JUDGMENT : K.SUJANA, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.08.2022 passed in C.C.No.65 of 2015 by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department Etc., Nampally at Hyderabad. By the said judgment the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘P.C.Act’) and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the P.C.Act. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant herein who is the Accused Officer worked as Inspector of Survey, Office of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Khammam District from 05.02.2011 to 10.01.2012. On 09.01.2012 at 1:00 PM, PW-1 lodged a report with the Inspector of Police, ACB, Khammam stating that LW-4, Smt. Daggula Laxmi Narasamma, was his mother-in-law, physically challenged, and under his care. She owned agricultural land measuring 0.16 guntas in Sy.No.92/LU, Ac.0.11 guntas in Sy.No.92/LUU, Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.93/E/1, and Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.93/U/2, total admeasuring Ac.1.35 guntas in Thallada Revenue Village. Two months before filing the report, PW-1 had submitted an application along with a challan to PW-3, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, requesting a land survey and boundary demarcation and on the instructions of PW-3, PW-1 met the AO, who scheduled the survey for 02.11.2011. A notice was issued on 28.10.2011 to his mother-in-law regarding the survey dates of 02.11.2011 and 04.11.2011. The Accused Officer along with Revenue officials conducted the land survey at Thallada village in the presence of mediators and prepared a panchanama. On 29.11.2011, PW-1 visited PW-3’s office and submitted a representation with a challan requesting copies of the survey reports i.e., panchanama and Tonch map. He also met the Accused Officer and asked for the reports where he demanded a bribe of Rs.40,000/- to issue the reports. PW-1 expressed his inability to pay, citing his mother-in-law’s disability. On 29.11.2011, PW-1 visited PW-3’s office and submitted a representation with a challan requesting copies of the survey reports i.e., panchanama and Tonch map. He also met the Accused Officer and asked for the reports where he demanded a bribe of Rs.40,000/- to issue the reports. PW-1 expressed his inability to pay, citing his mother-in-law’s disability. He informed his mother-in-law about the demand of bribe, and she advised him not to pay the bride. In December, PW-1 again visited the Accused Officer, who claimed to be busy and asked him to come later. 3. On 29.12.2011, PW-1 again met the Accused Officer and requested for survey reports. The Accused Officer asked him to submit a fresh petition, stating that the earlier one was misplaced. PW-1 submitted a new petition, but the Accused Officer repeated his demand for Rs.40,000/-, stating he would not give the reports otherwise. On 09.01.2012 at about 11:00 a.m, PW-1 met the Accused Officer again, who informed him that the reports were ready but would not be handed over unless the bribe amount is paid. After repeated requests, the Accused Officer reduced the bribe to Rs.30,000/-. PW-1 agreed to pay the amount in two days. The Accused Officer instructed him to bring the money to his office. PW-1 then approached PW- 13, the Inspector of Police, ACB, Warangal Range, Khammam, and requested action against the Accused Officer. After receiving Ex.P-1, PW-6 asked PW-1 to come to the office on 10.01.2012 in the morning with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.30,000/-. PW-6 informed PW-5, the DSP of ACB, Warangal Range, about the matter. After verifying the Accused Officer’s reputation and PW-1’s background, PW-5 obtained permission from the competent authority and registered a case in Cr.No.1/ACB-WKH/2012 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and took up the investigation. 4. During the course of investigation, PW-5 secured PW-1 to act as a decoy and enlisted two mediators, PW-2 and LW-3, a trap was laid against the Accused Officer. On 10.01.2012 at 1:20 p.m., the Accused Officer was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting Rs.30,000/- bribe from PW-1. A phenolphthalein test on the Accused Officer’s fingers tested positive. During the post-trap proceedings, the Accused Officer admitted receipt of bribe which was recovered from the right side pocket of his trousers in the presence of mediators. The inner flap of the pocket also tested positive. PW-5 seized relevant documents during the trap. A phenolphthalein test on the Accused Officer’s fingers tested positive. During the post-trap proceedings, the Accused Officer admitted receipt of bribe which was recovered from the right side pocket of his trousers in the presence of mediators. The inner flap of the pocket also tested positive. PW-5 seized relevant documents during the trap. The Accused Officer was arrested on the same day and was produced before the court on 11.01.2012 for judicial remand. 