JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 dated 30.06.2011, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the present appeal is filed. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. He was working as Assistant Engineer in the office of Agriculture Marketing Committee, Warangal. The appellant worked as Executive Engineer in the said office and he was superior to P.W.1. The contract work was awarded to M/s. Satyamurthy Constructions for laying cement concrete at Chilly Sabad at part-III at Market Yard Ennmamula, and balance cement concrete work at Chilly Sabad Part-IV, Market Yard Enmamula. The contract work was awarded to Satyamurthy Constructions on a tender basis. The said construction work was represented by P.W.4/Srinivas Reddy. After entering into the contract, the contract work was executed within the stipulated time. In all, P.W.1 prepared 8 bills for making payment to the contractor. Out of 8 bills to be paid to M/s. Satyamurthy Constructions, the 8 th bill was due to be paid to the construction company. The remaining seven bills were already paid. The final bill i.e., Ex.P10, (8 th bill) which is dated 16.09.2003, was to be paid and was pending. 3. Another contract work was awarded to Sri R.Bala Narasimha Reddy for construction of a rural Godown in the Market Yard of Ennmamula. Two bills were prepared by P.W.1. Out of two bills, one bill, Ex.P13, was paid and the 2 nd bill, Ex.P14, which is dated 20.09.2003, was not paid. 4. On 17.09.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant in his office. The appellant instructed P.W.1 to collect a percentage of the bills claimed by the contractors. In respect of the bills covered under Exs.P10 and P14, P.W.1 informed that he would inform the contractors. On 19.09.2003, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the appellant insisted for collecting the percentage from the contractors and paying him the amount since he would be on leave from 27.09.2003. P.W.1 then informed the contractors, who are P.Ws.4 and 5. P.W.4 gave an amount of Rs.3,000/- to P.W.1 and P.W.5 gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- to P.W.1. On 19.09.2003, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the appellant insisted for collecting the percentage from the contractors and paying him the amount since he would be on leave from 27.09.2003. P.W.1 then informed the contractors, who are P.Ws.4 and 5. P.W.4 gave an amount of Rs.3,000/- to P.W.1 and P.W.5 gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- to P.W.1. According to both P.Ws.4 and 5, when they met the appellant, he demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe. 5. On 20.09.2003, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the appellant insisted on payment of Rs.20,000/- for passing the bills covered under Exs.P10 and P14, which pertain to P.Ws.4 and 5, respectively. The appellant further threatened that he would spoil the career of P.W.1 if the percentage was not collected. P.W.1 stated that he would collect the amount and passed on Rs.3,000/- which was given by P.W.4. However, the appellant was angry and directed P.W.1 to pay from his pocket. The appellant then insisted P.W.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- initially and Rs.10,000/- thereafter. 6. P.W.1 then approached the ACB authorities and lodged a written complaint/Ex.P15 on 20.09.2003. The Inspector, ACB informed P.W.1 to come after three days since the DSP, ACB, was not available. The trap was arranged on 26.09.2003. P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/independent mediator, Umakanth Reddy/DSP (died), P.W.7/Inspector of Police, who assisted the DSP in pre and post-trap proceedings, and others formed the trap party. The pre-trap proceedings were conducted by following formalities before proceeding to lay the trap. The trap party members then went to the office of the appellant and reached at 12.00 noon. 7. One Sri S.Venugopal (not examined), who was one of the independent mediators, was asked to accompany P.W.1 inside the office of the appellant. P.W.1, along with said Venugopal, went inside the office. When P.W.1 entered, the appellant was interacting with one Chandrasekhar (examined as D.W.2). After Chandrasekhar left, P.W.1 entered the room of the appellant while said Venugopal was standing outside. The appellant demanded the amount from P.W.1. The appellant received the bribe amount with both hands and kept it in his shirt pocket. Immediately, P.W.1 went outside and relayed the signal to the trap party members indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The DSP/Umakanth Reddy, P.W.7/Inspector, and other trap party members then entered the office and enquired about the bribe amount. The test on the hands of the appellant turned positive. Immediately, P.W.1 went outside and relayed the signal to the trap party members indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The DSP/Umakanth Reddy, P.W.7/Inspector, and other trap party members then entered the office and enquired about the bribe amount. The test on the hands of the appellant turned positive. The amount of Rs.10,000/- was handed over by the appellant and another Rs.16,000/- was also found in his possession. The appellant spontaneously explained that the said Rs.16,000/- was rent that he received from his tenant for his house at Guntur. Insofar as bribe amount is concerned, the appellant informed that the said amount was towards a loan and not as a bribe. 8. The version of P.W.1 and S. Venugopal was recorded during post-trap proceedings. The concerned bills were also seized. Having concluded the post-trap proceedings, the appellant was arrested and produced before the concerned Court. 