JUDGMENT : K. Surender, J. 1. The appellant-A1 and another person, A2, were prosecuted by the ACB on the allegation of demanding and accepting a bribe. After trial, the learned Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, acquitted A2 and convicted A1 for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.33 of 2004, dated 30.07.2010. Aggrieved by the said conviction, A1 filed the present appeal. 2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB. 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was running a medical and general stores, namely “Sri Sai Medical and General Stores” at Mallapur, after obtaining a drug licence from the office of Assistant Drug Controller, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. His cousin brother, Srisailam, (not examined) also wanted to establish a medical and general stores at Parvathnagar, Borabanda. Since the said Srisailam was not aware of the procedure, P.W.1 accompanied Srisailam for submitting an application in the office of the Drug Inspector. The application was filed on 05.02.2002 and on 25.02.2002, the Drug Inspector inspected the shop premises. The concerned file was then forwarded to the Superintendent, office of the Assistant Drug Controller, Ranga Reddy District, at Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad. On 01.03.2002, P.W.1 and Srisailam met the appellant, who was working as the Superintendent in the said office. P.W.1 enquired about the passing of file and the appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe for processing the file. P.W.1 and Srisailam requested the appellant to issue the licence and further told him that they cannot pay the bribe amount. However, the appellant insisted that the amount has to be paid. On 07.03.2002, P.W.1 contacted the appellant on phone and the appellant allegedly informed that the licence was ready and asked P.W.1 to pay the bribe amount. On the very same day, P.W.1 went to the ACB office and lodged a complaint Ex.P1, with the DSP, ACB. 4. The trap was arranged on the next day, i.e., on 08.03.2002. P.W.1 went to the ACB office at 2.00 p.m, on 08.03.2002. There, P.W.2/independent mediator, and P.W.7/Trap Laying Officer were present, and the pre-trap proceedings were concluded. On the very same day, P.W.1 went to the ACB office and lodged a complaint Ex.P1, with the DSP, ACB. 4. The trap was arranged on the next day, i.e., on 08.03.2002. P.W.1 went to the ACB office at 2.00 p.m, on 08.03.2002. There, P.W.2/independent mediator, and P.W.7/Trap Laying Officer were present, and the pre-trap proceedings were concluded. The trap party then went to the office of the appellant at 4.10 p.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 entered the office of the appellant and found the appellant sitting in his seat. P.W.1 enquired with the appellant about the drug licence and the appellant informed that the licence was ready and asked about the bribe amount. The appellant then took P.Ws.1 and 2 to the canteen and while going down the stairs, P.W.1 asked for a photo copy of the drug licence, for which the appellant informed that the drug licence was already given in the dispatch section. P.W.1 asked for the details of the licence, then, the appellant went inside the office, and wrote the details of the licence on a paper slip (Ex.P2). 5. The appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the canteen where they ordered for Tea. The appellant then asked P.W.1 to handover the amount to A2. A2 received the amount and kept it in his left side pant pocket. P.W.1 then went outside the canteen and signaled to the trap party. The DSP entered the canteen and tested the hands of the appellant with sodium carbonate solution. The test was negative, and on being question by P.W.7/DSP, the appellant informed that the amount was with A2. A2 was called and his hands were tested with sodium carbonate solution. The test on both hands of A2 proved positive. A2 then took the currency notes from his left side pant pocket and handed them over to the DSP/P.W.7. 6. When P.W.7 questioned the appellant about the files, the appellant informed that the file was in the dispatch section. Then, the DSP, along with the trap party members, went to the dispatch section, and the file was seized from P.W.3. The attendance register was also seized. The post-trap proceedings were concluded in the office. 7. P.W.7/DSP then handed over the investigation to Ramesh Naidu (not examined since he died). The investigation was taken over from Ramesh Naidu by P.W.8, Inspector of Police. The attendance register was also seized. The post-trap proceedings were concluded in the office. 7. P.W.7/DSP then handed over the investigation to Ramesh Naidu (not examined since he died). The investigation was taken over from Ramesh Naidu by P.W.8, Inspector of Police. A charge sheet was filed by P.W.8 against the appellant and also against A2. 8. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and the recovery of the amount, formed basis for the learned Special Judge to convict the appellant. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that no work was pending with the appellant, which is admitted by the prosecution witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 4. Even according to P.W.7/Trap Laying Officer, file was seized from the dispatch section. In the said circumstances, when there is no pending work, the alleged demand for bribe becomes doubtful. 10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the ACB would submit that Ex.P2 is the slip given by the appellant, providing details of the licence, and thereafter, the money was asked to be passed on to A2. Admittedly, the appellant was the person who had initially processed the file, and the demand for bribe is probablized. Once the prosecution has proved the demand aspect, and the recovery was also at the instance of the appellant, the ingredients of bribe,h i.e., the demand and acceptance, are proved. 11. According to P.W.1, the application for the drug licence was meant for his cousin, namely Srisailam. According to P.W.1, Srisailam went to the office of the Drug Inspector for applying for the licence. However, said Srisailam was not examined by the prosecution during the course of investigation. No reasons are given as to why the person giving the application for the drug licence was not examined. The evidence of the said Srisailam would have lent credibility to the prosecution case. 12. The role of Srisailam, as stated by P.W.1, was limited to going to the office and giving application in the office. The said Srisailam did not accompany P.W.1 to file a complaint before the ACB. The DSP/P.W.7 did not ask for the presence of Srisailam, nor did he enquire with Srisailam about the demand for bribe by the appellant. There is nothing on record for the Court to infer that the said Srisailam had asked P.W.1 to pursue the processing of his licence in the office of the Drug Inspector. The DSP/P.W.7 did not ask for the presence of Srisailam, nor did he enquire with Srisailam about the demand for bribe by the appellant. There is nothing on record for the Court to infer that the said Srisailam had asked P.W.1 to pursue the processing of his licence in the office of the Drug Inspector. Even the bribe amount was arranged by P.W.1. 13. It is admitted by the prosecution that the file was forwarded to the Assistant Director through A1 on 05.03.2002, and on 07.03.2002, the file was received by the Superintendent (A1). P.W.3-Junior Assistant, deposed as follows: “On 28.2.2002 after receiving and scrutinizing the proof license form20 and 21 the fair license of the was got prepared by the computer section and was forwarded to the Asst. Director signature through superintendent AO1 on 5.3.2002. On 7.3.2002 the file was received by the superintendent AO1 with the signature on the fair copy of the license. On the same day evening the license were handed over to me with instructions to process an dispatch the license to the concerned parties. On 8.3.2002 I send the file to Sr.Md.Shareef,Jr.Asst. along with the other files for dispatch. On 8.3.2002 after 4.00 PM two persons came and met AO1 and enquried about the Drug License pertaining to M/s.Sri Sai Medical and Gen. stores parvath nagar on which AO1 enquired with me about the said license and I informed to AO1 that the license were already sent for the dispatch. After some time the said two persons went out of the office room followed by AO1.” “ It is true A.O after receipt of the file on 07.03.2002 he handed over me in the after noon to dispatch along with several other licenses and files and I handed over Ex.P6 with the other files to Shareef (P.W.4) for dispatch. He has to enter into the dispatch register and then dispatch. When once the files goes to the dispatch section, we have no role to play including A.O. I handed over the files and licenses along with Ex.P6 to P.W.4 on 08.03.2002 for dispatch. None informed me not to dispatch the licenses. P.W.1 visits our office once in a while. He has to enter into the dispatch register and then dispatch. When once the files goes to the dispatch section, we have no role to play including A.O. I handed over the files and licenses along with Ex.P6 to P.W.4 on 08.03.2002 for dispatch. None informed me not to dispatch the licenses. P.W.1 visits our office once in a while. When P.W.1 came and inquired with the A.O.1, A.O.1 inquired from me and informed that the license were already sent for dispatch Licenses would be dispatched only through post and they will not be handed over to the parties.” 