated that the proceedings received by her contains that amount of 20% was cut as hire charges towards penalty. During re-examination, she admitted that Ex.P.2 do not disclose 20% cut was made out of the hire charges towards penalty. There is evidence of P.W.3, who is accompanying witness about the fact that during the post-trap, P.W.3 received the cheque from AO. Similar is the evidence of P.W.7, the Trap Laying Officer. 18. It is to be noticed that according to the evidence of P.W.1, on the date of trap, AO handed over Exs.P.1 and P.2 to her for disbursement, but as she was not the proper person, she returned to AO. There is no dispute that Ex.P.1 is the true copy of D.D. with Ex.P.2 proceedings and in Ex.P.2 there was an endorsement of AO to the Section Accountant. But, here as admitted by P.W.1, Accountant was not the concerned to disburse and it has to be done by the concerned clerk. The evidence of P.W.1 that on the date of trap, AO handed over the D.D. to her for sending it to the concerned and as she was not concerned, she returned the same to the AO at about 11-30 a.m. is not challenged by the prosecution. Though AO was not the proper person to handover Ex.P.1 physically to the defacto-complainant (L.W.1), but the fact remained is that it was the AO, who handed over Ex.P.1 to the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) in the post-trap and obtained a receipt thereof. 19. The learned Special Judge on the ground that AO handed over to P.W.1 on the date of trap held that there was no official favour pending before AO in respect of the work of defactocomplainant (L.W.1). This Court is not able to accept the said finding for the reason that if really AO was not concerned to handover Ex.P.1 to defacto-complainant (L.W.1), he would have returned it to the concerned person. Whatever the reason may be the thing is that it is the AO, who handed over Ex.P.1 to the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) during the post-trap. Under the circumstances, this Court insofar as the official favour pending with AO is concerned, convinced with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and would like to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge. 20. Under the circumstances, this Court insofar as the official favour pending with AO is concerned, convinced with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and would like to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge. 20. Another crucial aspect to decide this appeal is as to whether prosecution has proved before the trial Court that AO demanded bribe of Rs.6,000/- on 04.03.2003 from defacto-complainant (L.W.1) to do official favour and further demanded him to bring a sum of Rs.2,000/- on 05.03.2003 with instructions to pay the remaining in the later stage. In this regard, admittedly, the 12 defacto-complainant (L.W.1) died during the pendency of the trial, as such, his evidence is not available before the Court. It is no doubt true that the report lodged by defacto-complainant (L.W.1) cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence. 21. To prove the allegations of demand attributed against AO relating to bribe and subsequent payment made by defacto-complainant (LW.1), the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of P.W.3-the accompanying witness, the mediators, who is P.W.4, P.W.7-the Trap Laying Officer and P.W.8-the Inspector, ACB. So, insofar as the allegations of demand relating to the bribe, dated 04.03.2003 is concerned, absolutely, there is no substantive evidence at all. 22. Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.3-the accompanying witness regarding the things happened on the date of trap, his evidence in substance is that defacto-complainant, Y. Nageswara Rao (L.W.1) is his brother-in-law. He died three years ago. He had a Car. It was given for hire to the Zonal Office, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Vijayawada. He does not know the particulars of payment of hire charges. On 04.03.2003 he received telephone call from his brother-in-law to come to Vijayawada immediately while he was at Kothagudem. Then he came down to Vijayawada at 7-30 p.m. He told that A.P. Pollution Control Board sanctioned the hire charges by deducting 20% and the Zonal Office staff, Vijayawada, are responsible for the same, as such, he gave a report to ACB. He requested him to accompany to the office of Dy.S.P., ACB on 05.03.2003. They went there. His brother-in-law went into the chamber of Dy.S.P. at 11-30 a.m. He was waiting outside. After one hour, his brother-in-law came out of the office. His brother-in-law introduced him to ACB Dy.S.P. ACB, Dy.S.P., asked him to accompany his brother-in-law, but, he did not inform him where they are going. They went there. His brother-in-law went into the chamber of Dy.S.P. at 11-30 a.m. He was waiting outside. After one hour, his brother-in-law came out of the office. His brother-in-law introduced him to ACB Dy.S.P. ACB, Dy.S.P., asked him to accompany his brother-in-law, but, he did not inform him where they are going. At that time his brother-in-law possessed a zip bag and he kept some amount in the bag by picking out from his shirt pocket. They reached A.P. Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office. He did not hear whether Dy.S.P. gave any instructions to his brother-in-law, but he was asked to accompany him. They both went and met AO in his office and found AO attending his work. His brother-in-law asked AO about the D.D. AO asked him to pass a receipt for the D.D. His brother-in-law signed on a receipt and gave it to AO. AO obtained the signatures of his brother-in-law on some paper which contains rules. While returning his brother-in-law gave some amount to AO from out of his zip bag, but, he cannot say how much amount was given to him by saying that amount has to be kept with him and he will receive the same after having lunch. While he, his brother-in-law and AO were coming out, Dy.S.P. and others rushed to the office. Then Dy.S.P., AO and staff went into the office of AO. He and his brother-in-law were instructed to wait outside. His brother-in-law was called into the office later. He (P.W.3) was not called. He was not examined by Dy.S.P. Ex.P.3 is the signature L.W.1-Y. Nageswara Rao on a blank rule paper. Prosecution after getting declared P.W.3 as hostile cross examined him. During the course of cross examination, he denied the case of the prosecution. 