9. The investigation was partly done by Umakanth Reddy/DSP, then, by P.W.7/Inspector of Police, who was part of the trap party, and finally, P.W.8 Inspector concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 10. The defence of the appellant is that the appellant had served the department without any blemish. He has spontaneously explained during the post-trap proceedings that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was given by P.W.1 as a loan, and the amount of Rs.16,000/- which was found in his possession on the date of the trap, was the rental amount, which was passed on by D.W.1. Since the son-in-law of the appellant, D.W.3, asked for Rs.25,000/- the appellant had the rental amount of Rs.16,000/- and P.W.1 had volunteered to give him a hand loan of Rs.10,000/-. On the date of trap, Rs.10,000/- was handed over by P.W.1 stating that it was towards loan. D.W.2 was present in the office when the amount was handed over by P.W.1. 11. Learned Special Judge did not find favour with the appellant’s version about receiving the bribe amount stating that it was towards a loan, and convicted the appellant accordingly. 12. Learned counsel argued that, as per the contents of the complaint, the appellant demanded a bribe from P.W.1 on 20.09.2003 to pass the bills covered under Exs.P10 and P14. However, the said bills were not presented before the appellant on or before 20.09.2003; as such, the question of demand does not arise. 12. Learned counsel argued that, as per the contents of the complaint, the appellant demanded a bribe from P.W.1 on 20.09.2003 to pass the bills covered under Exs.P10 and P14. However, the said bills were not presented before the appellant on or before 20.09.2003; as such, the question of demand does not arise. He submits that Ex.P10 bill was submitted by P.W.1 through his immediate superior officer, P.W.6, to the office of the E.E on 24.09.2003, and the same was put up before the E.E on 25.09.2003. On the same day, the appellant countersigned the bill and forwarded it to the Chairman, Market Yard Committee, Warangal. 13. Counsel further submits that Ex.P14 bill was submitted by P.W.1 to the office of the E.E through P.W.6 on 22.09.2003, and the office subordinate placed it before the appellant on 23.09.2003 for his counter-signature. The appellant countersigned on the same day and forwarded it to the Chairman, Market Yard Committee, Warangal. P.W.1, P.W.6, and P.W.7 categorically admitted these facts in their cross- examination. 14. Learned counsel further argued that the recovery of the amount from the appellant is consistent with the fact that P.W.1 gave only a hand loan, and it was not a bribe amount. P.W.2/mediator and P.W.7/IO admitted in their cross- examination about the spontaneous explanation given by the appellant that this amount was given by P.W.1 as hand loan. 15. Learned counsel further submits that P.W.1, being an Assistant Engineer, is in the habit of colluding with the contractors, and hence, he used to prepare excess bill amounts. The appellant, being an Executive Engineer, used to cross-check, very minutely, the bills prepared and submitted by P.W.1, and in the said process, proposed bill amounts were deducted for their eligibility, and only then did the appellant make his counter- signature on each bill. The conduct of the appellant developed a silent grudge in the minds of the contractors (P.W.4 and P.W.5) and P.W.1, and hence, they planned to falsely implicate the appellant. He further submits that the appellant never asked for a hand loan amount from P.W.1. However, when the appellant was discussing with D.W.1 about his financial requirements, P.W.1 himself came forward to give a hand loan to the appellant, which is evident from the evidence of D.W.1. He further submits that the appellant never asked for a hand loan amount from P.W.1. However, when the appellant was discussing with D.W.1 about his financial requirements, P.W.1 himself came forward to give a hand loan to the appellant, which is evident from the evidence of D.W.1. Without knowing the mala fide intention of P.W.1, the appellant took the loan amount from P.W.1 on the date of the alleged trap. Unless it was a true fact, the appellant would not have stated spontaneously to the ACB officers on the date of the trap. 16. Learned counsel relied on the following judgments: i) In Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 10 SCC 371 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the explanation given by the accused is probable and reasonable, such defence can be accepted; ii) In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police and State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2015) 10 SCC 152 , it was 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 and iii) In C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, AIR 2009 SC 2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Mere recovery, by itself, cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused in the absence of any demand. 17. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB argued that the appellant has misused his position as a superior officer of P.W.1 and forced him to part with the bribe amount and threatened him with destroying his career. P.W.1 did not have any other option but to approach ACB authorities with his grievance. Further, Ex.X4, which was marked by the appellant during the course of trial, is dated 12.05.2004, and the trap was laid on 26.09.2003. As an afterthought, the appellant had come up with the complaint against P.W.1. The alleged demand by the appellant from P.W.1 was to collect the percentage of earlier bills passed in favour of P.Ws.4 and 5/Contractors, and specifically towards passing of Exs.P10 and P14 bills in favour of P.Ws.5 and 6/contractors, respectively. As an afterthought, the appellant had come up with the complaint against P.W.1. The alleged demand by the appellant from P.W.1 was to collect the percentage of earlier bills passed in favour of P.Ws.4 and 5/Contractors, and specifically towards passing of Exs.P10 and P14 bills in favour of P.Ws.5 and 6/contractors, respectively. 