JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) : The appellant is questioning the conviction for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) on the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant for issuing Pattedar Pass Books. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is preferred. 2. The defacto complainant is P.W.1. According to him, the ancestral property was partitioned amongst his uncles and their sons. Since P.W.1 was having a right over the lands, he approached office of the MRO during April, 2003 and gave Ex.P1 application for issuance of pattedar passbook in his name. Ex.P1 is the said application dated 02.04.2003. Both the MRO and the Superintendent of the office of the MRO asked P.W.1 to meet the appellant. For five months, P.W.1 went around the appellant to get the pass book. On 05.09.2003, when P.W.1 enquired about his work, the appellant allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- to process his application and issue passbooks. P.W.1 pleaded that he was not in a position to pay Rs.5,000/- and as such, the appellant informed that Rs.1,000/- has to be paid to him and he has also to take care of other officers. On 12.09.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant and the appellant insisted that Rs.1,000/- had to be paid on 17th or 18th of September, 2003 in the office or at his house. P.W.1 then went to the DSP (P.W.9) on 13.09.2003 and lodged the written complaint Ex.P2. DSP asked P.W.1 to come on 17.09.2003 on which date the trap would be arranged. 3. The trap party gathered in the office of the DSP at 8.00 a.m. which included P.W.1-complainant, P.W.2-independent mediator, P.W.9-DSP and other trap party members. The complainant explained to the independent mediators regarding the complaint and thereafter, all the formalities that have to be followed before proceeding to a trap were completed. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings drafted under Ex.P5, the trap party proceeded to the MRO office. 4. P.W.1 went inside the MRO office around 12.30 p.m. The appellant was not present in the office, as such, P.W.1 came out and sat under a tree. Around 1.30 p.m, the appellant went to the office premises and P.W.1 followed the appellant inside the office. He enquired from the appellant about the work when the appellant demanded for the bribe. P.W.1 went inside the MRO office around 12.30 p.m. The appellant was not present in the office, as such, P.W.1 came out and sat under a tree. Around 1.30 p.m, the appellant went to the office premises and P.W.1 followed the appellant inside the office. He enquired from the appellant about the work when the appellant demanded for the bribe. P.W.1 handed over the amount. The appellant took it and placed in his shirt pocket. P.W.1 then came out of the office and signaled to the trap party indicating the acceptance of bribe by the appellant. Trap party entered the office. The sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on the hands of the appellant. The appellant when questioned regarding the acceptance of bribe during post-trap proceedings, he informed the DSP and the other trap party members that the amount was forcibly thrust into his pocket (as stated by P.W.2 during trial) and then handed over the amount to DSP from his pant pocket. The file relating to P.W.1 which is Ex.P6 was summoned from P.W.3 in whose possession the file was. 5. Having concluded the post-trap proceedings, what all transpired was reduced into writing which is Ex.P9. P.W.9 conducted further investigation and filed charge sheet after receipt of sanction order Ex.P10 from the Government. 6. The learned Special Judge examined P.W.1-complainant, P.W.2-independent mediator, P.W.3-Senior Assistant, P.W.4-MRO, P.W.5-MRO, P.W.6-Section Officer from Secretariat, who brought the sanction file, P.W.7 relative of P.W.1, P.W.8, Panchayat Secretary and P.W.9-Trap Laying and Investigating Officer. The learned Special Judge found that as alleged by the complainant-P.W.1, the appellant demanded bribe and pursuant to his demand, the bribe amount was accepted on the date of trap. The learned Special Judge dismissed the version of the appellant that no work was pending with him as on the date of trap. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that on 05.09.2003 in accordance with the attendance register Ex.P7, the appellant was not present in the office. As such, the version of P.W.1 that he met the appellant and demand was made by him is falsified. In fact, there is no independent corroboration to the version of P.W.1 regarding the demand. Even on the date of trap, nobody accompanied P.W.1 when the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe was made. As such, the version of P.W.1 that he met the appellant and demand was made by him is falsified. In fact, there is no independent corroboration to the version of P.W.1 regarding the demand. Even on the date of trap, nobody accompanied P.W.1 when the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe was made. In fact, P.W.1 admitted that the appellant had conducted proceedings and recorded statement of witnesses and thereafter report was also filed in the MRO office, pursuant to the application made by P.W.1. Since it is the case of P.W.1 himself that on 04.08.2003, statements were recorded and report was already submitted, the version of demand cannot be believed. Counsel further argued that according to P.W.3, no official favour was pending with the appellant since he has already submitted report. P.Ws.4 and 5 who are the MROs also stated on the same lines regarding there being no work pending with the appellant. In fact, the file was produced by P.W.3 and it was not with the appellant. During post-trap proceeding, P.W.1 narrated to the DSP and others regarding his enquiry being completed and also stated that nothing was pending with him. P.W.2-the independent mediator stated that P.W.1 had forcibly thrust the amount into the pocket of the appellant, during post trap proceedings. 8. The counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Telangana, ACB, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 15, wherein it was found that when the official work was not pending with the accused officer, conviction cannot sustain. 9. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) through his legal representative v. State of Punjab : (2017) 8 SCC 136 , wherein it was observed that when there was no corroboration to the version of demand and acceptance of bribe, accused has to be acquitted. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152, wherein it was held that mere acceptance of amount Decided On : -hors the proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 7 or Section 13(2) of P.C.Act. 10. 10. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the ACB would submit that the application filed by P.W.1 was kept pending by the appellant only for the demand of bribe amount to be paid. There is no reason as to why the passbook was not given in favour of P.W.1 if at all the report was already given by the appellant. The case is that for issuance of passbooks, money was demanded and pass book was not issued in favour of P.W.1 by the date of trap since demand was not met. In fact, during post-trap proceedings, the appellant stated that the amount was received without any demand from P.W.1 and not that it was thrust into his pocket as argued by the counsel for the appellant. In view of the prosecution successfully proving that there was a demand followed by acceptance of bribe on the date of trap, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. Having gone through the record, even according to P.W.1, he knew about the information that the appellant completed his work and filing report on 31.08.2003. P.W.1 admitted during cross-examination as follows: < “I know the fact on the instructions of MRO the AO has visited village at Sikanandrapur and it is fact that the accused visited the said village Sikandrapur to record the statement of M.Venkat Reddy, aged 50 years, M.Narayana Reddy, aged 45 years, M.Raja Reddy, aged 40 years and M.Mohan Reddy, aged 35 years. It is true that they gave voluntarily statement before the MRI (Accused) that they had no objection for changing the names from above stated persons to the name of P.W.1(Sri Rajanna)……………I know the fact of AO recording the statements above stated persons on dated 04.08.2003. I was very much present when the accused recorded the statements of the above said persons.” It is fact that I know that accused submitted a report in MRO office on 31.08.2003 the AO submitted a report to MRO stating that thus I have no objection to mutate the land in the name of complainant. The said report date 04.08.2003 which is Ex.P3.” 12. P.W.3 admitted during cross-examination as follows: < “It is true on the instruction of MRO, immediately I have produced the file of P.W.1 before the ACB staff. The AO is capable of writing with the right hand. The said report date 04.08.2003 which is Ex.P3.” 12. P.W.3 admitted during cross-examination as follows: < “It is true on the instruction of MRO, immediately I have produced the file of P.W.1 before the ACB staff. The AO is capable of writing with the right hand. Ex.P4 report prepared by the AO it was dated on 31.08.2003 and also signed on 31.08.2003. The said report was given to N.Chennaiah, Superintendent. N.Chennaiah, Superintendent has sent file to me and dated on 12.09.2003.” 13. P.W.4 deposed in his cross-examination as follows: < “After 2 or 3 days after trap incident, I myself conducted inquiry for issuance of pass book of P.W.1 and proceeded to village of P.W.1. Rajanna Goud is aware of the inquiry. During my inquiry, Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and development committee members and women organizers attended and many village elders were also present. During my inquiry it has come to light that after the death of father of P.W.1, his mother sold the properties in the village Sikindarapur and left to her parents village Morthada and during inquiry the villagers produced a copy of the document on Rs.10/- stamp paper that P.W.1 sold the land to which he sought for issuance of pattadar passbook to one B.Chinna Rajanna on 18.2.2003 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. I have submitted my detailed report that P.W.1 had no properties in the village. Ex.D2 is m report, Ex.D3 is the villagers statement recorded by RI in my presence, Ex.D4 is the unregistered sale deed. Ex.D5 is the statement of purchaser of the land from P.W.1 pertaining to the present case. The concern file of this case was found in possession of Senior Assistant-Prakash-P.W.3 and the same was seized by the ACB officials. It is true as on 17.09.2003 as per the record, no work is pending with AO in respect of the land in question.” 14. According to P.W.4, who was the then MRO, his enquiry after the trap revealed that P.W.1 had no properties in the village. The said report is Ex.D2. On the date of trap, the concerned file was found in possession of P.W.3 which is also not in dispute. 15. P.W.4 found that there was no property in the name of P.W.1. Several days, prior to the complaint, it was to the knowledge of P.W.1 that the appellant concluded the proceedings and filed his report with the MRO. On the date of trap, the concerned file was found in possession of P.W.3 which is also not in dispute. 15. P.W.4 found that there was no property in the name of P.W.1. Several days, prior to the complaint, it was to the knowledge of P.W.1 that the appellant concluded the proceedings and filed his report with the MRO. P.W.1 admitted that he was present when the proceedings were undertaken by appellant. In the said circumstances, there arises any amount of doubt regarding the version of demand made by the appellant from P.W.1. Firstly, P.W.1 did not hold any land, secondly, even according to PW.1, the work of appellant was complete it was to the knowledge of PW.1, thirdly, according to P.Ws.3 and 4, the appellant concluded his part of the job and the file was pending with P.W.3. In the said circumstances, the version of P.W.1 that there was demand for bribe becomes highly suspicious. There is no reason as to why on the date of trap, though, two independent witnesses were present in the trap party, no effort was made by the DSP to send either P.W.2 or the other independent witnesses to accompany P.W.1 and observe what transpires in between P.W.1 and the appellant. No corroboration is required to prove demand, when the evidence of defacto complainant is of impeccable quality and reliance can be placed on such evidence. However, the Court has to look into corroboration when the circumstances leading to the alleged demand are suspicious. On the basis of the circumstances projected by the prosecution, as already discussed, it is to the knowledge of P.W.1 regarding the work of appellant being complete and P.W.4 stated that P.W.1 did not have any land in his name and it was already sold by the mother of PW.1. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukhtiar Singh’s case (supra), the allegation of the complainant when remained uncorroborated has to be viewed with suspicion. 16. Both on the ground of prosecution not proving that there was a demand made by the appellant and further in the background of official work not pending with the appellant, the appellant is extended benefit of doubt. The appellant succeeds in view of the above discussion and the conviction is hereby set aside. 17. 16. Both on the ground of prosecution not proving that there was a demand made by the appellant and further in the background of official work not pending with the appellant, the appellant is extended benefit of doubt. The appellant succeeds in view of the above discussion and the conviction is hereby set aside. 17. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted setting aside the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases in C.C.No.30 of 2004, dated 22.04.2010. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. Q