JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused Officer No.1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge (SPE & ACB) cases at Hyderabad, dated 15.05.2007 in C.C.No.3 of 2003, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for the charge under Section 7 of the Act and a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment, should run concurrently. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/A.O.1 and learned Standing Counsel for ACB. 3. The appellant/Accused Officer was convicted for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,500/- from PW1 as ‘mamool’. 4. According to ACB, the appellant was a ration checking Inspector. One Bhoomalingam who was the owner of Fair Price Shop No.833 died in the month of November-2000. Half of the ration cards attached to the said fair price shop of Bhoomalingam was allotted to the fair price shop of PW1. It is alleged that on the ground of getting more income on account of entrusting half of the cards pertaining to Bhoomalingam, appellant/Accused Officer demanded PW1 to pay Rs.500/-every month. Since five months have lapsed, Rs.2,500/- had to be paid. PW1 paid Rs.1,000/- on 30.04.2000 and the appellant directed PW1 to pay the remaining amount of Rs.500/- on the next date i.e. on 01.05.2001. PW1 wrote down Ex.P1-complaint and approached ACB at 11.00 a.m. on 01.05.2001. The DSPPW4 having received the complaint asked PW1 to come back at 3.00 p.m. on the same day. The said complaint was registered and two independent witnesses i.e. PW2 and another who are government officials were asked to be part of the trap party. 5. The First mediators report-Ex.P5 was drafted in the office of DSP, ACB, Hyderabad, in between 3.40 p.m. and concluded at 4.45 p.m. 6. During the said proceedings, PW1 was examined regarding the complaint Ex.P1 by the independent mediators. Thereafter, the bribe amount was applied with Phenolphthalein powder. The reason for applying phenolphthalein powder on the currency was explained to PW1 so also the Sodium Carbonate test stating that whoever comes into contact with the currency would prove positive for the test. During the said proceedings, PW1 was examined regarding the complaint Ex.P1 by the independent mediators. Thereafter, the bribe amount was applied with Phenolphthalein powder. The reason for applying phenolphthalein powder on the currency was explained to PW1 so also the Sodium Carbonate test stating that whoever comes into contact with the currency would prove positive for the test. After concluding the said mediators report, the trap party proceeded to the office of the appellant. PW2-the independent mediator was asked to accompany PW1 and to observe what transpires in between PW1 and appellant/accused officer. PW1 went inside the office followed by PW2. PW2 sat on the bench outside the room of appellant and was in a position to see what transpires in the room of the appellant/accused officer. PW1 entered into the room of the appellant and on demand, placed the bribe amount in the left side table drawer as instructed by the appellant. Ex.P2-off take particulars paper, which contains the particulars of stocks of rice, wheat, sugar, oil etc., was also handed over. The appellant took out the tainted currency from the left side table drawer and transferred it into the right side table drawer. Thereafter, PW1 came out of the room and gave a pre-arranged signal to the trap party indicating the acceptance of bribe. The trap party entered into the room of the appellant and conducted Sodium Carbonate solution test which turned positive. When questioned, the appellant informed that the amount was kept in the drawer and took out the said amount from the right side table drawer and handed it over to the trap party. 7. Post trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P9. The documents Ex.P2, handed over by PW1 to appellant and Exs.P6 to P8 were also seized. Ex.P10-rought sketch was also drafted. 8. The learned Special Judge having examined the evidence produced by both the prosecution and the appellant found that the appellant was guilty and convicted accordingly under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused officer would submit that firstly, the appellant is not concerned with the ration shop and not in a position to demand ‘mamool’ since he was not the authority to give any licence or do any favours. 10. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused officer would submit that firstly, the appellant is not concerned with the ration shop and not in a position to demand ‘mamool’ since he was not the authority to give any licence or do any favours. 10. Secondly, as per the evidence on record including the evidence of DW3 and also the appellants evidence who examined himself as DW4, the amount was planted by PW1. Amount was planted when the appellant having taken Ex.P2 from PW1, went into the other room and after his return from the other room/section, the trap party had entered. The light pink color yielded on the right hand of the appellant was on account of Ex.P2 being taken by him and handed over by PW1 and did not handle the bribe amount. 