5. To prove the said allegations, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7, Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked and on behalf of the Accused Officer, Dws.1 to 8 are examined and Exs.D.1 to D.8 are marked. The trial Court framed two charges and after going through the evidence, found the Accused Officer guilty and convicted him as stated above. 6. Heard Sri K.V.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohammed Naseeruddin, learned counsel representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant/ Accused Officer is that the trial Court decided the case contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. Pw.1 himself admitted in cross-examination that he has not mentioned in his chief-examination that he had met surveyor and he told him to give fresh application and demanded bribe amount. The trial Court has also not considered that Pw.1’s mother-in-law sold land to one Brahma Reddy on 26.07.2011 for which the alleged survey was sought by Pw.1. Prosecution has not examined the crucial witness i.e., the alleged mediator- Lw.3 only with an intention that he will not support the prosecution case. If Lw.3 was examined by the prosecution, his evidence would not have supported the prosecution case. The appellant was on other duty on the alleged dates of demand of bribe which substantiates Exs.P.5 and P.6 attendance registers. The trial Court also erred in not considering the plea of appellant that he was not on duty and he went to assist the advocate commissioner appointed by Court in E.A.No.232 of 2011 in E.P.No.137 of 2010 in O.S.No.1086 of 2011. The appellant got examined Dws.5 and 6 to corroborate his evidence and to prove his case. The trial Court also erred in not considering the plea of appellant that he was not on duty and he went to assist the advocate commissioner appointed by Court in E.A.No.232 of 2011 in E.P.No.137 of 2010 in O.S.No.1086 of 2011. The appellant got examined Dws.5 and 6 to corroborate his evidence and to prove his case. The trial Court erred in considering the encumbrance certificate produced by the prosecution which is not marked as exhibit at the time of arguments and came to wrong conclusion that Ex.D.2 is not in force on the date of lodging the complaint. The alleged complaint-Ex.P.1 was lodged on 09.01.2012 alleging that mother-in-law of Pw.1 is having agricultural land, but from Ex.D.2 sale deed dated 26.07.2011 the mother-in-law of Pw.1 alienated her property and she was not holding land as on the date of complaint. The trial Court also erroneously gave finding that demand and acceptance of bribe is proved without considering the evidence even though appellant rebutted the presumption by adducing evidence of Dws.1 to 6. The trial Court ought not to have considered the cancellation of document dated 09.02.2012 to adjudicate the case under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C.Act which was not marked by the prosecution. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for ACB would submit that there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court. Though the property was sold out by the mother-in-law of Pw.1, later it was cancelled on 09.02.2012. Further though appellant contended that there is no such demand by A.O, it is evident from the evidence of Pw.1 which is sufficient to prove the demand. He further submitted that Accused Officer was red handedly caught by the officials on the date he took the amount and put it in his right side pocket of his pant and the phenolphthalein test turned positive. As such, there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court and requested this Court to dismiss this appeal. 9. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 to prove its case. PW.1 is the complainant. His chief evidence is a repetition of the complaint. In cross-examination, he admitted that his mother- in-law sold the land to Brahma Reddy on 26.07.2011 for Rs.6,75,000/- under registered sale deed No.996/2011. He volunteered that since the purchaser could not pay the sale amount, the registration was cancelled within two months. PW.1 is the complainant. His chief evidence is a repetition of the complaint. In cross-examination, he admitted that his mother- in-law sold the land to Brahma Reddy on 26.07.2011 for Rs.6,75,000/- under registered sale deed No.996/2011. He volunteered that since the purchaser could not pay the sale amount, the registration was cancelled within two months. He stated that is not aware whether the sale deed was cancelled by the date of his complaint to the ACB on 09.01.2012. He admitted that the sale deed shows full consideration was received by his mother-in-law. A suggestion was put to him that the cancellation was fraudulent, only to support this case. He also admitted that on 16.08.2011 they applied for a land survey, though the land had already been sold. He denied the suggestion that the complaint was false and intended to pressurize revenue authorities. He volunteered that on 17.07.2011 revenue officials removed fencing and advised him to apply for survey. He denied that there was no demand from the Accused Officer. 