JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant was convicted 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”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is preferred. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was running a sawmill and timber depot namely Vinayaka Sawmill and Timber Depot. His licence expired on 31.12.2002 as such, he submitted application (Ex.P2) along with challan (Ex.P3) for renewal on 01.01.2003 addressed to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO). His licence was not renewed till 10.03.2003, as such, he met the appellant, who was working as Forest Range Officer (FRO). The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.10,000/- for processing the file and also informed that Sub- Divisional Forest Officer (SDFO)-P.W.4 had made remarks in the application. On 23.03.2003, P.W.1 again met the appellant for forwarding the renewal application for licence. However, the amount was again demanded. Four days thereafter i.e., on 27.03.2003 when P.W.1 met appellant, P.W.1 was asked to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- initially and thereafter Rs.5,000/- after renewal. 3. Vexed by the continuous demand of bribe, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P4 complaint with the DSP namely P.Umakanth Reddy (died prior to trial). The trap was arranged on 29.03.2003. The trap party including P.W.1, independent mediators, DSP, Inspector and others gathered in the office of DSP around 3.00 p.m. All the formalities that were required to be completed before proceeding to trial were completed. The said proceedings were drafted as Ex.P9 first mediators report. 4. The trap party reached the house of the appellant around 4.30 p.m and P.W.1 and another independent mediator-Ahmed Khan (not examined) went to the house of the appellant. The appellant and his staff were present. Both P.W.1 Ahmed Khan sat in the front room whereas the appellant and others were sitting in the other room. The appellant asked P.W.1 to get cool drinks for the staff members, as such, P.W.1 went outside and brought the cool drinks. The mediator went out of the house and informed the trap party regarding the other officials being present with the appellant. By the time, P.W.1 came back, Ahmed Khan was not present in the room. P.W.1 supplied cool drinks to the staff and then the staff members left the appellant’s house. The mediator went out of the house and informed the trap party regarding the other officials being present with the appellant. By the time, P.W.1 came back, Ahmed Khan was not present in the room. P.W.1 supplied cool drinks to the staff and then the staff members left the appellant’s house. The appellant enquired whether P.W.1 brought the amount and when P.W.1 gave the said amount, Appellant received it and kept underneath the pillow in between the folds of shawl. 5. P.W.1 then went outside and signaled to the trap party regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The trap party entered into the house. Sodium Carbonate solution test was conducted on both the hands of the appellant to confirm whether the appellant handled the phenolphthalein smeared bribe amount. Both the solutions turned positive. When asked by the DSP, the appellant handed over the amount from the folds of the shawl which was underneath the pillow. Thereafter, the DSP enquired about the file of P.W.1. P.W.2, who was working as Senior Assistant and present in the house of appellant went and brought the files - Exs.P6 and P7 pertaining to P.W.1. During the post-trap proceedings, explanation was given by the appellant that when P.W.1 offered the amount, the appellant refused, however, P.W.1 tried to thrust the amount into his hands but appellant refused. He was not aware about the amount found in the folds of the shawl underneath the pillow. Further, according to P.W.3 and the Inspector, it was the appellant who informed about the amount, which was in between the folds of shawl underneath the pillow. 6. The version given by P.W.1-complainant and what all transpired during the post trap proceedings was reduced into writing which is Ex.P11. 7. DSP handed over investigation to P.W.6, who was present from the beginning ie., from the lodging of the complaint by P.W.1 and also during pre and post trap proceedings. Investigation was completed by PW.6 and charge sheet was filed after obtaining sanction orders from the competent authority. 8. The learned Special Judge framed charges for the said offences and examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 on behalf of the prosecution. During the course of examination of mediator- P.W.3, MOs.1 to 8 were also marked. 9. Investigation was completed by PW.6 and charge sheet was filed after obtaining sanction orders from the competent authority. 8. The learned Special Judge framed charges for the said offences and examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 on behalf of the prosecution. During the course of examination of mediator- P.W.3, MOs.1 to 8 were also marked. 9. The defence of the appellant is that firstly no work was pending with him and he was not in a position to do any official favour on the date of lodging complaint or on the date of trap. In fact, the bribe amount was thrust into his hands by P.W.1 and refused by the appellant. He informed that he is not aware as to how the amount was kept in the shawl which underneath the pillow. However, during the course of trial, the appellant explained that initially when P.W.1 came and offered the amount, he refused and P.W.1 was sent to get cool drinks. He went out and when he came back, he must have planted the amount underneath the pillow, when Accused Officer came out of the house to see off the officials. 