JUDGMENT :. (K. SURENDER, J.) 1. Criminal Appeal No.1682 of 2007 was filed by A1 and Criminal Appeal No.1643 of 2007 was filed by A2. 2. A1 and A2 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years, each under Section 7 and Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment in C.C.No.50 of 2003 dated 15.11.2007, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. Since both the appeals are questioning the conviction of the appellants/A1 and A2, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment. 4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was a final year M.B.B.S Student at Osmania Medical College. There were practical examinations scheduled from 06.05.2002 to 15.05.2002. For the evaluation of the practical exams, the college has two professors who are internal evaluators and two professors from outside the college who would be external evaluators. A1 and A2 were appointed as external evaluators. The practical exam of PW.1 was scheduled on 04.05.2002. P.W.1 was asked to come to the Osmania Medical College Guest house, room No.4, by A1 on 10.05.2002. A1 demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- from P.W.1 for awarding passing marks in the internal exams. A1 then insisted that the amount had to be paid by 15.05.2002, which was the last date of the examination. The next day, i.e., on 11.05.2002, during the practical examination, A2 also demanded Rs.6,000/- from P.W.1 for awarding passing marks in the practical examination. 5. P.W.1 was not willing to pay any bribe to A1 and A2, as such, he approached the DSP, ACB on 13.05.202, and lodged Ex.P1- complaint, which was received by DSP/P.W.12. P.W.1 was asked to come on 14.05.2002. 6. A1 was staying in Osmania Medical College Guest room and A2 was staying in Mahaveer Hotel. P.W.9/independent mediator, and another mediator, namely M.A.A.Farooqui (L.W.12), who was working in the office of Commissioner and Director of Horticulture, Hyderabad, were asked to act as independent mediators for the trap of A1 in the Osmania Medical College Guest House. 6. A1 was staying in Osmania Medical College Guest room and A2 was staying in Mahaveer Hotel. P.W.9/independent mediator, and another mediator, namely M.A.A.Farooqui (L.W.12), who was working in the office of Commissioner and Director of Horticulture, Hyderabad, were asked to act as independent mediators for the trap of A1 in the Osmania Medical College Guest House. P.W.10 and one Sai Baba, who was working as Co-operative Sub Registrar in the office of the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Hyderabad, were asked to act as mediators for the entrapment of A2. The complaint was registered at 5.00 p.m, on 14.05.2002, and the trap party, who gathered in the ACB office, started the pre-trap proceedings at 5.15 p.m. The amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.6,000/-, meant for A1 and A2, respectively, were kept in separate pockets of P.W.1. 7. After concluding the pre-trap proceedings/Ex.P18, P.Ws.1, 9, L.W.12, P.W.12, and two Inspectors, namely J.Bhadreeswar and S.Thrimurthulu, went to the Guest house at Osmania Medical College. They reached the Osmania Medical College around 7.30 p.m. P.W.1 went inside the room where A1 was staying. According to P.W.1, when he knocked the door of room No.4, A1 opened the door and questioned him about Rs.5,000/-. When P.W.1 took out the amount of Rs.5,000/-, A1 asked him to keep the bribe amount underneath the bed-sheet. PW.1 kept the amount as directed by A1, went out of the room, and signaled to the trap party. Having received signal from P.W.1, the DSP, P.W.9, and other trap party members went inside the room of A1. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the hands of A1 were tested. However, they remained colourless. When questioned, A1 pointed towards the currency notes which were kept underneath the bedsheet. The money was recovered. 8. At 8.30 p.m, P.W.1 and P.W.12 went to Mahaveer Hotel, where P.W.10, another mediator, and two other ACB inspectors were waiting. P.W.1 then went and met A2 in the room No.408. According to P.W.1, when he knocked the door and when A2 came out, he demanded the amount of Rs.6,000/-. A2 took the bribe amount from P.W.1 and kept it in his right-side trouser pocket. P.W.1 came out of the hotel and relayed the pre-arranged signal. P.W.10, P.W.12, and other trap party members then went inside the room of A2 and questioned him about the bribe amount. A2 took the bribe amount from P.W.1 and kept it in his right-side trouser pocket. P.W.1 came out of the hotel and relayed the pre-arranged signal. P.W.10, P.W.12, and other trap party members then went inside the room of A2 and questioned him about the bribe amount. A2’s hands were tested in sodium carbonate solution, and both proved positive. On repeated questioning, A2 informed about the amount in his pant pocket which was hung on the wall hanger. One of the mediators took the amount from the pocket and verified the currency numbers. 9. After A2’s tests were conducted, P.W.12 took P.W.1 back to the guest house where the proceedings against A1 were continuing. A1 was found in possession of Rs.1,48,640/-. The post-trap proceedings of A1 were concluded at the guest house and from there, P.W.12 and P.W.1 again went to Mahaveer Hotel around 00.50 hours on 15.05.2002. There also, the post-trap proceedings of A2 were concluded. 