ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred by de facto complainant questioning the acquittal of respondent No.1 public servant on corruption charges. Respondent No.2 is the State. 2. Respondent No.1 is the accused officer in C.C.No.20 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act, 1988’). He was tried before learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The learned Special Judge after due trial, by an elaborate judgment dated 27.03.2006, found the accused officer/respondent No.1 on all the charges not guilty and accordingly acquitted him. That prosecution was led by respondent No.2/State. As against the acquittal, the State did not prefer any appeal. However, the de facto complainant in that case preferred the present revision questioning the correctness of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted arguments. 4. Learned counsel for accused/respondent No.1 submitted oral arguments and presented written arguments and cited legal authorities. 5. For respondent No.2-State, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted arguments. 6. The accused officer was Sub-Inspector of Police in Ongole Taluq Police Station between 07.06.1997 and 23.08.1998. Within his territorial jurisdiction there is Teja Wines. One Mr. Ch. Veeraiah Chowdary/PW.10 is the licensee. His brother-in-law is PW.1/de facto complainant. The allegations are that on 13.08.1998 the accused officer visited Teja Wines and he did not find either PW.1 or PW.10 and he told the workers there that PW.1 was come and meet him. This was witnessed by a worker in the said wine shop/PW.3. He informed the incident to PW.1. Thereafter, on 17.08.1998 PW.1 went to Taluq Police Station and met the accused officer and the accused officer demanded him to pay Rs.10,000/- so as to avoid involving him in any cases. PW.1 told the accused officer that he was running the wine shop in accordance with Rules and License and there was no need to pay money. He left the place. He then gave a report to Director General, A.C.B., Hyderabad on 20.08.1998 under Ex.P.1. Thereafter at 5:00 P.M. on 21.08.1998 Crime No.19/ACB-CR/HYD/1998 was registered. After holding pre-trap proceedings, trap was laid on 24.08.1998. It is alleged that it was at the house of the accused officer at Ongole the trap was conducted and the raid was held. He then gave a report to Director General, A.C.B., Hyderabad on 20.08.1998 under Ex.P.1. Thereafter at 5:00 P.M. on 21.08.1998 Crime No.19/ACB-CR/HYD/1998 was registered. After holding pre-trap proceedings, trap was laid on 24.08.1998. It is alleged that it was at the house of the accused officer at Ongole the trap was conducted and the raid was held. According to prosecution, on demand from the accused officer, Rs.10,000/- was given by PW.1 and thereafter the ride party reached the spot and conducted requisite Sodium Carbonate Solution Test on both hand fingers of the accused officer and that yielded positive result. The currency notes were recovered and their numbers tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings. Relevant case papers were collected and the accused officer was arrested and was released thereafter on bail by the investigating officer. During the course of progress in the investigation of this case, the investigating agency found further violations of law on part of the accused officer. It is alleged that the accused officer illegally detained PW.5 on 17.05.1998 and put him in lock-up alleging that PW.5 was transporting stolen prawns and on 18.05.1998 on receiving Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification he released PW.5. It is further found that accused officer demanded PW.7, who was running Sarada Wines, Bye-pass road, Ongole, to supply four bottles of foreign made liquor and when he refused he unauthorisedly kept him in lock-up and on 06.11.1997 after receiving Rs.25,000/- as illegal gratification he released him. After collecting the requisite evidence sanction for prosecution was applied and the Government of Andhra Pradesh by issuing G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 23.10.1999 of Home (SC-A) Department granted sanction for prosecution. Charge sheet was laid before the Court. 7. In response to the summons from the Court, accused officer made his appearance. Copies of documents were furnished to him. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 13(2) read with 13(1) (a) of the Act, 1988. Charges were read over and explained to the accused and he denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. 8. During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20. The accused was questioned about the incriminating material available on record in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the truth of the version of the prosecution witnesses. 