10. The learned Special Judge, however, did not find favour with the defence taken by the appellant and convicted him accordingly for demanding and accepting bribe from P.W.1. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had mainly concentrated on the fact that the file Ex.P6 and P7 pertaining to the P.W.1 was admittedly with P.W.2. Even prior to the date of complaint, in fact, the file was processed and the work of the appellant was completed. The files were pending with P.W.2. The question of demanding bribe when the file of P.W.1 was already processed regarding the licence, cannot be believed. 12. Learned counsel further argued that even on the date of trap, the initial version given by the appellant given was that the amount was thrust into his pocket and the work was not pending with him and same was recorded in the second mediators’ report. From the circumstances, it is apparent that the money was planted by P.W.1 and for the said reason, the other mediator who was asked to accompany P.W.1 left the premises and he was not examined during trial. Since there was no work pending, the version of demanding amount as projected by the prosecution cannot be believed. 13. From the circumstances, it is apparent that the money was planted by P.W.1 and for the said reason, the other mediator who was asked to accompany P.W.1 left the premises and he was not examined during trial. Since there was no work pending, the version of demanding amount as projected by the prosecution cannot be believed. 13. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 CRI.L.J1353 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of amount from the accused cannot form basis to convict unless prosecution proves the factum of demand beyond reasonable doubt. 14. In State of A.P. v. T.Venkateswara Rao, AIR 2004 SC 728 similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that mere recovery of the amount is of no consequence when the work was not pending with the accused officer therein. 15. In Ayyasami v. State of T.N., 1992 CRI.L.J 608, the Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted the accused therein on the ground that there was no independent evidence of demand to corroborate the evidence of the complainant. 16. In Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, 2005 CRI.L.J 3454, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found favour with the defence that the amount was planted in the shirt pocket which was hanging on the peg, on the wall. 17. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan and another, 2001 AIR SCW 2415; and the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Har Bharosey Lal v. State of U.P., 1988 CRI.L.J 1122, similar views were taken regarding the burden of proof of demand of bribe squarely resting on the prosecution. 18. Learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the fact remains that the licence expired and application was made on 01.01.2003 itself. However, the files of P.W.1 under Exs.P6 and P7 were kept pending till the date of trap, which was on 29.03.2003 that in itself would go to show that the appellant was demanding the amount for processing the file. There is no reason as to why the files for renewal of licence were kept for such a long period unless there was an illegal demand for bribe. There is no reason as to why the files for renewal of licence were kept for such a long period unless there was an illegal demand for bribe. On the date of trap, tests on the hands of the appellant turned positive and at his instance, the amount was recovered from underneath the pillow. The appellant and his staff members were in one room and the amount that was accepted from P.W.1, was recovered from the same room. Since the prosecution has succeeded in proving the factum of demand and acceptance by the appellant, the conviction has to be sustained. 19. The record reveals that the licence application under Exs.P6 and P7 were produced by P.W.2 on the date of demand at the instance of DSP. According to P.W.2, the file was put up to the appellant on 15.02.2003. Though, criminal case was pending against P.W.1 at the relevant time, appellant under Ex.P7(a) recommended for renewal of licence. P.W.4 who was the Sub Divisional Forest Officer returned the file on 28.02.2003 raising objection about the criminal case against P.W.1. According to P.W.2, the appellant had referred in Ex.P7(b) about criminal case and raised objections. However, under Ex.P7(a) recommended for renewal. As on the date of the trap, the appellant had recommended for renewal of licence in favour of P.W.1. However, keeping in view the criminal case pending against P.W.1, his licence was not renewed. P.W.2 also admitted that till date he has not put up any note in Exs.P6 and P7 before the appellant. Regarding the events on date of trap, P.W.2 admitted that, he and three others were present when P.W.1 came to the house of the appellant. P.W.2, however, admitted while he was in the house of the appellant, the DSP asked him to get Exs.P6 and P7 files. 