JUDGMENT: The State filed the appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/Accused Officer (public servant). Accused was investigated and charge sheeted for the offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d)r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Briefly, the case of the ACB against the respondent/accused officer is that he was working as Panchayath Secretary. The defacto complainant was examined as PW.1 who was an agriculturist and also taking up small contracts. During 2003- 2004, PW.1 took up contract work of constructing side drains and water tubs at S.C.Colony of Nagireddypally under SGRY scheme. Having completed the work, the department had to pay some amount and also rice to PW.1. PW.1 informed the Assistant Executive Engineer-PW.3 about the completion of work. Then PW.3 went to the place where the work was undertaken and entered in the M-Book and also issued coupons for 16 Quintals of rice. PW.1 thereafter met PW.5 who was the MRO. PW.5 instructed PW.1 to meet the accused. 3. On 26.04.2004, PW.1 met accused and handed over the rice coupons of 16 quintals and requested him to issue the rice for which the accused allegedly demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Several times PW.1 met the appellant for the rice, however, the accused did not heed to the request of PW.1, however the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.2,000/-. On 27.07.2004, PW.1 met accused and since the accused refused to give rice, PW.1 approached the ACB and lodged Ex.P1-complaint on 28.07.2004. The trap was arranged on 30.07.2004. According to the prosecution, PW.1 met the accused in a hotel and the accused asked PW.1 whether he brought the demanded amount and immediately the accused handed over the demanded amount of Rs.2,000/- to the accused. The trap party who were waiting for the signal of PW.1 went inside the hotel and apprehended the accused after receiving signal from PW.1. The trap party conducted test to ascertain whether the bribe amount was handled by the accused and thereafter the amount was handed over by the accused from his back side pant pocket. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. 4. The learned Special Judge having taken cognizance of the charge sheet, framed charges and examined the defacto complainant as PW.1 and also other witnesses who are PWs.2 to 7. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. M.Os.1 to 8 were also brought on record by the prosecution. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. 4. The learned Special Judge having taken cognizance of the charge sheet, framed charges and examined the defacto complainant as PW.1 and also other witnesses who are PWs.2 to 7. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. M.Os.1 to 8 were also brought on record by the prosecution. The accused in defence examined one witness DW.1. 5. The learned Special Judge having considered the evidence on record found that; 1) The rice coupons which were given to PW.1 i.e. Ex.P6 filed by the prosecution does not pertain to the work that was completed by PW.1, as such, delivery of rice under the coupons does not arise. 2) PW.1 wanted to make use of old coupons with the connivance of PW.3 and the accused refused to cooperate. 3) The plea of thrusting bribe amount in the back pocket of the accused was convincing. 4) There is any amount of discrepancy regarding the dates on which the coupons were entrusted to PW.1 and also PW.1 meeting the accused, as such, the alleged demand cannot be believed. 5) Other than the discrepant evidence of PW.1 there is no other evidence to substantiate that a demand was made. 6) The accused was not in a position to do any official favour to PW.1, as such, the question of demanding bribe for doing any official favour does not arise. 7) In the background of there being no work that was pending with the accused, the alleged allegation of PW.1 meeting the accused on 24.04.2004 or 26.04.2004, cannot be believed. 8) Mere recovery of the tainted currency is not sufficient to infer allegation of demand. 9) The Sarpanch of the village is the wife of PW.1, as such, PW.1 and accused were acquainted. The accused was subordinate of the wife of PW.1. PW.1 not complaining to his wife regarding the alleged demand by accused cannot be believed and in the background of there being no work pending, PW.1’s evidence is not trustworthy. 10) Since PW.1 was the husband of the ‘Sarpanch’ who is superior to the accused, demanding bribe cannot be believed without any other corroborating evidence. 11) PW.5-MRO never issued release order of rice in favour of PW.1, as such, the question of the accused handing over rice to PW.1 does not arise. 10) Since PW.1 was the husband of the ‘Sarpanch’ who is superior to the accused, demanding bribe cannot be believed without any other corroborating evidence. 11) PW.5-MRO never issued release order of rice in favour of PW.1, as such, the question of the accused handing over rice to PW.1 does not arise. 12) Ex.P14-letter was addressed by PW.5-MRO to the Investigating Officer-PW.7 informing that he has not issued any order for release of rice. However, PW.7 did not investigate into the said aspect which caused prejudice to the accused. 13) DW.1’s evidence is believable who stated that the amount was thrust into the pocket of the accused. 14) Since the prosecution failed to prove that there was any official favour pending with the accused, the question of drawing presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, does not arise. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of ACB would submit that PW.1 had completed his work and coupons for rice were issued to him. It was for the accused to give the rice, however, he made PW.1 to go around him and demanded bribe amount. There is no reason as to why PW.1 would falsely implicate the accused. Even on the trap date, the amount was kept in the hip pocket of the accused after accepting the amount from PW.1. DW.1 is a planted witness and produced at a later date to speak about the alleged thrust of the amount in the accused pocket. Since the prosecution was able to prove that it is for the accused to issue the rice and even on the trap date the amount was recovered from the hip pocket of the accused, the finding of the learned Special Judge is incorrect. Accordingly, the accused has to be convicted by reversing the Judgment of the trial Court. 7. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused supported the reasons given by the learned Special Judge for acquitting the accused. He submitted that the prosecution was not able to prove that there was any work pending with the accused, as such, the question of demanding bribe does not arise. 8. In Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 544 the Honourable Supreme Court summarised the principles whereby appeals against acquittals can be interfered with. He submitted that the prosecution was not able to prove that there was any work pending with the accused, as such, the question of demanding bribe does not arise. 8. In Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 544 the Honourable Supreme Court summarised the principles whereby appeals against acquittals can be interfered with. At para-42 of the Judgment, it was held as follows; “42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive — inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court.” 9. PW.5 who was the MRO had addressed a letter to the Investigating Officer under Ex.P14 stating that no orders were passed by him to release the rice. However, he stated that though he requested the accused to furnish the particulars of distribution of stock position, but accused failed to do so, as such, he did not issue release of 16 quintals of rice. The fact remains that the rice in favour of PW.1 was not released by MRO/PW.5. 10. It is the evidence on record that the coupons Exs.P6 which were filed by the prosecution did not pertain to the work in question that was allegedly executed by PW.1. The fact remains that the rice in favour of PW.1 was not released by MRO/PW.5. 10. It is the evidence on record that the coupons Exs.P6 which were filed by the prosecution did not pertain to the work in question that was allegedly executed by PW.1. When the coupons do not pertain to the work which was done by PW.1 and MRO has not released the rice, the question of the accused giving rice to PW.1 does not arise. The genesis of complaint is that the coupons pertain to work completed by PW.1 and rice was released. The said version was falsified by the prosecution witnesses themselves as discussed above. 11. The reasons given by the learned Special Judge regarding the allegation of demand not being believable, cannot be found fault with. 12. Mere recovery of the amount on the trap date cannot form basis to infer that there was demand by the accused. Unless the demand aspect is proved by the prosecution, the factum of recovery cannot be looked into and it can only be corroborative piece of evidence when the prosecution succeeds in establishing demand. 13. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, which are reasonable, probable and based on record. 14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.