JUDGMENT: (K. Surender, J.) : 1. The appellant aggrieved by his conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.13 of 2004, dated 12.06.2009 by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Hyderabad, filed the present appeal. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Additional Assistant Engineer (Operations) in APCPDCL, Urvakonda village. The defacto complainant/P.W.1 belongs to Urvakonda Village, Ananthapur District, who owned land of Acs.10.00 in which there was a well. In order to secure electricity connection to draw water from the well, prescribed fee of Rs.5,000/- was paid and also Rs.500/- demand drafts were paid by P.W.1 along with application that was submitted to the appellant on 19.09.2002. P.W.1 met the appellant couple of times and giving electricity connection was dodged by the appellant. The appellant informed that it requires three poles for giving connection to the well. On 30.10.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant regarding connection. The appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- bribe. Thereafter, the said demand was reduced to Rs.1,000/- and the appellant directed P.W.1 to get the said amount on 31.10.2003. On the very same day i.e., 30.10.2003, P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB/P.W.7 and lodged complaint Ex.P1. The DSP arranged the trap on the next day i.e., 31.10.2023. P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and others formed part of the trap party. They gathered in the office of the DSP, ACB. All the formalities required before proceeding to trap were followed. The said proceedings were reduced into writing, which is Ex.P7/pre-trap proceedings. The trap party went to the house of the appellant. P.W.1 entered into the house while other trap party members stayed outside. Appellant on seeing P.W.1 demanded bribe amount. P.W.1 handed over the bribe amount to the appellant, who placed in his T-shirt pocket hanging to the wall and asked P.W.1 to come on the next day. 3. P.W.1 came out of the house and relayed signal to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe. The DSP and others entered into the house of appellant and questioned the appellant regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe. The appellant informed that he kept the amount in the shirt pocket and handed it over to the DSP. 3. P.W.1 came out of the house and relayed signal to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe. The DSP and others entered into the house of appellant and questioned the appellant regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe. The appellant informed that he kept the amount in the shirt pocket and handed it over to the DSP. Even before the amount was handed over, the DSP conducted sodium carbonate solution test on the hands of the appellant, which turned positive. The rough sketch of the house was drafted and also P.W.1 and appellant were examined. Their statements were also recorded in post-trap proceedings which is Ex.P8. Thereafter, the trap party went to the office at the instance of the appellant and Exs.P10 to P18 which are the concerned records were all seized vide seizure memo Ex.P19. 4. The investigation was then handed over to the Inspector/P.W.8, who completed investigation and filed charge sheet. 5. Learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant and thereafter examined P.Ws.1 to 8 witnesses and Exs.P1 to P28 relied on by the prosecution. In defence, Ex.D1, which is the copy of transfer order of the appellant dated 20.03.2003 was placed on record by appellant. 6. Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant. Learned Special Judge refused to accept the defence of the appellant that the amount of Rs.1,000/- which was seized on the trap date was towards development charges as claimed by appellant and convicted him. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly laid emphasis on the fact that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was received on the date of trap, which had to be collected for the development charges from the consumer, which is specifically mentioned in Ex.P16 sanction. In fact, P.W.5, who was the D.E (Operations) had stated in his cross-examination that collecting amount of Rs.1,000/- is the responsibility of the appellant or the concerned Section Officer. Further, P.W.3 also stated that there is a mention in the sanction proceedings and in the ‘note’ in Ex.P16 it is specified that Rs.1,000/- has to be collected towards development charges from the consumer. Further, P.W.3 also stated that there is a mention in the sanction proceedings and in the ‘note’ in Ex.P16 it is specified that Rs.1,000/- has to be collected towards development charges from the consumer. In the said circumstances, when the amount that was paid on the trap date was towards development charges, which is specifically mentioned in the sanction order Ex.P16, learned Special Judge committed error in convicting the appellant and not accepting the defence of appellant, which is borne by record. 8. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the explanation given by the accused need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and same can be proved by preponderance of probability. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the explanation given under Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, if found to be reasonable, the same can be based to record acquittal. 9. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of C.Sivakumar Reddy v. State of A.P (2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 863 (AP). This Court while dealing with the case of bribe, held that mere recovery of amount is of no consequence, when the demand cannot be believed. 10. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006(1) ALD (Crl.) 436 (SC). In the said case, the defence taken by the accused was that the bribe amount was paid towards arrears of lease rent. Believing the said version, the trial Court acquitted the accused therein. However, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the judgment of the High Court held that the trial Court was correct in acquitting the accused when it was proved that there was an amount which was due towards lease rent. 11. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB would submit that though it is mentioned in Ex.P16 that Rs.1,000/- has to be collected towards development charges, however, the prosecution witnesses themselves stated that Rs.5,000/- was already collected towards development charges. When the said development charges were already collected, the question of Rs.1,000/- that was passed on the trap date, cannot be development charges. When the said development charges were already collected, the question of Rs.1,000/- that was passed on the trap date, cannot be development charges. Since the appellant failed to prove that Rs.1,000/- was towards development charges, the trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant. 12. In view of the defence taken by the appellant that the amount recovered on the trap date was accepted towards development charges as mentioned in Ex.P16, the burden shifts on to the appellant to substantiate and prove his version regarding there being an outstanding of developmental charge of Rs.1,000/-, which was accepted by him on the date of trap. The burden on the appellant is not that of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ but ‘by preponderance of probability’. If the appellant probablizes his version, the same can be relied on by the Court. 13. At the earliest point of time, when the post-trap proceedings were drafted, the appellant did not say anything about development charges being due from P.W.1. During trial, it was suggested to P.W.1 that Rs.1,000/- was offered as developmental charges to the appellant, asking him to remit the amount towards DD and forcibly thrust the amount into the hands of the appellant. Though the appellant returned the said amount, the amount was then taken by P.W.1 and placed in the shirt pocket, which was hanging on the wall. The suggestions were denied by P.W.1. 14. The crucial aspect is the proof of payment of development charges. No doubt, it is mentioned in the printed proforma of the sanction order Ex.P16 that Rs.1,000/- has to be collected towards developmental charges, however, the prosecution witnesses P.W.3/A.D.E specifically stated that in the case of P.W.1, Rs.1,000/- mentioned under ‘note’ was general instruction in the printed proforma and further stated in Court as follows: “In Ex.P15 work order application form will be maintained by AO at Sl.No.005348, the name of pw1 is mentioned and the collection of Rs.5,000/- towards development charges and Rs.500/- towards consumer charges with details of DDs is mentioned by AO.” 15. P.W.5 also stated that it was the duty of the appellant or the concerned Section Officer to collect the development charges. He admitted as follows: “As per Ex.P15 Rs.5,000/- towards development charges and Rs.500/- towards consumer charges towards security deposit were collected from PW1. The same is maintained at the AE’s office. P.W.5 also stated that it was the duty of the appellant or the concerned Section Officer to collect the development charges. He admitted as follows: “As per Ex.P15 Rs.5,000/- towards development charges and Rs.500/- towards consumer charges towards security deposit were collected from PW1. The same is maintained at the AE’s office. In Ex.P-13 at page 27 the development charges collected at Rs.5000/- is mentioned in page 27. Along with the particulars of DDs. Likewise in Ex.P-14 the amount collected at Rs.500/- from pw1 is also mentioned. In work order application submitted by AO in Ex.P16 file at page 13 AO had also mentioned that the development charges of Rs.5,000/- and consumer charges of Rs.500/- was collected from pw1 and the same has been forwarded to me threw pw3. Once development charges are collected from the consumer, there is no necessity for collecting any amounts towards development charges. Since pw1 had paid Rs.5,000/- towards development charges he need not again pay as per the note in Ex.P-16 at page 5. The note is a general note to collect Rs.1,000/- per HP if not paid earlier.” 16. It is evident that Rs.5,000/- was already also collected towards development charges and noted by appellant. As such, the version of the appellant that that on the date of trap, the amount was collected towards development charge cannot be accepted. It is not explained by the appellant as to how there was due of Rs.1,000/- payable towards development charges since Rs.5,000/- was already paid. Having taken specific plea, the appellant failed to substantiate his plea even by preponderance of probability. Both P.Ws.3 and 5 in unequivocal terms stated that Rs.1,000/- mentioned in Ex.P16 was printed proforma and in fact Rs.5,000/- was already collected from P.W.1 towards development charges and there was no due. The application of P.W.1 was also pending action with the appellant. The file of P.W.1 and relevant documents Exs.P10 to P18 were seized at the instance of appellant. 17. In the said circumstances, the prosecution had convincingly proved that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe amount from P.W.1. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Special Judge. 18. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Special Judge. 18. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.