JUDGMENT : K. SURENDER, J. 1. The appellant/A1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2), and A2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 12 r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment in C.C.No.61 of 2005, dated 18.12.2009, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellants filed the present appeal. 2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB. 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the complainant. According to him, he purchased a residential apartment in Srinivasa Nagar, Secunderabad, and he got it registered in the name of his daughter, Meenakumari (not examined). After occupying the apartment, for the purpose of tax assessment, he approached MCH office at Secunderabad on 26.02.2004. A1 was working as the Tax Inspector. Upon enquiry, A1 informed that Rs.3,430/- tax has to be paid. On 27.02.2004, P.W.1 again met A1 at 3.30 p.m in his office, and A1 allegedly demanded Rs.2,500/- towards bribe to process the application for the transfer of ownership of the document in the name of Meenakumari. Aggrieved by the said demand for bribe, P.W.1 went and met the DSP, ACB/P.W.5, and gave Ex.P1-complaint. P.W.5 then asked P.W.1 to come on the next day, i.e., on28.02.2004. 4. On 28.02.2004, the trap party assembled in the office of DSP, ACB. P.W.2 is an independent mediator, who was summoned by the DSP to act as a witness to the trap proceedings. P.W.2 was asked to accompany P.W.1 when he meets A1 to observe what transpires between them. The trap proceedings were concluded in the office of the DSP around 2.30 p.m. Thereafter, the trap party left for MCH office. They reached the MCH office, Secunderabad at 3.30 p.m. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the office. A1 then gave a receipt to P.W.1 to obtain a photocopy of the said receipt. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 came out and informed the DSP, and after taking the photocopy, they again entered the chambers of A1. There, A2 was present in the room of A1. A1 then gave a receipt to P.W.1 to obtain a photocopy of the said receipt. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 came out and informed the DSP, and after taking the photocopy, they again entered the chambers of A1. There, A2 was present in the room of A1. A1 took the photocopy from P.W.1, and demanded the bribe. While P.W.1 was giving the amount to A1, A1 asked P.W.1 to handover the amount to A2. A2 took the amount and kept it in his pocket, and thereafter, P.W.1 went outside and conveyed the signal to the trap party indicating the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. 5. The DSP and other trap party members then entered the office and enquired with P.W.1, and P.W.1 informed that he handed over the amount to A2 at the instance of A1. A test was conducted on the hands of A2, which turned positive, and the amount was recovered from the pant pocket of A2. The relevant papers, including made up file of P.W.1- Ex.P8 were seized. 6. The post trap proceedings were concluded in the office of MCH, and thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.6/Inspector. P.W.6 concluded the investigation, and filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2. 7. Learned Special Judge, having recorded the evidence on both sides and having considered the version of the prosecution and the accused, found both A1 and A2 guilty. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that as per the evidence of P.W.1, A1 gave him a handwritten chit on 26.02.2004 stating that Rs.3,430/- had to be paid as tax. The same was not produced before the Court even though P.W.1 deposed that he gave the same to the ACB officials. P.W.1 deposed that on the date of the trap, he gave the cheque and other documents to A1. A1 issued Ex.P2 (same as that of Ex.P12a) receipt, and asked P.W.1 to get a Xerox of the same. However, P.W.4 deposed that the said receipt was in the hand writing of one Narsaiah, (not examined) bill collector, and it contained his signature. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 that he gave the cheque and other documents to A1 and that A1 asked him to get a Xerox of the same is false. 9. However, P.W.4 deposed that the said receipt was in the hand writing of one Narsaiah, (not examined) bill collector, and it contained his signature. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 that he gave the cheque and other documents to A1 and that A1 asked him to get a Xerox of the same is false. 9. Learned counsel argued that A2 is a private person, who is working as an assistant to one Suresh, Bill Collector, for Rs.50/- per day. He is not a known person to A1. P.W.4 deposed that he saw A2 for the first time in the office on the date of the trap. He deposed that he also saw A1 crying, stating that he did not do anything and that he did not demand any bribe. It was suggested to P.W.5 that when P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Xerox shop, they met the trap party and informed them that A1 did not demand any bribe. 10. Learned counsel submits that P.W.4 deposed that the Bill Collector and the Tax Inspector are not responsible for mutation proceedings. P.W.5 admitted that it is the Commissioner, who is competent to issue mutation proceedings. P.W.2 admitted that there is no specific mention in the post trap proceedings that he accompanied P.W.1 into the office of A1 after taking photo copy of Ex.P2. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 that he was an eye-witness to the demand and acceptance cannot be accepted. The entire case of the prosecution is false and A1 has been falsely implicated though he has nothing to do with P.W.1’s file. Instead of examining or prosecuting Narsaiah, Bill Collector, who signed on Ex.P2 and asked P.W.1 to get Xerox copy, A1 has been implicated. 11. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied on the following judgments: a) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another , (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152 b) V.Sejappa v. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga , (2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 150 c) C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala , (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779 12. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the ACB would submit that the amount of Rs.2,500/- was received as a bribe for taking care of the entire proceedings relating to the transfer of ownership in favour of the daughter of P.W.1. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the ACB would submit that the amount of Rs.2,500/- was received as a bribe for taking care of the entire proceedings relating to the transfer of ownership in favour of the daughter of P.W.1. