JUDGMENT : M.G. UMA, J. 1. The appellant being the sole accused in Special (Corruption) Case No.30 of 2011 on the file of the learned XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2012, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and half years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, the accused is a public servant working as Superintendent in the Office of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bengaluru. He demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from PW1 on 13.10.2010 for closing the service tax file for the year 2009-10, who obtained licence in the name of M/s. Raj Office Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. Koramangala, Bangalore. 3. On the basis of first information lodged by the informant - PW1, the FIR came to be registered, entrustment panchanama was drawn in the presence of complainant, shadow witness and pancha witness, Rs.2,000/- was entrusted to PW1 with a direction to go and meet the accused and if the accused demands illegal gratification to pay the entrusted amount. It is stated that the accused had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification, kept it in his pant pocket, which was later recovered. It is also the contention of the prosecution that the hand wash of the accused had turned into pink colour, the samples were collected and sent for FSL examination. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the above said offences. 4. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to P20 and identified MOs.1 to 7 in support of its contention. 4. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to P20 and identified MOs.1 to 7 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C ., but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, he got marked Ex.D1 during the cross examination of PW1. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 5. Heard Sri R Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused has not disputed that he is the public servant working as Superintendent in the Department of Service Tax. The case made out by the prosecution is that the informant was working as Senior Executive (Operations) in the Company and he approached the accused for submitting revised tax return assumes importance, while considering the contention taken by the prosecution. Even according to the prosecution, the accused in his official capacity had issued the notice calling upon the Company to file revised returns. Since there was delay in submitting such revised return, the Company was liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- as per Ex.D1. Ex.D1 is the Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and the same is not disputed by the prosecution. On the date of incident, the informant approached the accused with the revised tax return and asked to accept the same. The accused informed him that he is required to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. It was already 5.30 in evening. When the accused and the informant went near the cash counter, it was found that it was already closed. On the date of incident, the informant approached the accused with the revised tax return and asked to accept the same. The accused informed him that he is required to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. It was already 5.30 in evening. When the accused and the informant went near the cash counter, it was found that it was already closed. It was under such circumstances, the informant paid cash of Rs.2,000/- to the accused to be deposited as fine amount and accordingly, the accused accepted the same. When these facts are admitted by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the acceptance of amount was towards illegal gratification. But prima facie, it is towards fine amount that is to be paid by the Company, of which, PW1 is the Senior Executive (Operations). When the reasonable explanation is given by the accused, the Trial Court could have accepted the same giving benefit of doubt to the accused. Instead, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused without any basis. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the appeal submitted that PW1 is the complainant, who filed the first information as per Ex.P1 making specific allegations against the accused regarding demand of Rs.2,000/- towards illegal gratification. The Investigating Officer at the time of registering FIR had asked the complainant to call the accused once again and confirm that there was demand by the accused. The CDR produced as per Exs.P16 and 17 supports the contention of the prosecution in that regard. Only after being satisfied that the accused has demanded the illegal gratification, FIR came to be lodged. He further submits that there is no dispute regarding drawing of entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P2 and entrustment of two currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each to the informant. It is also not in dispute that the informant along with shadow witness met the accused on 18.10.2010 in his office. The informant and the shadow witness who were examined as PWs.1 and 3 have specifically stated in their evidence that PW1 had carried revised tax return and submitted the same to the accused. Immediately, the accused had given whitener and permitted PW1 to correct the date mentioned in the revised tax return and he had subscribed his signature. The informant and the shadow witness who were examined as PWs.1 and 3 have specifically stated in their evidence that PW1 had carried revised tax return and submitted the same to the accused. Immediately, the accused had given whitener and permitted PW1 to correct the date mentioned in the revised tax return and he had subscribed his signature. It is only thereafter the accused had demanded the illegal gratification. When the same was paid, he accepted it and kept in his pant pocket. There was consistency in the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 supported by the version of Investigating Officer examined as PW4. The sample that was collected during drawing of mahazar, tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder in both hand wash of the accused and the pant pocket wash of the accused. Under such circumstances, the demand and acceptance of bribe amount is proved by the prosecution. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the accused has not taken any defence. The prosecution is successful in proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, the Trial Court after taking into consideration the materials on record, convicted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the same. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under: "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit him for the charges leveled against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following: REASONS 10. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that PW1 being the Senior Executive (Operations) of M/s Raj Office Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (for short 'the Company'), of which, PW2 is the Managing Director, had filed tax return for the year 2009-10. It is also the contention of the prosecution that accused who was working as Superintendent in Service Tax Department, Bengaluru, had issued a notice calling upon the Company to pay the penalty. But strangely such notice is not produced before the Court. Therefore, the actual contents of said notice is not known. 11. But admittedly, the said notice was issued by the accused. But strangely such notice is not produced before the Court. Therefore, the actual contents of said notice is not known. 11. But admittedly, the said notice was issued by the accused. Pursuant to service of notice, PW1 had approached the accused on 13.10.2010 to file the revised returns as suggested by the accused. But he demanded to pay him Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification. The complainant filed the complaint on 18.10.2010 as per Ex.P1. The entrustment panchanama was drawn on the same day as per Ex.P2. The informant along with shadow witness went to meet the accused in his office. 12. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that the accused permitted PW1 to make correction in the revised returns changing the date 13.10.2010 mentioned therein into 13.07.2010. Thereafter, the accused had subscribed his signature acknowledging the receipt of the revised tax returns and demanded the bribe amount, upon which, PW1 tendered entrusted currency notes of Rs.2,000/-, which the accused had accepted after coming out of his chamber. 13. The accused has not taken any specific defence, even in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C . However, the tenor of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses disclose that the accused has not disputed that he is the public servant working as Superintendent in Service Tax Department, Bengaluru. He has also not disputed that he had issued notice to the Company, of which, PW1 is the Senior Executive (Operations). On the other hand, it is the contention of accused that on receipt of the notice calling upon the Company to submit the revised tax returns and to pay penalty, PW1 had approached him and the accused has instructed him to submit the revised tax returns and to pay penalty. Even though the conversation said to have been recorded in Digital voice recorder, PW1 asked about money to be brought and says whether it is Rs.2,000/- the accused only say 'yes'. Accordingly, the complainant along with the shadow witness met the accused in his office and submitted revised tax returns. The accused permitted to correct the date and even acknowledged the receipt of the revised tax. If at all, the accused wanted to demand illegal gratification, he would not have allowed PW1 to make correction in the revised tax return and acknowledge receipt by subscribing his signature on the same, before receipt of illegal gratification. The accused permitted to correct the date and even acknowledged the receipt of the revised tax. If at all, the accused wanted to demand illegal gratification, he would not have allowed PW1 to make correction in the revised tax return and acknowledge receipt by subscribing his signature on the same, before receipt of illegal gratification. This conduct on the part of the accused creates doubt in the mind of the Court as to the case made out by the prosecution. 14. It is pertinent to note that the accused has produced Ex.D1 - the Circular No.97/8/2007 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Excise and Customs), Government of India dated 23.08.2007. As per Clause 6.4, if there is delay in filing of returns, it attracts late fee. The late fee prescribed as per Rule 7C of the Rules is, (a) Rs.500/- for delay upto 15 days; (b) Rs.1,000/- for delay between 15 days and 30 days and (c) Rs.1,000/- plus Rs.100/- per day beyond 30 days, till the filing of return, not exceeding Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, it is the contention of accused that the maximum late fee that could be paid is Rs.2,000/- and that was the amount that was paid by PW1. 15. However, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that if this Rule is to be taken into consideration, the late fee will be Rs.500 + 1000 + 2000, which is the maximum amount, thus, in all Rs.3,500/-. But no such explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution, when Ex.D1 is produced on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court. 16. On consideration of the rival contentions taken by both the learned counsel, the explanation given by the accused could be accepted under the given circumstances. Even according to the case made out by the prosecution, the accused has not accepted the illegal gratification in his office. But he came out of the office and went near the cash counter. But since it was already 05.30 p.m., the cash counter was closed. If at all, the accused wanted to take illegal gratification, he could have accepted it in his chamber without coming out. There are no reason as to why PW1 had enquired and confirmed that the cash counter is already closed at 5.30 p.m. before paying the entrusted amount of Rs.2,000/-. 17. If at all, the accused wanted to take illegal gratification, he could have accepted it in his chamber without coming out. There are no reason as to why PW1 had enquired and confirmed that the cash counter is already closed at 5.30 p.m. before paying the entrusted amount of Rs.2,000/-. 17. The materials on record discloses that PW1 is not a stranger to the accused or to his office. PW1 himself has stated that, he used to very frequently visit the office of the accused in connection with his work as Senior Executive. Under such circumstances, he should be aware of the procedure. According to the learned counsel of the respondent, the accused has given explanation regarding acceptance of illegal gratification as mentioned in the trap mahazar. The Investigating Officer has referred to the explanation said to have been given by the accused that he had not asked anything, but PW1 had paid the amount of Rs.2,000/-. The same has been received and kept it in his right side pant pocket. Nothing prevented the Investigating Officer to get an explanation from the accused in his own handwriting. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Dinesh Kumar Vs. State Through Inspector and Another , (2015) 2 SCC 359 , in support of his contention that the explanation given by the accused at the initial stage is to be taken into consideration while appreciating the defence taken by the accused at the later stage. The Hon'ble Apex Court on facts of the case has considered the explanation that was given by the accused separately, which suggest that forcibly the amount was threshed by the complainant. But it was never probabilized by the accused. Under such circumstances, the High Court had reversed the finding of the Trial Court and convicted the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the reasons assigned by the High Court for convicting the accused and confirmed the same. 19. In the present case, as already noted, no such explanation in the hand writing of the accused was obtained by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, in a case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, 50% of the arrears of tax payable was Rs.15,000/- and under such circumstances, the Court held that against payment of Rs.15,000/-, the accused accepting Rs.1,000/- only towards arrears of tax is not acceptable. Moreover, in a case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, 50% of the arrears of tax payable was Rs.15,000/- and under such circumstances, the Court held that against payment of Rs.15,000/-, the accused accepting Rs.1,000/- only towards arrears of tax is not acceptable. Therefore, the said explanation was rejected. I do not find any reason to apply the above decision to the facts in the present case. 20. From all these discrepancies, in light of the contention taken by both counsels, I am of the opinion that two views are possible to be taken, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the accused. It is settled proposition of law that when two views are possible, the view that is favourable to the accused is to be taken into consideration. It is also settled proposition of law that when a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the case made out by the prosecution, it is the accused who is entitled for benefit of doubt. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and he is liable to be acquitted. 21. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court proceeded to accept the contention of the prosecution and convicted the accused. However, it has not considered the discrepancy in the case of the prosecution as highlighted above. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside and the same needs interference by this Court. Hence, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER : (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2012 passed in Special (Corruption) Case No.30 of 2011 on the file of the learned XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act. (iv) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled. (v) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him after the appeal period is over. 22. (iii) Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act. (iv) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled. (v) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him after the appeal period is over. 22. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment, for information and needful action.