JUDGMENT: K. Surender, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2012 was filed by A1 and Criminal Appeal No.376 of 2012 was filed by A2. Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2012 was filed by A3. Since A3 died, Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2012 stands abated. 2. A1, A2 and A3 were convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and two years, each, respectively under both counts and A3 was convicted for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2007 dated 20.04.2012 passed by the First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Both the appeals filed by A1 and A2 are heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment. 3. A1 worked as Town Planning Officer, A2 worked as Town Planning Supervisor and A3 as attender in the Qutbullahpur Municipality office. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the defacto complainant is P.W.1 namely Mohd.Moinuddin. He purchased a plot bearing No.1 admeasuring 167 sq.yds in Venkatram Nagar Colony at Suraram, in the year 1997 in the name of his mother Smt.Sadath Bee. About six months prior to complaint, NSR Raju constructed a compound wall by occupying the road and caused obstruction to their ingress into their plot by claiming that he was issued with a patta certificate for the said land by the Revenue Authorities. P.W.1 approached Junior Civil Judge Court Medchal, Ranga Reddy District and filed a case vide OS No.369 of 2005 and on 16.11.2005, the same was decreed by the Court in their favour by issuing perpetual injunction. 4. P.W.1 approached the Revenue and Municipal Officials several times and shown the Court order and requested for taking necessary action for the removal of the illegal construction. Again, on 14.02.2006, Raju started construction of room in the same place. Immediately, P.W.1 approached Jeedimetla Police Station and lodged complaint. He also lodged complaint at Qutbullahpur Municipality by enclosing registration document, HUDA layout and Court Order pertaining to his plot and requested them to stop the illegal construction and dismantle the existing wall. Again, on 14.02.2006, Raju started construction of room in the same place. Immediately, P.W.1 approached Jeedimetla Police Station and lodged complaint. He also lodged complaint at Qutbullahpur Municipality by enclosing registration document, HUDA layout and Court Order pertaining to his plot and requested them to stop the illegal construction and dismantle the existing wall. The then Commissioner, Qutubullahpur Municipality/P.W.3 forwarded his application to the Town Section. On 20.03.2006, when P.w.1 went to the Town Planning Section and enquired with A1 about his work, A1 demanded him to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to him and another Rs.10,000/- to A2 in order to complete the work of dismantling the illegal construction as requested by him. 5. On 22.03.2006 at 11.00 hours, P.W.1 went to the Municipality, Qutubullapur, and met both A1 and A2 and pleaded for the completion of his work. But both of them stuck to their earlier demand of bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- each for site inspection, for sending their report and also for removal of the illegal construction. Since P.W.1 was not willing to pay bribe to A1 & A2, he lodged a written complaint with P.W.7-DSP, ACB, Hyderabad on 23.03.2006 requesting to take action against A1 & A2. After verifying the contents of the complaint, P.W.7 registered a case in Cr.No.7/ACB-HR/2006 under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act on 24.03.2006 at 9.30 a.m. On the same day, trap was arranged. 6. The DSP/P.W.7 summoned independent mediators P.W.2 and another. P.W.4, who is the friend of P.W.1 was also present. The DSP in the presence of said witnesses and other ACB personnel, concluded pre-trap proceedings. P.Ws.1 and 4 went to town planning section, where they found A1 sitting in his seat. P.W.1 took out the wad of the currency notes from his left front shirt pocket and offered the same to A1, who accepted the same with his right hand and kept them in the tray available just below his office table and then assured him that his work will be done. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 4 went to the cabin of A2. A2 enquired whether P.W.1 brought the amount and instructed P.W.1 to hand over the said amount to A3, who was in the chamber of A2. A2 promised that the work would be completed. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 4 went to the cabin of A2. A2 enquired whether P.W.1 brought the amount and instructed P.W.1 to hand over the said amount to A3, who was in the chamber of A2. A2 promised that the work would be completed. Thereafter, both P.Ws.1 and 4 came out of the chamber of A2 and informed DSP/P.W.7 on phone that the appellants demanded and accepted the bribe amount. Then, all the trap party members entered into the chamber of A1. 7. The phenolphthalein test conducted over the right hand fingers of A1 and A3 yielded positive result. First bunch of tainted notes of Rs.10,000/- were recovered at the instance of A1 from the tray meant for the computer keyboard on his table. Then the trap party also questioned A2. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was seized from A3. P.W.7, after completion of post trap proceedings, handed over investigation to P.W.8, who concluded investigation and after obtaining sanction orders, filed charge sheet under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. 8. Learned Special Judge convicted A1 toA3, though P.W.1 turned hostile to the prosecution case, mainly on the basis of the evidence of P.W.4, who accompanied P.W.1 on the date of trap and other corroborating oral and documentary evidence. 9. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Allika Suresh, learned counsel the appellants and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that P.W.1 complainant has turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.1 admitted that DSP/P.W.7 instructed him to go to the office of A1 and A2 and pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- each to A1 and A2. The contents of the complaint were disowned by P.W.1, as such, the demand aspect was not proved. The main issue is that the piece of land in question was government land, as such, municipal authorities did not have jurisdiction. It was for the revenue authorities to initiate action which was admitted by P.W.3. Since the demand was not proved and the appellants were also not in a position to do any official favour, the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) are not made out. 11. It was for the revenue authorities to initiate action which was admitted by P.W.3. Since the demand was not proved and the appellants were also not in a position to do any official favour, the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) are not made out. 11. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments: 1) In B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [ (2014) 13 SCC 55 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that when the complainant turned hostile to the prosecution case, the contents of the complaint cannot be relied upon, and acquitted the accused therein. 2) In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2015) 10 SCC 152 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that mere recovery of amount without proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge, and acquitted the appellant therein. 3) In C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala , [ (2009) 3 SCC 779 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme held that mere recovery of tainted money by itself is not enough, in the absence of evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. 4) In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 320 , the complainant and independent mediator/shadow witness turned hostile to the prosecution case, and when there was no other circumstantial evidence available to prove demand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused therein. 5) In N.Vijaykumar v. State of Tamil Nadu , [ (2021) 3 SCC 687 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. Presumption under Section  20 of the Act can only be drawn when acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. 6) In Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [ (2024) 10 SCC 489 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the trap laying officer shall make efforts to verify the factum of demand before initiating the trap proceedings. In the said case, the demand of bribe by the accused was not mentioned in the complaint, which is a significant omission, as such, the accused was acquitted. In the said case, the demand of bribe by the accused was not mentioned in the complaint, which is a significant omission, as such, the accused was acquitted. 7) In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 230 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that recovery of tainted currency is not sufficient to convict, if there is no corroboration of the testimony of the complainant. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of A2 sailed with the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel representing A1 and relied on the following judgments: 1) K.Shanthamma v. State of Telangana , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 213; 2) Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi, (2014) 13 SCC 143 13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for ACB would submit that the findings of the learned Special Judge are correct. However, he did not dispute the fact about P.W.3 stating that the appellants did not have power to demolish the compound wall on the subject land and also that it was the revenue department which was competent to take action on the complaint of P.W.1. 14. The application was filed by P.W.1 on the basis of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.369 of 2005. The application which is Ex.P2, reflects the endorsements of A1 and A2. Further, P.W.3 stated in his chief examination as follows: “On 15-2-06 Sadath Bee, r/o Venkataram Nagar presented an application with enclosures to me personally. (The application and the enclosures are in Ex.P2 file). On the same day I forwarded the application and the enclosures to TPO., by G-1 section. As per Ex.P2 file on 16- 2-06 TPO handed over the file to TPS Town planning supervisor with his endorsement. On 20-2-06 I received a letter from Jeedimetla police station which is also in Ex.P2 file. On 27-2-06 I addressed a letter to Jeedimetla police station on the strength of the report given by town planning wing.” 15. As seen from the endorsements, on 22.02.2006 and 27.02.2006, it was decided that letter has to be addressed to the MRO, Qutubullahpur for arranging inspection of the site by the Mandal Surveyor, since the dispute would be within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. 16. P.W.3 stated in his cross-examination as follows: “The date of trap i.e., on 24-3-06 my office has not received any letter from MRO,RDO and Dist.Collector R.R.District in connection with my letter dtd.27-2-06. 