20. P.W.4 was the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer. According to him, the appellant under Ex.P7(a) informed about the case registered against P.W.1 and that P.W.1 refused to accept the timber found in the sawmill and that the timber was transported to Government Timber Depot, Bhupalpally. Under Ex.P7(b), the appellant informed P.W.4 that one Raghu accepted the offence and that he paid Rs.10,600/- towards value of timber as compounding fee. P.W.4 asked the appellant to check the ground stock and repot back. Under Ex.P7(b), the appellant informed P.W.4 that one Raghu accepted the offence and that he paid Rs.10,600/- towards value of timber as compounding fee. P.W.4 asked the appellant to check the ground stock and repot back. P.W.4 questioned as to how the appellant could recommend for renewal of the licence since the offence was not finalized. The said endorsement was made on 28.02.2003. 21. The complaint was filed on 27.03.2003. The application for renewal of licence under Ex.P2 along with challan Ex.P3 was made on 01.01.2003. Even according to P.W.2 and P.W.4, the application of P.W.1 was recommended for renewal by the appellant on 27.02.2003 [Ex.P7(b)]and the files were switching back and forth in between P.Ws.2, 4 and the appellant. However, P.W.4 had raised a query regarding the offence not being finalized for which reason, the licence was not issued. In the said circumstances, when the application Ex.P2 was made to the DFO and thereafter, recommended by the appellant, the question of any pending work with the appellant does not arise. In the complaint, it is stated that on 25.03.2003, when P.W.1 met the appellant, it was informed that unless the bribe is paid, the appellant would not recommend for renewal of licence, which is contrary to the evidence on record vide Exs.P6 and P7, which reflects that recommendation was already made nearly one month prior to the complaint. 22. The events that transpired on the trap date have also to be assessed and looked into. On the instructions of the DSP, P.W.1 and another independent mediator namely Ahmed Khan entered into the house of P.W.1. However, the said Ahmed Khan left the house violating the instructions of the DSP to stay along with P.W.1 and observe what transpires in between P.W.1 and the appellant. The purpose of asking the said Ahmed Khan, who is an independent mediator was to lend credibility to the version of the prosecution case regarding demand of bribe. No reasons are given by the prosecution as to why Ahmed Khan left even before there was any demand or acceptance made by the appellant. He was not even examined before the Court below to explain the circumstances for disobeying the DSP’s instructions and what transpired on the trap date. It is not the case that appellant had seen the said Ahmed Khan and questioned about his presence. 23. He was not even examined before the Court below to explain the circumstances for disobeying the DSP’s instructions and what transpired on the trap date. It is not the case that appellant had seen the said Ahmed Khan and questioned about his presence. 23. At the very initial stage, when the appellant was questioned during post-trap proceedings, he stated that he does not know about the amount, which has found underneath the pillow and he specifically stated that P.W.1 tried to thrust the bribe amount in his hand and he refused. Further, appellant also stated that no work was pending with him. On the basis of the prosecution evidence under Exs.P6 and P7, it is clear that the appellant had already recommended for renewal of licence and file was not pending with him, but with P.W.2. There is no reason as to why the amount would be kept in between the folds of shawl underneath the pillow and the version of planting the said amount becomes credible for the reason of the said Ahmed Khan leaving the premises and also not being examined by the prosecution during trial. In the facts of the case, when the appellant, P.W.2 and two other officers were in the house of the appellant, P.W.1 had in fact served cool drinks to them. The version that when the appellant had come out along with others, there is possibility of planting by P.W.1, appears to be probable. 24. The burden on the prosecution is to prove the demand that was made by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As already discussed, for the reasons best known to prosecution, the said Ahmed Khan left the premises on the date of trap. Work was not pending with the appellant. The only evidence of demand is that of P.W.1 without any corroboration. If the evidence of P.W.1 is convincing and acceptable, the Court may not ask any other corroboration. However, in the present circumstances, when there was a criminal case registered against P.W.1 and the work by the appellant was already complete, it gives rise to any amount of doubt regarding the version of P.W.1 being correct, as such, the solitary testimony of P.W.1 regarding the demand without any corroboration cannot be accepted. 25. The explanation and reasons given at the earliest point of time by the appellant are probablized by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses themselves. 25. The explanation and reasons given at the earliest point of time by the appellant are probablized by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses themselves. 26 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand and the version of the prosecution that the recovery of amount was at the instance of appellant, is highly doubtful. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant and appeal is liable to be allowed. 27. 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.45 of 2005, dated 10.03.2010. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stands discharged.