23. During the cross examination on behalf of AO, he deposed that before signing a paper, his brother-in-law used to sign on different papers and then he write on the paper intended to be signed. The defacto-complainant (L.W.1) signed on a rule paper and then signed on the receipt. The zip back in which money was carried to the office room of AO was in damaged condition. It is true that since the zip bag was damaged, his brother-in-law requested AO to keep some amount. After receipt of the amount, the AO counted it and kept it in his right side pocket. The zip back in which money was carried to the office room of AO was in damaged condition. It is true that since the zip bag was damaged, his brother-in-law requested AO to keep some amount. After receipt of the amount, the AO counted it and kept it in his right side pocket. Then, he asked his brother-in-law after the trap and he informed him that ACB staff was waiting outside the office and he was directed by the ACB to give the amount to AO by handing over the amount to AO. He deposed that he drafted the entire episode stating the real facts and sent it by registered post, dated nil to the Court as well as D.G., ACB. Ex.D.1 is the letter sent to the ACB. It is in his hand writing and it bears his signature. Ex.D.2 is Photostat copy of the letter written by his brother-in-law, Nageswara Rao in his hand writing to D.G., ACB by marking a copy to the Court. During reexamination, he denied that Ex.D.2 is not in the hand writing of his brother-in-law. 24. So, P.W.3-the accompanying witness, did not speak that during post-trap proceedings, AO demanded defacto-complainant (L.W.1) to pay bribe of Rs.2,000/- and in response to such demand, defacto-complainant (L.W.1) paid the amount to AO. During the cross examination, P.W.3 denied the case of the prosecution. It is no doubt true as evident from the testimony of P.W.4, the mediator and P.W.7, the Trap Laying Officer that the tainted amount was recovered from the AO during the post-trap proceedings. It is also not in dispute that Ex.P.2, the proceedings, was seized from the possession of AO during the post-trap. 25. There is no dispute that when both hands of AO were subjected to chemical test, it yielded a positive result. The fact that the chemical test to the hands of AO yielded positive result had little significance, because, AO admitted that he dealt with amount given by the defacto-complainant (L.W.1), but in a different context. So, in respect of the so-called demand made by AO during the post-trap proceedings, there is no substantive evidence. 26. At this juncture, it is appropriate to look into the judgment in Neeraj Dutta’s case (4 supra). So, in respect of the so-called demand made by AO during the post-trap proceedings, there is no substantive evidence. 26. At this juncture, it is appropriate to look into the judgment in Neeraj Dutta’s case (4 supra). In fact, the judgment is a Constitutional Bench decision and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the decision in P. Satyanarayana Murthy’s case (1 supra) and B. Jayaraj’s case (2 supra) and found that there are no conflicting views in the above said decision. Dealing with a situation where the complainant turned hostile or died or unavailable to let in evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in such cases demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witnesses either orally or documentary evidence and even the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. Keeping in view the evidence is to be appreciated. 27. So, now the solitary circumstance which is available to the case of the prosecution is that the AO dealt with the amount handover by the defacto-complainant (L.W.1). So, basing on a fact that the tainted amount was recovered from the possession of AO, the prosecution sought to prove the guilt against the AO. Now it is a matter of appreciation to decide as to whether the said single circumstance is sufficient to prove the guilt against the AO. There is no dispute that after the trap, P.W.3 addressed Ex.D.1 to the Court and concerned ACB officials and the version in Ex.D.1 is nothing but a version now put-forth during the course of trial by P.W.3 that the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) handed over some amount to AO stating that he will take back after completing the lunch. Though P.W.3 testified that Ex.D.2 is letter addressed by his brother-in-law, the prosecution denied its contents. Whatever the reason may be for such denial and irrespective of Ex.D.2, now the fact remained is that the evidence of defacto-complainant (L.W.1) is not available before this Court. 28. A perusal of post-trap proceedings under Ex.P.9 reveals that the Dy.S.P. instructed P.W.3, as accompanying witness. It is to be noticed that Ex.P.6, pre-trap proceedings did not show the presence of P.W.3 as an accompanying witness. The investigating agency employed a person P.W.3, who was close relative of defacto-complainant (L.W.1), as accompanying witness. 