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, that A1 was not competent to mutate the name of the beneficiary is of no consequence. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi and others , (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 242. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case wherein the trial Court had convicted the accused. However, the conviction was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the finding of the High Court, and restored the conviction recorded by the trial Court mainly on the basis that the burden placed on the accused, against whom the presumption under Section 20 of the Act applies, was not discharged even by the preponderance of probability, and there was no explanation to rebut such presumption. 14. P.W.1 and P.W.2 entered the office of the appellants and met A1. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, A1 received the cheque drawn towards tax, issued the receipt, and asked P.W.1 to get a photocopy. It is not the case that when P.W.1 first met A1, there was any demand by A1. Without demanding the amount, the receipt/Ex.P12a was passed on. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the receipt/Ex.P12a, which is the duplicate of Ex.P2/photocopy of the receipt, was issued by A1. However, P.W.4 stated that the receipt was in the hand writing of Narsaiah. It is admitted that the said Narsaiah was working in the same office, however, the said Narsaiah was not examined by ACB. The version of P.W.4 that the receipt was written by Narsaiah was not disputed by the prosecution. In the receipt/Ex.P2/P12a, the details of the cheque given by P.W.1 are recorded. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 came out with the receipt, informed the DSP, and again went inside the office after taking the photocopy. P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted that it was A1 who wrote the receipt Ex.P2/P12a and handed it over to P.W.1, which statements are incorrect, when evidence of P.W.4 is considered. 15. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 came out with the receipt, informed the DSP, and again went inside the office after taking the photocopy. P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted that it was A1 who wrote the receipt Ex.P2/P12a and handed it over to P.W.1, which statements are incorrect, when evidence of P.W.4 is considered. 15. P.W.1 in his chief examination stated “AO1 issued a receipt and asked to take a Xerox copy of the receipt from outside.” P.W.2 stated in his cross-examination that “AO1 scribed the provisional receipt.” 16. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that what transpired in the office was deliberately suppressed by P.Ws.1 and 2 appears to be correct. No reasons are given as to why Narsaiah, who has written the receipt, was not examined. It is further not clear as to why P.Ws.1 and 2 suppressed the fact that the receipt was written by Narsaiah and deliberately gave a false version that it was A1 who had issued the receipt. 17. P.W.2, in his cross-examination, stated that there is no mention in the post-trap proceedings that, after P.W.1 obtained the Xerox copy of the receipt and while entering the office for the second time, P.W.2 also accompanied P.W.1. P.W.2 specifically stated that it was A1, who scribed the provisional receipt Ex.P2/P12a. The defence of the appellants is that A1 was falsely implicated, and on the date of the trap, there was no demand and acceptance by A1, and that the amount was forcibly thrust into the pocket of A2. 18. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination as follows: “Commissioner is the competent authority to issue the proceedings. AO1 is the tax inspector. His duty is to collect house tax.” 19. P.W.4 admitted in his cross-examination as follows: “As per the Act, Commissioner is the competent person to issue Mutation orders and he can also delegate to Deputy Commissioner. AO1 is no way concerned with the mutation orders. Narsaiah Bill Collector is the in charge of the Ward-11 Block-3, Srinivasnagar. Ex.P12is the provisional receipt book, is in the hand writing of Narsaiah. Ex.P12(a) is also in the hand writing of Narasaiah and it also contain the signature.” 20. P.W.5 admitted in his cross-examination as follows: “It is true Commissioner Municipality is alone competent to issue the mutation proceedings. …. I have not seized any slip given by AO1 to P.W.1 else to give the particulars of tax amount. Ex.P12(a) is also in the hand writing of Narasaiah and it also contain the signature.” 20. P.W.5 admitted in his cross-examination as follows: “It is true Commissioner Municipality is alone competent to issue the mutation proceedings. …. I have not seized any slip given by AO1 to P.W.1 else to give the particulars of tax amount. I am not aware whether the receipts Ex.P12 are not scribed by AO1. .. As per the record A2 is attached to a bill collector by name Suresh.” 21. Admittedly, A1 was not the competent person to issue mutation orders, but it was the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, and further, A1 was in no way concerned with the mutation orders. It is to the knowledge of P.W.1 that the Commissioner is the competent authority to issue the proceedings, and A1 was the Tax Inspector and his duty was to collect tax. When it is within the knowledge of P.W.1 that A1 was not competent to issue mutation proceedings, it is not known as to why P.W.1 did not meet anyone else in the office for the mutation proceedings. The alleged demand was made on 27.02.2004, the complaint was filed at 5.45 p.m on the same day, and the trap was arranged on the afternoon of the next day. Narsaiah, who had executed the receipt, was not examined by the prosecution. The version given by PWs.1 and 2 that A1 had scribed the receipt, is incorrect. Even according to the prosecution version, P.W.1 had knowledge that A1 was not the competent person to issue mutation proceedings. All these factors collectively give rise to doubt about the correctness of the demand for a bribe by A1. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A1 had demanded bribe from P.W.1. 22. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments, including P.Satyanarayana Murthy’s case (supra), the recovery of the amount divorced from the circumstances is of no consequence. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants. 23. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.61 of 2005, dated 18.12.2009 is set aside, and the appellants are acquitted. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 24. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.