10. P.W.12 examined the witnesses during the post-trap proceedings of A1 and A2, and thereafter, the investigation was handed over to one Koteshwar Rao (not examined). The investigation was completed by P.W.13, who filed the charge sheet against the appellants. 11. The defence of the appellants is that they never demanded any amount from P.W.1 and no official favour was pending with A1 and A2. According to A1 and A2, since they did not agree to award first class marks in the internal examination to P.W.1, a false complaint was filed against them. 12. According to A1, he never demanded or accepted any amount on the trap date. The ACB officials had manipulated the recovery underneath the bedsheet. The post-trap proceedings were drafted with false averments. 13. A2’s defence is that on the date of the trap, P.W.1 came to his room and handed over the currency notes to Dr.Sangram Iradar (not examined in Court), who was admittedly in the room, and PW.1 stated that the amount was given to him at the hotel reception. The said Sangram kept the amount in the pant pocket of A2, which was hanging on the hanger of the lodge room. 14. Both A1 and A2 stated that though spontaneous explanations were given by them regarding the recovery of the amount, however, the same was not recorded in the post-trap proceedings. 15. The said Sangram kept the amount in the pant pocket of A2, which was hanging on the hanger of the lodge room. 14. Both A1 and A2 stated that though spontaneous explanations were given by them regarding the recovery of the amount, however, the same was not recorded in the post-trap proceedings. 15. Learned counsel for A1 argued that P.W.1 is the only witness to speak about the alleged demand and there is no independent corroboration. Though P.W.1 stated that one person informed him to meet A1, however, the prosecution has not identified the said person, nor has P.W.1 named the person who asked P.W.1 to meet A1 in his room on 10.05.2002. In the complaint/Ex.P1, P.W.1’s meeting with A1 was not mentioned. Since there is no evidence that A1 had asked P.W.1 to meet him, the demand for bribe becomes doubtful. Learned counsel submitted that even on the date of the trap, no person accompanied P.W.1 to witness what transpired between P.W.1 and the appellants. According to P.W.12, A1 was not wearing any baniyan, however, P.W.1 stated that A1 was wearing a baniyan, which evidence is contradictory. P.W.1 had planted the amount underneath the bedsheet in the room, which fact is evident from the admission of P.W.1. 16. Learned counsel for A2 argued that there is no proof of demand for bribe on 11.05.2002, and it is highly improbable that A2 would have asked P.W.1 to come to his room on 15.05.2002. There is no documentary evidence placed on record to show the scheduled dates of the examination. According to P.W.1, his examination was in two sessions, i.e., the morning session, which was conducted by A1 and Dr.S.Madhukar,(who was examined as L.W.3 during the course of investigation, but not examined in the Court) and the evening session was conducted by A2 and P.W.2. The examinations were conducted for a group of 20 students, and not a single student was examined to probablise the demand made by A2. 17. Counsel for A2 further argued that, on the date of the trap, though P.W.12 stated that two inspectors, namely K.Ramchander Rao and Ashok Kumar, accompanied him, they were not examined in the Court. The examinations were conducted for a group of 20 students, and not a single student was examined to probablise the demand made by A2. 17. Counsel for A2 further argued that, on the date of the trap, though P.W.12 stated that two inspectors, namely K.Ramchander Rao and Ashok Kumar, accompanied him, they were not examined in the Court. The money was recovered from the pant hanging on the wall hanger, and the explanation given at the earliest point of time, that the amount was handed over by P.W.1 to Sangram, was not incorporated in the post-trap proceedings. Both the counsel argued that there was no official favour pending. By the date of lodging the complaint and the trap being laid, the medical examination of P.W.1 was over. According to P.W.1, he admitted that by the date of lodging Ex.P1, his practical exam was over. Once the exam was complete, and even according to P.W.2, the marks had to be given on the very same day of examination, the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe on 14.05.2002 is highly improbable. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that a large amount of cash was found with both A1 and A2, which was unexplained. According to the prosecution, they would receive around Rs.10,000/- towards their services; however, no explanation was given as to why such huge amounts were found. There is no reason why P.W.1, who is a final year student of M.B.B.S, would falsely implicate A1 and A2, who had came from outside for assessing internal exams. 19. According to P.W.1, A1 demanded bribe on 10.05.2002 and A2 demanded bribe on 11.05.2002. P.W.2 deposed in his cross-examination as follows: “We were supposed to award marks then and there itself after examining the concerned student. By the end of each day the internal and external examiners had to submit the sheets containing the marks awarded to the students to chief examiner i.e., LW3 Dr.Madhukar. After handing over the said sheets to Chief-Examiner, the internal and external (examiners) had no chance to change the marks. Since AOs 1 and 2 were external examiners they had no acquaintance with the students.” 20. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination as follows: “By the date of my lodging Ex.P1 the practical examination was over.” 21. After handing over the said sheets to Chief-Examiner, the internal and external (examiners) had no chance to change the marks. Since AOs 1 and 2 were external examiners they had no acquaintance with the students.” 20. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination as follows: “By the date of my lodging Ex.P1 the practical examination was over.” 21. As seen from the above evidence, P.W.2, who is the examiner from Osmania Medical College where P.W.1 was studying, stated that the marks would be granted on the very same day, and the marks sheet would be handed over to the Chief Examiner, Dr.Madhukar. Further, the question of changing marks would not arise once the answer sheets were handed over to the Chief Examiner. 22. It is an admitted fact that the practical examination of P.W.1 was completed on 11.05.2002, and the marks were also awarded on the very same day. The prosecution has not examined the Chief Examiner, Dr.Madhkar, who would have given the details of the marks allotted by A1 and A2 in favour of P.W.1. Neither the marks sheet of P.W.1 was seized by the ACB, nor was the Chief Examiner, though examined during investigation, examined during the course of trial as he was given up by the prosecution. Non-examination of L.W.3-Madhukar is fatal to the prosecution case. 23. It cannot be said that P.W.1 did not have knowledge about the grant of marks on the date of examination itself. There is no evidence by the prosecution to suggest that A1 and A2 had kept pending the marks that were to be awarded to P.W.1. 24. The complaint was filed by P.W.1 two days after the marks were awarded by A1 and A2. Once the marks are awarded, the question of making any changes does not arise. A1 and A2 did not have any say after 11.05.2002 in the marks that would be awarded to P.W.1. Both A1 and A2 were not in a position to do any favour to P.W.1 or grant any additional marks, or alter or increase the marks that were already given on 11.05.2002. 25. These factors were not appreciated by the learned Special Judge. The prosecution has suppressed the marks sheet of P.W.1. Though P.W.1 pleaded ignorance regarding the marks being granted on 11.05.2002 itself, however, he does not speak about any interaction with either A1 or A2. 25. These factors were not appreciated by the learned Special Judge. The prosecution has suppressed the marks sheet of P.W.1. Though P.W.1 pleaded ignorance regarding the marks being granted on 11.05.2002 itself, however, he does not speak about any interaction with either A1 or A2. Nor did P.W.1 state that the practical examination marks were not awarded or were yet to be awarded. It is an admitted fact that the complaint was filed two days after the marks were awarded by A1 and A2. Complaint/Ex.P1 was filed by PW.1 on the ground that bribe was demanded for awarding passing marks in the practical examinations. 26. Other than the testimony of P.W.1, there is no corroboration to the version of P.W.1 that the demand was made by either A1 or A2. Though there were groups of 20 students for each practical examination conducted over four days, not a single student came forward stating that there was any demand by either A1 or A2 for the purpose of granting marks in the practical examination. None of the other students were examined during investigation. No reason is shown by the prosecution as to why A1 and A2 demanded money from PW.1 only, when there were more than 100 students, who took the examination. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police and State of Andhra Pradesh and another , (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152 , held that mere recovery or acceptance of the amount, dehors the proof of demand, will not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . 28. The recovery in A1’s room was underneath the bedsheet and the colour on the hands of A1 did not turn positive. Though three persons were present in the hotel room of A2, when the alleged bribe was passed on, none of them were examined, and the recovery of the amount was from the pant pocket which was hung on the wall hanger. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan and another , [2001 AIR SCW 2415] , believed the version that the amount was planted. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan and another , [2001 AIR SCW 2415] , believed the version that the amount was planted. Similarly, in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra , (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the explanation given by the accused is probable and reasonable, such defence can be accepted. 30. In view of there being no official favour pending on the date of lodging the complaint, i.e., on 13.05.2002, since the practical exam of P.W.1 was completed on 11.05.2002 and marks had already been granted by A1 and A2, the version of P.W.1, coupled with the other circumstances discussed above, creates doubt regarding the credibility of PW.1’s statement about demand for bribe by A1 and A2 for awarding passing marks. Therefore, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants. 31. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.50 of 2003 dated 15.11.2007, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside, and the appellants are acquitted. 32. Accordingly, Criminal Appeals are allowed.