18. It is admitted by the prosecution that P.W.4’s firm had claimed the amount through eight (8) bills, and all the initial 7 bills, under Exs.P3 to P9, amounting to approximately Rs.40.00 lakhs, were paid. Ex.P10, dated 16.09.2003, was the 8th and final bill, which was due for payment. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are the two bills that were raised by P.W.5’s firm/contractor, out of which Ex.P13 for Rs.5,50,400/- was already paid, and Ex.P14 bill, dated 20.09.2003, was pending. 19. Under Exs.P10 and P14, it is admitted that Ex.P10 bill, which was raised for Rs.3,45,229/-, was calculated and reduced by the appellant to Rs.3,33,000/-. Insofar as Ex.P14 is concerned, the bill was raised for Rs.4,66,657/-, whereas the appellant reduced the bill to Rs.4,37,201/-. Ex.P10 was passed on 25.09.2003, and Ex.P14 was passed on 23.09.2003. 20. In the present case, neither P.W.4 nor P.W.5 have approached the ACB lodging a complaint about any kind of demand made by the appellant. Though they entered into the witness box and stated that demand was made by the appellant, however, the amounts were not paid by P.Ws.4 and 5 to the appellant directly. Admittedly, both the bills, Exs.P10 and P14, for which the alleged demand was made, were passed prior to the trap date. Though Rs.40.00 lakhs through seven bills were passed in favour of P.W.4, and Rs.5,50,000/- was paid to P.W.5, admittedly, there was no payment of bribe, nor were any of the bills stopped for the payment of a bribe by the appellant. 21. Both Exs.P10 and P14 were scrutinized by the appellant, and the claim amount was also reduced, as stated earlier. In the background of nearly 8 bills being passed for a value of more than Rs.45.00 lakhs in favour of P.Ws.4 and 5/contractors, and when two bills in question, Exs.P10 and P14, were already passed by reducing the claim amount, the version of P.W.1 that demand was made for passing Exs.P10 and P14 bills creates any amount of doubt. In the background of nearly 8 bills being passed for a value of more than Rs.45.00 lakhs in favour of P.Ws.4 and 5/contractors, and when two bills in question, Exs.P10 and P14, were already passed by reducing the claim amount, the version of P.W.1 that demand was made for passing Exs.P10 and P14 bills creates any amount of doubt. The allegation of P.W.1 that the appellant insisted that he should pay the amount from his pocket cannot be believed. If P.W.1, who is the subordinate of the appellant, was aggrieved by any acts of the appellant, he ought to have approached the superior officers in the department. In the background of the passing of the bills without any bribe being paid, and the bills for which demand was made having been inspected and the claim amounts reduced, the version of the prosecution that demand of bribe was made by the appellant is not only doubtful, but, in the present facts, unacceptable. 22. The appellant had spontaneously explained during the course of post-trap proceedings that the amount of Rs.16,000/-in his possession was towards the rental amount from his house in Guntur, and this was not disputed by the prosecution. D.W.1 is a Retired Deputy Executive Engineer in the very same office. In his evidence, D.W.1 stated that, at the instance of the appellant, he collected R.16,000/- from the tenant of the appellant and handed it over to the appellant on 19.09.2003 in the morning. According to D.W.1, P.W.1 came there and volunteered to give an amount of Rs.10,000/-, since the appellant had informed D.W.1 that his son-in-law(D.W.3) wanted an amount of Rs.25,000/-. 23. D.W.2, who was also working in the very same office, stated that on the date of the trap, while he was sitting with the appellant in his office, P.W.1 entered into the chamber and informed that he had arranged Rs.10,000/- and handed over the amount to the appellant. 24. The presence of D.W.2 in the chamber of the appellant was admitted by P.W.1 during his examination. 25. D.W.4 was examined to speak about his presence on the date of the trap and about P.W.1 entering into the chamber and handing over the amount of Rs.10,000/- as a loan. D.W.4 is a civil contractor who executed works for the department. 26. D.W.3 is the son-in-law, who speaks about the promise made by the appellant to arrange for Rs.25,000/-. 27. D.W.4 is a civil contractor who executed works for the department. 26. D.W.3 is the son-in-law, who speaks about the promise made by the appellant to arrange for Rs.25,000/-. 27. It is admitted that, on the date of the trap, the appellant spontaneously explained that Rs.16,000/- cash with him was the rent he received, and the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was handed over by P.W.1 towards a loan. 28. The burden that is on the appellant can be discharged by preponderance of probability. The facts in a given case and the events that transpired have to be looked into in their entirety. Further, the defence witnesses have to be treated on par with the prosecution witnesses. Only for the reason of the defence witnesses coming and speaking in favour of an accused, that in itself cannot discredit their evidence. 29. As already discussed earlier, all the bills were passed in favour of P.Ws.4 and 5/Contractors, and never was any bribe passed on. Even the two bills in question, Exs.P10 and P14, were already passed by the date of the trap. In fact, the appellant had reduced the claim amount under Exs.P10 and P14. In the said circumstances, the version of P.W.1 that the appellant insisted P.W.1 to collect bribe from P.W.4 and P.W.5/contractors and pay him is doubtful. The defence of the appellant that P.W.1 had falsely implicated him at the instance of contractors is believable in the present facts and circumstances. 30. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.17 of 2010 dated 30.06.2011, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 31. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.