8. During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20. The accused was questioned about the incriminating material available on record in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the truth of the version of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter the accused got adduced the evidence of DWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.4. He also got marked Exs.X.1 to X.28. In addition to that Ex.C.1 was also marked. MOs.1 to 6 were marked. The learned trial Court made a detailed scrutiny of the evidence led on both sides, considered the submissions made on both sides and then recorded its findings to the effect that the de facto complainant/revision petitioner/PW.1 had no connection with Teja Wines and on part of the accused officer/respondent No.1 there was no pending official favour which he could render. The story of the prosecution that on or about 13.08.1998 accused officer going to Teja Wines was not proved. The allegation that on 17.08.1998 accused officer demanded from PW.1 illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- is not proved. It observed that Ex.P.1 complaint of PW.1 seems to have been motivated for reason that F.I.R. which was registered at 5:00 P.M. on 21.08.1998 did not reach the Court till 12:00 Noon on 24.08.1998. Explaining this the learned trial Court observed that the trap was held at 9:30 A.M. on 24.08.1998 and the F.I.R. that was registered three days ago was received by the Court only subsequent to completion of trap proceedings. It stated that PW.11 the investigating officer failed to bestow proper attention and failed to make the needful discreet enquiries about the accused officer and about PW.1 before registration of crime. From the voluminous evidence led by defence, it observed that posting of accused officer at Taluq Police Station, Ongole was not to the liking of sitting M.L.A. and it recorded several factual findings from X-Series documents indicating the threats the accused officer received from M.L.A. and the involvement of PWs.1, 10 and others in various criminal cases filed by the accused officer against them a few months earlier to the present case incident. It tested the credibility of each witness. It observed the absence of evidence of certain other witnesses and on overall analysis of the evidence, it found that with a view to wreak vengeance PW.1 got foisted this false case against accused officer. It tested the credibility of each witness. It observed the absence of evidence of certain other witnesses and on overall analysis of the evidence, it found that with a view to wreak vengeance PW.1 got foisted this false case against accused officer. Coming to the trap proceedings, it observed that Rs.10,000/- was not found in the hands or body of the accused officer and they were found lying at his feet. Observing that in the absence of credible evidence about demand for illegal gratification, it would not believe about acceptance of gratification on part of accused. It further observed that one of the important witnesses/PW.4 was found to be an imposter. It analysed the evidence of PW.2 and found him not believable at all. It discussed various aspects about pre-trap proceedings, the telephonic conversations said to have been made by prosecution witnesses with accused officer and said that prosecution utterly failed in establishing any of those facts and in fact the evidence spoken to by witnesses was found false by virtue of relevant evidence recovered from Department of Telephones and the Office of Superintendent of Police. It found inherent infirmities in the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 9 and 11 and at great length it dealt with the trap incident and on analysis of evidence of one of the trap witnesses/PW.9, it found that the case is a deliberate ploy foisted against the accused officer. It then dealt with the allegations of unauthorized detention of PW.7 and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- and then releasing PW.7 from the police custody. It said that the incident allegedly pertain to 05.11.1997. From then no complaint was lodged and there was only solitary testimony of PW.7 which could not be believed as the evidence of alleged another relevant witness Hanumantha Rao was not brought on record by the prosecution. It then scrutinized the charge concerning unauthorized detention of PW.5 and obtaining illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- and releasing him. It stated that the allegation was that on 18.05.1998 in Taluq Police Station accused demanded for gratification. On analysis of the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 and DW.5 and Ex.X.16 and other documents, it observed that there was no credible material evidence proving the demand and receiving the gratification. Having recorded such findings, it found the accused officer not guilty for all the charges and acquitted him accordingly. 9. On analysis of the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 and DW.5 and Ex.X.16 and other documents, it observed that there was no credible material evidence proving the demand and receiving the gratification. Having recorded such findings, it found the accused officer not guilty for all the charges and acquitted him accordingly. 9. In this criminal revision case, the de facto complainant assails the said judgment stating that the conclusions reached at by the trial Court are against the evidence. As the evidence on record established recovery of tainted money from the accused officer, presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988 ought to be drawn and the same was not rebutted by defence but against the established law the accused was acquitted. 10. As against that, learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused officer argued that a very well considered judgment of the trial Court cannot be interfered with by this Court. Citing ratio in N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 SCC 687 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the learned counsel submits that this Court must hold in mind that in cases of acquittals which are challenged before this Court there is double presumption in favour of the accused. It is stated that there was initial presumption of innocence during the course of the trial and when the trial Court found the accused innocent, the initial presumption stood reinforced and reaffirmed. Even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, this Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, while citing Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (2022) SCC Online SC 1724 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, argued that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988 would apply only if the fact of demand and acceptance is proved. It is argued that the contention of the revision petitioner that the tainted money was recovered from the hands of the accused officer is factually incorrect. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court from the factual findings available on record and further submits that in a revision against acquittal this Court cannot record conviction. 12. It is argued that the contention of the revision petitioner that the tainted money was recovered from the hands of the accused officer is factually incorrect. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court from the factual findings available on record and further submits that in a revision against acquittal this Court cannot record conviction. 12. On considering the submissions on both sides, the following point fall for determination : “Whether the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and whether the evidence established demand and acceptance of bribe amount and recovery of tainted money from the hands of the accused and the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused? 13. Point: When evidence is adduced on both sides at trial and various facts and circumstances were brought on record, the proof or otherwise of the charges levelled against the accused has to be analysed on the touch-stone of the evidence that was brought on record. While considering the criminal case the evidence about facts relevant to the crime and the credibility of the witnesses who deposed on these facts are matters of great importance. 14. It is a matter of record that initially under Ex.P.3 sanction for prosecution was granted by the State. Thereafter accused officer applied to the superiors submitting various papers and in consideration of all that material, Government passed G.O.Ms.No.35 Home (SCA) dated 13.02.2001 ordering for withdrawal from prosecution. However, that Government Order was challenged by the present revision petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.4231 of 2001. This Court set aside the above Government Order. It is also a matter of record that there is an observation from the trial judge that this revision petitioner/PW.1 engaged a learned counsel to assist the prosecution and it was that learned counsel who played enthusiastic role in procuring prosecution witnesses. At para No.55 of its judgment learned trial Court stated that PW.1 is brother-in-law to PW.10 and PW.3 is related to PW.10 and PW.4 is an imposter working under PW.1 and PW.2 is close friend of PW.1. All these witnesses spoke about pre-trap and trap proceedings. They are found to be not independent witnesses. It observed that PW.9 is also laboring under the same difficulty. It stated that PW.11 the riding officer brought independent witnesses for the trap, but they were not allowed to play their role by the above referred witnesses. 15. All these witnesses spoke about pre-trap and trap proceedings. They are found to be not independent witnesses. It observed that PW.9 is also laboring under the same difficulty. It stated that PW.11 the riding officer brought independent witnesses for the trap, but they were not allowed to play their role by the above referred witnesses. 15. The alleged trap was on 24.08.1998. The version of PW.1 is that he owns or he is a partner of Teja Wines. However, on scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, it is seen that PW.1 is neither owner of the Teja Wines nor a partner in Teja Wines and also is not a Nowkarnama holder in that Teja Wines. It is PW.10 who is the license holder. It is not the case of prosecution that accused officer ever demanded any illegal gratification from PW.10. The evidence of PW.1 and the contention of the prosecution that PW.1 is Proprietor of Teja Wines is to be found false as the defence examined DW.1 who produced Exs.X.2 to X.9. Since PW.1 was found not officially connected to Teja Wines, learned trial Court observed that he had no concern and he is not competent to lodge Ex.P.1-complaint. This fact has some significance. The initiation of case is not at the behest of PW.10 who is the license holder of Teja Wines. The initiation is from his relative/PW.1 who has no pecuniary interest over Teja Wines. The evidence on record disclose that the then sitting M.L.A. is maternal uncle of PW.1. Ex.X.12(A) and five other documents in that series and Exs.X.13 and X.13(A) and other series of documents and Exs.X.14 and X.14(A) and the series of documents and Exs.15, 16, 17 and the series of documents are all general diary entries of Taluq Police Station. They were maintained by original along with carbon copy. Originals were sent to Superintendent of Police. Originals were found destroyed as per law as per Ex.C.1 letter of the Superintendent of Police. After analyzing all these documents, it is seen that there were conversations among PW.1 and other followers of PW.1 and the M.L.A. All of them are reflected in those general diary entries. Originals were sent to Superintendent of Police. Originals were found destroyed as per law as per Ex.C.1 letter of the Superintendent of Police. After analyzing all these documents, it is seen that there were conversations among PW.1 and other followers of PW.1 and the M.L.A. All of them are reflected in those general diary entries. Through the cross-examination of PW.1 and other witnesses, it was found that in Crime No.56 of 1999, Crime No.39 of 2002, Crime No.74 of 2004, Crime No.64 of 2004, Crime No.28 of 1998 and in Crime No.114 of 1994 there is participation of PW.1 or his associates or the sitting M.L.A. The documents on record indicate that a few months prior to the present case mentioned trap, crimes were registered for Excise offences and crimes were registered against the followers of the then sitting M.L.A. and on more than one occasion this PW.1 along with his associates went to the police station and demanded this accused officer questioning the accused officer in registering crimes and in detaining certain accused belonged to their group. The evidence on record also indicate accused officer addressing letters earlier to the present crime. These letters were addressed to the Superintendent of Police wherein he mentioned about apprehensions of damage to his career at the hands of PW.1 and the M.L.A. Station general diary entries also indicated the word from the then M.L.A. that he did not like posting of the accused officer at that police station. As per Ex.X.13(C) on 16.02.1998 the political man telephoned to the accused officer demanding him to release liquor he seized. When he refused he was threatened. As per Exs.X.14(C), 14(D), 14(E), 14(F), 14(G), 14(H) and 14(I), PW.1 went to the police station and threatened this accused officer telling him he should not go to Bandobust duty at Gundayapalem on the occasion of re-polling. All these incidents occurred just a few months earlier to the present trap proceedings. 16. The above facts are narrated to have a proper perspective of the charge mentioned allegations. The allegation is that accused officer demanded PW.1 to pay him Rs.10,000/- or otherwise he would involve him in cases. Evidence of PW.1 indicated that the accused officer threatened to get the wine shop closed by illegal cases. 16. The above facts are narrated to have a proper perspective of the charge mentioned allegations. The allegation is that accused officer demanded PW.1 to pay him Rs.10,000/- or otherwise he would involve him in cases. Evidence of PW.1 indicated that the accused officer threatened to get the wine shop closed by illegal cases. The improbability as detected by the trial Court lies in the fact that PW.1 has no pecuniary interest over the wine shop and therefore the threats of accused officer should not have bothered him at all. Be it noted, PW.10 is the license holder which is established on evidence. He did not file any case. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he did not tell PW.10 about accused officer threatening to foist false case against the wine shop and demand for money to avoid such possibility. Coming to the accused officer, it was brought on record that under G.O.Ms.No.167 (Excise-II), dated 18.02.1998 Law and Order police have no jurisdiction over licensed excise shops. Thus the evidence also established incompetence of accused officer in riding Teja Wines which holds appropriate license. In that view of the matter, learned trial Court is right in saying that no official favour was pending with accused officer. Thus, on one hand PW.1 had no real interest over Teja Wines and on the other hand, accused officer had no power to ride or get Teja Wines closed. It is on all these established facts the demand for money stated by prosecution through the mouth of PW.1 was not accepted by the learned trial Court. This Court finds no reason to think otherwise. The factual finding was arrived at on appropriate analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence. There is no irregularity or illegality involved in it. 17. The crux of the argument for the revision petitioner lies on presumption contained in Section 20 of the Act, 1988. This provision provides that if the prosecution has proved that the accused officer has accepted valuable thing, the Court shall presume that it is for gratification as stated in Section 7 of the Act, 1988. 17. The crux of the argument for the revision petitioner lies on presumption contained in Section 20 of the Act, 1988. This provision provides that if the prosecution has proved that the accused officer has accepted valuable thing, the Court shall presume that it is for gratification as stated in Section 7 of the Act, 1988. The evidence of PW.1, PW.11 and other witnesses is that on 24.08.1998 PW.1 went inside the house of the accused officer and the accused officer demanded him for Rs.10,000/- telling him that it was needed and PW.1 giving Rs.10,000/- and the accused officer receiving this amount with his right hand. It is undisputed that on evidence the scientific test yielded positive result. It is on this evidence revision petitioner urges that the fact of receiving gratification is proved and presumption shall be raised under Section 20 of the Act, 1988 and the accused officer failed to show any justification for receiving that amount and therefore, presumption stood not rebutted and therefore the trial Court ought to have convicted him, but erroneously acquitted him. Having considered these submissions and having perused the evidence of PWs.1, 11 and other witnesses, it is seen that by the time PW.11 reached the spot the currency notes were at the feet of the accused officer. The existence of currency notes at that spot is established by the prosecution. The only question is was it received by the accused or was it thrusted into his hands. At paragraph No.57 the learned trial Court appropriately found the relevance of this aspect. It recorded the ratio in K. Narasimhachary v. State, Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Cuddapah District (2003 Crl.L.J. 3315). In that case it was held that whenever a trap is successful, the version of the prosecution gains credence. However, Court has to see the circumstances such as the accused officer coming into contact with the tainted notes in the process of pushing the same from table or thwarting the attempts of the complainant to thrust the amount into the hands or pocket need to be taken into account. Mechanical acceptance of trap is prone to result in injustice. This prudent principle has vital importance. Mechanical acceptance of trap is prone to result in injustice. This prudent principle has vital importance. Here is a case where by the time of the trap proceedings, PWs.1, 10 and other associates were involved in various offences against human body, against property, against violation of Excise Laws and several of their followers were arrested and by then there was severely strained relationships between political incumbency and this accused officer and there was active role on part of PW.1 in hurling warnings against the accused officer. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that seeking favour for those cases there were approaches from PW.1 and since they were condemned by the accused officer seemingly the case came to be foisted. If really the accused officer demanded and then received Rs.10,000/- by the time the trap witnesses had reached the place including PW.9, money must have been either in his hands or in his pocket or on a table. However, the cash was found at the floor near the feet of accused officer. This indicates the reluctance of accused officer for money. Scientific test yielding result by itself cannot determine that somebody accepted tainted money. The possibility of PW.1 thrusting money into the hands of accused officer or into his pocket cannot be ruled out. This is not a surmise but a clear possibility arising between accused officer and PW.1. From the proved facts it is seen PW.1 had no proprietary concern over Teja Wines and the accused officer had no role to play against Teja Wines. Hence the contention of prosecution that accused officer demanded and then received Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification could not be accepted. Analysis of trial Court on all these facts and circumstances is immaculate. There is absolutely no merit in what is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner. 18. It may be stated here that what is placed before this Court is a criminal revision case. This is as against an acquittal in a criminal case. This Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction by virtue of prohibition contained in Sub-Section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. It may be stated here that what is placed before this Court is a criminal revision case. This is as against an acquittal in a criminal case. This Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction by virtue of prohibition contained in Sub-Section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite notifying this fact to the learned counsel for revision petitioner and despite the fact that his attention is brought to Sub-Section (5) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C., no steps were taken for the revision petitioner to see that the revision is converted into an appeal. All these facts indicate that there was no genuine interest for the revision petitioner in saying that justice is to be done. In any view of the matter, this Court having considered the entire material on record finds no merit in the grounds urged in this revision. Therefore, it is to record that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court is right on facts and law. There is nothing to interfere. Hence, point is answered against the revision petitioner. 19. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 27.03.2006 of learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore in C.C.No.20 of 1999. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.