11. When two views are possible, view in favour of the appellant has to be accepted. 12. On the other hand learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that both PWs.1 and 2 are witnesses to the demand and acceptance by the appellant/accused officer. The appellant failed to discharge his burden as shifted on to him under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both for proving that there was a demand and acceptance by the appellant and since the appellant could not discharge his burden, the conviction has to be sustained. 13. The following are not disputed. i) PW1 met the appellant in his room on the date of trap ii) Handing over Ex.P2 to the appellant iii) Recovery of the amount from the drawer of the appellant, though the appellant claimed it to have been planted. 14. Coming to the claim of the appellant that he has nothing to do with the ration shop of PW1, it is the evidence of PW3Superintendent of the said office that the ration shop of PW1 and other two shops fall within the jurisdiction of the appellant. The appellant submitted checking inspection report regarding Bhoomalingam shop. Accordingly the cards of Bhoomalingam’s shop were equally divided between the shop of PW1 and one Sridevi. 15. It is the case of prosecution that the accused was the authority to conduct inspection of the fair price shop of PW1 and two other fair price shops and submit reports, if any. The appellant submitted checking inspection report regarding Bhoomalingam shop. Accordingly the cards of Bhoomalingam’s shop were equally divided between the shop of PW1 and one Sridevi. 15. It is the case of prosecution that the accused was the authority to conduct inspection of the fair price shop of PW1 and two other fair price shops and submit reports, if any. The specific allegation of PW1 is that the appellant demanded ‘Mamool’ and threatened that if demand is not met, PW1’s license of the shop would be cancelled for some reason or the other. When the appellant was in a position to inspect and file reports, it cannot be said that the appellant was not in a position to demand bribe by threatening PW1. Further, the fact that Ex.P2 was taken by the appellant on the trap date would go to show that the appellant was the concerned official who has the authority over the fair price shop of PW1. For the said reason, the first ground urged by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has nothing to do either with the fair price shop of PW1 or has any authority over it, cannot be accepted. 16. The appellant had come up with a defense that the amount was planted by PW1 when he went out of the office on the trap date. DW3 is another witness who was from the same office narrating that after PW1 visited the accused officer in his room, the Accused Officer came out within two minutes after PW1 entered into his office, holding some papers and entered into the room of ASO. DW1 is another witness who was working as Junior Enquiry Inspector in the same office. He was produced by the appellant in defense, however DW1 stated that he does not remember whether the appellant came into the room of ASO to handover Ex.P2. DW1 who was examined by appellant in fact denied the statement of DWs.3 and 4 that the appellant/DW4 entered into the office of ASO on the trap date. PW2 who was the independent witness was standing outside the room and watching what transpires in between PW1 and Accused Officer. DW1 who was examined by appellant in fact denied the statement of DWs.3 and 4 that the appellant/DW4 entered into the office of ASO on the trap date. PW2 who was the independent witness was standing outside the room and watching what transpires in between PW1 and Accused Officer. He also stated that after PW1 went inside the office, the amount was placed in the left side drawer of the table of the Accused Officer and the appellant/Accused Officer took out the amount and placed it in the right side table drawer. Further, according to PW1 he did not leave his room until trap party arrived. 17. The said defense was taken for the first time during the course of trial. According to PWs.1, 2 and DW1, the appellant did not go to the ASO office after PW1 entered into the office of Appellant/Accused Officer. In the said circumstances, the appellant failed to prove his defence of being absent in the room after PW1 arrived and in his absence the money was planted. 18. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. The conviction recorded by the trial Court is confirmed. The trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant/Accused Officer and send him to prison to serve out the sentence. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal appeal, shall stand closed.