10. PW.2, the panch witness, admitted in cross-examination that Ex.P.9 certified copies were prepared and signed by the AO on 05.01.2012. PW.3, Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Khammam, stated that on receiving the application on 16.08.2011, he endorsed it to A3 Section and nominated Inspector B. Srinivasa Rao, the appellant herein to conduct the survey. Appellant submitted the report while PW.3 was on leave. Another application was filed on 29.11.2011 for copies of survey reports. PW.3 endorsed it, and on 10.01.2012 he learnt that the appellant was trapped by ACB officials. 11. PW.4, Section Officer, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, deposed about receiving a message from DSP ACB regarding the trap, later receiving suspension orders and a preliminary report from DG ACB, Hyderabad. 12. PW.5, DSP ACB Warangal Range, stated that he instructed the trap and conducted investigation. In cross- examination, he admitted that he did not know whether PW.1’s mother-in-law had already sold the property under document No.996 of 2011. He denied that the complaint was false. PW.6 admitted in cross-examination that he did not know whether the property was in the mother-in-law’s name on the date of complaint. 13. DW.2, Sub-Registrar, Kallur, produced certified copy of document No.996 of 2011 showing sale of land to Brahma Reddy. He stated that he did not know whether a cancellation deed was executed on 09.02.2012. PW.6 admitted in cross-examination that he did not know whether the property was in the mother-in-law’s name on the date of complaint. 13. DW.2, Sub-Registrar, Kallur, produced certified copy of document No.996 of 2011 showing sale of land to Brahma Reddy. He stated that he did not know whether a cancellation deed was executed on 09.02.2012. DW.3, Tahsildar of Thallada village stated that he addressed letters to SBH on 16.07.2011 and another letter to SHO on 19.07.2011. In cross- examination, he said records were seized by ACB and PW.1 filed several suits regarding the property, all dismissed by the trial Court and he retired before knowing the result of appeals. 14. DW.4, Superintendent in Survey Department, produced file No.A3/1080/2011 showing that appellant was assigned other work on the date of alleged demand. DW.5, Senior Assistant stated that he issued attested copies of survey report, panchanama, and Tonch map to PW.1 on 05.01.2012, by following procedure. He denied deposing falsely due to friendship with appellant. 15. DW.6, Advocate Commissioner, stated that on 09.01.2012 appellant was deputed to survey the property. The survey continued till 3:30 p.m, and was postponed to 10.01.2012, but due to rain it was not conducted. He admitted there was no document to prove the same. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that on the date of complaint, the property was not in the name of mother-in-law of PW.1’s making the complaint false. It is admitted that she sold the property on 26.07.2011. Though ACB claimed that sale was cancelled later due to non-payment, no cancellation deed was filed in Court to prove the same. PW.1 admitted cancellation but cancellation deed was executed only on 09.02.2012, after the complaint on 09.01.2012 and trap on 10.01.2012. Thus, on the relevant dates, the property was not in her name. Further, the evidence also shows the survey report was dispatched on 05.01.2012, before the complaint. Therefore, PW.1 is not competent to file the complaint or seek survey on behalf of his mother-in-law when the property is not in the name of his mother-in-law. The trial court erred in concluding that demand of bribe was proved based on PW.1’s evidence. The conviction was wrongly based on the assumption that the sale deed was later cancelled. Since the property was not in the mother-in-law’s name on the date of complaint or trap, the trial court’s judgment requires interference. The trial court erred in concluding that demand of bribe was proved based on PW.1’s evidence. The conviction was wrongly based on the assumption that the sale deed was later cancelled. Since the property was not in the mother-in-law’s name on the date of complaint or trap, the trial court’s judgment requires interference. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant herein by judgment dated 17.08.2022 in C.C.No.65 of 2015 by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Nampally, Hyderabad. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.