28. A perusal of post-trap proceedings under Ex.P.9 reveals that the Dy.S.P. instructed P.W.3, as accompanying witness. It is to be noticed that Ex.P.6, pre-trap proceedings did not show the presence of P.W.3 as an accompanying witness. The investigating agency employed a person P.W.3, who was close relative of defacto-complainant (L.W.1), as accompanying witness. Whatever the reason may be for employing P.W.3, who was close relative of defacto-complainant (L.W.1), as an accompanying witness, but, P.W.3 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 29. Now, a look into Ex.P.9, post-trap proceedings, means that when Dy.S.P. after trapping the AO asked the AO about his version he stated that the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) gave money to him saying that he will receive back the same after having lunch. P.W.4 also categorically admitted in cross examination that AO stated during the course of his version that defacto-complainant (L.W.1) gave money to him saying that he will receive back the same after having lunch. Admittedly, those answers spoken by P.W.4 is found place in Ex.P.9, post-trap proceedings. So, the version stated by AO during the post-trap proceedings as is evident from the post-trap and as admitted by P.W.4 is that the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) gave some amount to AO stating that he would receive back the same after having lunch. It is this version which is now spoken by P.W.3, the accompanying witness. So, the evidence of P.W.3, the accompanying witness, as to the events happened between AO and defacto-complainant (L.W.1) is concerned, it has support from the contents of Ex.P.9, post-trap proceedings. So, the AO made a clarification in the post-trap proceedings as to how he dealt with the tainted amount, which is now supported by P.W.3, the own witness of the prosecution case. The evidence of P.W.3 in this regard is in tune with the contents in post-trap proceedings. However, the contents of post-trap proceedings that AO further demanded defacto-complainant (L.W.1) and accepted the bribe of Rs.2,000/- is not spoken by P.W.3. P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution in this regard. It is to be noticed that the AO can succeed basing on the preponderance of probabilities. P.W.4, the mediator and P.W.7, the Trap Laying Officer, were not the witnesses to the events that took place between AO and defacto-complainant (L.W.1) and P.W.3. 30. P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution in this regard. It is to be noticed that the AO can succeed basing on the preponderance of probabilities. P.W.4, the mediator and P.W.7, the Trap Laying Officer, were not the witnesses to the events that took place between AO and defacto-complainant (L.W.1) and P.W.3. 30. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, it cannot he held that the evidence of P.W.3 that the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) handed over some amount to AO stating that he would take back after having lunch is without any basis. 31. It is to be noticed that it is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that on the date of trap when she was on duty, AO handed over the Demand Draft to her for sending it to the concerned, but, as she was not concerned, she returned the same to AO. According to her, in cross examination, it was returned at about 11-30 a.m., on the date of trap. It is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 deposed the above facts falsely. So, the fact remained is that AO made an attempt to see that the Demand Draft would reach to concerned by handing over to P.W.1. If really there was a demand of bribe made by him from the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) with instructions to him to bring the bribe amount on 05.03.2003, he would have not handed over the Demand Draft to P.W.1 to deliver it to concerned. So, this portion of evidence of P.W.1 is a strong circumstance which is coming in the way of prosecution as regards the allegation of demand of bribe made by AO. 32. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that it is unsafe to believe that AO demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- during post-trap and accepted the same from defacto-complainant (L.W.1). In the light of the above, I am of the considered view, the AO was able to probabalize his defence basing on the version mentioned in Ex.P.9, post-trap proceedings and by relying upon the evidence of P.W.3. 33. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view, the AO was able to probabalize his defence basing on the version mentioned in Ex.P.9, post-trap proceedings and by relying upon the evidence of P.W.3. 33. In Neeraj Dutta’s case (4 supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that insofar as Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned and upon proving the fact in issue, Section 20 of the Act mandates the Court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. Here the fact in issue is that AO demanded the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) on 04.03.2003 to pay bribe of Rs.6,000/- and further demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.2,000/- during post-trap proceedings and accepted the same. But, there is no substantive evidence to that effect. During posttrap, he explained that defacto-complainant (L.W.1) gave some amount to him stating that he would take back after having lunch. This version is supported by P.W.3. 34. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as the foundational facts were not proved by the prosecution, the benefit of presumption, if any, Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act shall stands rebutted by virtue of a spontaneous version of AO in the post-trap proceedings, which is supported by P.W.3. 35. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it is unsafe to convict the AO by relying on a single circumstance that AO dealt with the tainted amount. In my considered view, the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, rightly recorded an order of acquittal by appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, as regards the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the said judgment. 36. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.