14. P.W.4, who is the Junior Assistant in the same office, stated as follows: “By the time I was examined by ACB officials on the date of trap I have made ready for dispatch of the license of the Ex.P6 file and when once the dispatch process commence there is nothing to do with the license.” 15. P.W.6-Joint Director, Drugs Control and Administration, deposed as follows: “The application of Srisailam was received on 08-02-2002 by P.W.3 and he had put up before me on 11-02-2002 through A.O and I approved on the same date i.e., on 11-02-2002 to send the application for Drug Inspector report and inspection and the Drug Inspector report was received on 27-02-2002. On the same day, P.W.3 had put up a note before me for issue of license and the file was not routed through A.O and on 27-02- 2002, I approved for issuance of license. Even in the absence of noting on the file of the Supdt./A.O, I can directly pass the orders for issuance of license. The fair copies of the license is prepared by the P.W.3 on 28-02-2002 and the same was put up before me through A.O on 05-03-2002. On the same day, I also approved for issuance of license in other cases.” 16. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that even prior to the date of trap, the entire processing of the file was complete, and the license was prepared and ready for dispatch. The said license will not be handed over to the party, but it would be sent directly to the address given by the party. 17. P.W.1 had earlier obtained the license and has knowledge about the processing of the license. The said license will not be handed over to the party, but it would be sent directly to the address given by the party. 17. P.W.1 had earlier obtained the license and has knowledge about the processing of the license. He mentioned in his complaint and also deposed before the Court that, on 07.03.2002 itself, he knew about the file being processed and that the license was ready. Once the license was ready and dispatched to the concerned party, even according to the prosecution witnesses, one fails to understand why P.W.1, having knowledge of the license being prepared, lodged a complaint with the ACB. Admittedly, the license would have gone to the address of the said Srisailam. In his cross- examination, P.W.1 admitted that P.W.3 was the concerned clerk, who processed the entire file, and the appellant, as the Superintendent, is not competent to reject or stop the license. P.W.1 deposed in his cross-examination, as follows: “The application has to be submitted to the Asst. Director for issuing of Drug license. The Asst. Director will mark the application to concerned clerk at that time P.W.3 was the concerned clerk. After the note is put up on the file the file would be sent to the concerned area drug inspector for inspection and report. The Drug Inspector after inspection would submit his report to Asst.Director and thereafter PW3 will process the file. And ultimately after Asst. Director passes order the Drug license will be issued. And the license will also be signed by the Asst. Director. And thereafter the same will be dispatched to the concerned by post. Md. Shareef was the dispatch clerk. P.W.3 is the concerned clerk, who process the entire file. AO1 as office superintendent is not competent to issue reject or stop the license.” 18. P.W.1, having knowledge about the appellant not being competent to either issue, reject, or stop the license, and further having knowledge that P.W.3 was the person, who would dispatch the license by post, had lodged a complaint with the ACB. AO1 as office superintendent is not competent to issue reject or stop the license.” 18. P.W.1, having knowledge about the appellant not being competent to either issue, reject, or stop the license, and further having knowledge that P.W.3 was the person, who would dispatch the license by post, had lodged a complaint with the ACB. In the back ground of the non-examination of Srisailam, who is the beneficiary, and P.W.1, after coming to know that the file was already processed and that the license would be dispatched from the dispatch section, lodged the complaint with the ACB, it is clear that P.W.1 had deliberately lodged a complaint with the ACB to implicate the appellant in the bribery case. 19. The claim of demand itself cannot be believed in the present circumstances, given P.W.1’s admission regarding the procedure followed for the issuance of a drug license. Non-examination of Srisailam is fatal to the prosecution case. In the said background, the evidence of P.W.2-independent mediator regarding the alleged demand for bribe by the appellant on the date of trap is of no consequence. In view of the same, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. 20. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.33 of 2004, dated 30.07.2010 is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 21. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.