16. P.W.3 stated in his cross-examination as follows: “The date of trap i.e., on 24-3-06 my office has not received any letter from MRO,RDO and Dist.Collector R.R.District in connection with my letter dtd.27-2-06. I do not remember whether Sadath Bee approached me subsequent to 27-2-06. I have not instructed G-2 clerk Narasimharao to send copy of my letter to Sadath Bee. In respect of government lands MRO is competent to pass demolition orders. Coming to the present dispute the municipality has no authority to pass demolition orders as the said land belongs to government.” 17. The appellants 1 and 2, even according to the case of the prosecution, were not competent persons to demolish the compound wall, as requested in the application made by P.W.1. The said fact is admitted by P.W.3, who worked as Commissioner, Qutubullahpur Municipality. 18. P.W.1 has turned hostile to the prosecution case. In the statement before the Court, P.W.1 confined his grievance of demand of bribe by A2 only. P.W.1 stated that A2 demanded Rs.20,000/- which would be split in between A1 and A2 equally. Since A2 insisted to make the payment, Ex.P1 complaint was filed with ACB authorities. The said complaint was admitted by P.W.1. However, in the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated that A1 demanded Rs.10,000/- to inspect the site and when he met A2, A2 demanded Rs.10,000/- to remove the illegal construction in the land. Two different versions are stated, in the complaint and in the statement before the Court. P.W.1 did not support the version mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1 and stated that it was only A2 who demanded bribe and A1 did not demand any bribe. P.W.1, in his chief examination, further stated that on the date of the incident, he went inside the office and firstly went to the cabin of A2. When P.W.1 stated that he brought the amount, A2 asked P.W.1 to handover the amount to A3. From there, he went to the room of A1 and tried to hand over Rs.10,000/- to A1, however, A1 questioned as to why he was giving amount and refused to receive the amount. Then, P.W.1 kept the amount on the key board of the computer. P.W.1 went outside and called DSP on phone. The entire trap party entered into the office thereafter. 19. Then, P.W.1 kept the amount on the key board of the computer. P.W.1 went outside and called DSP on phone. The entire trap party entered into the office thereafter. 19. The version of P.W.4, who accompanied P.W.1 is that initially they went and met A1 on the date of trap and after A1 received the amount of Rs.10,000/-, kept the amount underneath the table of the key board. After handing over the amount to A1, both P.Ws.1 and 4 went to the cabin of A2 and A2 demanded the amount. When P.W.1 wanted to handover the amount, A2 instructed P.W.1 to handover the amount to A3. 20. In the post trap proceedings, Ex.P8, the statement of P.W.4 was not recorded. It was vaguely mentioned that P.W.4 stated what P.W.1 has stated and corroborated P.W.1 on material aspects. P.W.1 denied the statement recorded during post-trap proceedings regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by A1. The sequence of events that transpired in the office when they entered into the office on trap day is also contradictory. 21. As already discussed, P.W.1 was declared hostile to the prosecution case, since he did not stick to his earliest version. In the back ground of different versions being given by P.W.1, it cannot be said that the aspect of demand was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, also in the back ground of the municipal department not being the competent authority. The hostility of P.W.1 can be ignored by the Court and it can look into the other circumstances of the case to arrive at a conclusion about the demand of bribe by the appellants. 22. The reason for lodging the complaint was for demolishing the compound wall constructed by one Raju, who was not examined. However, P.W.1 has not taken any steps to approach the civil Court and file petition for removal of the wall, since it was an obstruction to the ingress of the complainant. P.W.3, who is the Commissioner, has stated that the power to demolish was not lying with the appellants, but it is the revenue authorities who had to take action. However, P.W.1 has not taken any steps to approach the civil Court and file petition for removal of the wall, since it was an obstruction to the ingress of the complainant. P.W.3, who is the Commissioner, has stated that the power to demolish was not lying with the appellants, but it is the revenue authorities who had to take action. When the appellants did not have the power to demolish, the allegation of demand of Rs.10,000/- each by the appellants A1 and A2 becomes doubtful for the reason of not only P.W.1 giving contradictory versions in the statements during investigation and before the Court, but also for the reason of the appellants not having any power to demolish the compound wall. Even according to Ex.P1 complaint, P.W.1 approached the revenue authorities for demolition of compound wall. Apparently, P.W.1 had knowledge that the revenue authorities had the power to act on his grievance. He also filed complaint with police. 23. Following the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Shanthamma’s case and P.Satyanarayana Murthy’s case (supra), the recovery of the amount cannot form basis to infer that demand was made, when the demand of bribe by A1 and A2 could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere acceptance of the amount dehorse proof of the demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988. 24. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.17 of 2007 dated 20.04.2012 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 25. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed.