THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1370 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2002 in Calendar Case No.19 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the appellant/sole accused was convicted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, under each count. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Criminal Appeal may be stated as follows: The appellant worked as Village Administrative Officer, Anantapur rural mandal. The complainant (P.W.1) is the resident of Narasanayanikunta village. He got a bore well dug in his land in the year 1997 and applied for a loan to purchase a submersible electric motor for which he made Ex.P1-application on 2.2.1997 to Mandal Development Officer, who asked him to obtain signature of the Village Development Officer. On that, P.W.1 approached the appellant for obtaining his signature. But, the appellant went on postponing to sign on the application form. When P.W.1 complained to P.W.3, the latter told him that signature of the appellant was essential on the application form. On 25.4.1997, P.W.1 went to the appellant and requested for his signature. On that, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.2,500/-, and at the request of P.W.1, it was reduced to Rs.1,000/-. As P.W.1 was not willing to pay the bribe, he went to the office of P.W.6-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) at Anantapur and gave Ex.P2-report, which was recorded by the Inspector of Police. P.W.6 asked P.W.1 to come to the office at 3.00 PM with money. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the office with money. Mean while, P.W.6 arranged mediators, one of whom is examined as P.W.2. Thereafter, necessary preparations were made to lay a trap. Ex.P5 is the pre-trap proceedings. Then the trap party left the ACB Office in a jeep at 4.15 PM and reached Kamalanagar locality at 4.30 PM. P.W.6 asked P.W.1 to go to the appellant’s house and pay the bribe amount only on demand made by him and the other trap party members took vantage positions. P.W.1 went to the house of the appellant, which was in the first floor, and knocked the door. The appellant’s wife opened the door and told him that her husband was taking bath. P.W.1 waited in the verandah. After some time, the appellant came out and asked P.W.1 whether he brought the money, for which he nodded his head in affirmative. Then the appellant went in and came out with some papers and told P.W.1 that he had some urgent work and was going away. Both of them came down and went to the place where the appellant parked his scooter. The appellant opened the dash board of the scooter and kept his papers in it. When P.W.1 showed the cash, the appellant asked him to place it in the dash board. The appellant came out of the compound and proceeded on the road on his scooter. Meanwhile, P.W.1 gave the pre- arranged signal and on that, the trap party which was witnessing the movements of P.W.1, stopped the scooter of the appellant and took him to his house. P.W.1 was asked to stay outside. After going into the house, P.W.6 introduced himself and the mediators, and questioned the appellant whether he had demanded and accepted the bribe amount. The appellant replied in the negative. When Sodium Carbonate Solution test was conducted on the fingers of both hands of the appellant, colour of the solution remained unchanged. Then the trap party along with the appellant got down, and on the request of P.W.6, the appellant opened the dash board of the scooter, which revealed wad of currency notes. Notes of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers of currency notes noted in Ex.P5. When questioned, the appellant denied having demanded any bribe and accepting the same. Later, the appellant was arrested and released on bail on self security. On the next day, P.W.6 examined the witnesses and got the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise and Prohibition, Anantapur on 3.5.1997. Subsequently, the case was handed over to Inspector of Police, A.C.B., who obtained the sanction and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet on 24.12.1997. 3. The charges framed against the appellant are as follows: “FIRSTLY That you being a public servant working as Village Development Officer, Anantapur Rural Mandal, Anantapur, in the 1st week of April, 97 and again on 25.4.97 demanded a sum of Rs.2,500/- from one R.Venkata Naik, R/o. Narasanayanikunta (V) of Ananthapur Mandal as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration to do the official favour viz. to attest his signature on the loan application form to be submitted to S.T. Corporation for purchase of submersible electric motor for his bore well and on bargaining reduced your demand to Rs.1,000/- and on 25.4.97 in pursuance of the said demand demanded and accepted tainted amount of Rs.1,000/- from said R.Venkata Naik at your residence and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance. SECONDLY: That you being a public servant as mentioned in charge no.1 and on the same date, time and place as mentioned in charge No.1, by corrupt or illegal means obtained for yourself a sum of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from said R.Venkata Naik for the said purpose and thereby committed an offence of criminal misconduct as specified in sec.13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and punishable under sec.13(2) of the said Act and within my cognizance.” When the charges were read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12, besides case properties M.Os. 1 to 8. D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked on behalf of the appellant/accused. 5. The trial Court, accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused. 6. The learned senior counsel Sri T.Bali Reddy, appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that, there is no clinching evidence to show that the appellant demanded and accepted M.O.5-tainted currency notes from P.W.1 to show any official favour; that, except the solitary testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to probabilise his version; that, the tainted amount was not seized from the person of the accused, but it was allegedly seized from the dash board of the scooter, for which the appellant had no knowledge about finding of the tainted currency notes; that, if really the appellant demanded any amount to show favour i.e. signing in Ex.P1-appliation for the purpose of getting loan by P.W.1 for erecting submersible electrical motor, nothing prevented the appellant to receive the amount in his house i.e. upstairs of the residential building, when P.W.1 offered the same; that, if really, the amount had been kept in the dash board of the scooter, as directed by the appellant, the amount would not have been found in the middle of the papers; that, P.W.1 would not have allowed the appellant to move further after he kept the amount in the dash board of the scooter, without signing on Ex.P1; that, the place where conversation between the appellant and P.W.1 took place was visible to the trap party members, who were in vantage position, and they could have as well stated that P.W.1 kept the tainted currency notes in the presence of the appellant in dash board; that, when the trap party rushed to the house of the appellant after receipt of the signal, P.W.1 would have informed the trap party that he kept the amount in the dash board of the scooter at the instance of the appellant, but he did not inform the same till completion of the sodium carbonate solution test, that was conducted in the house located in the first floor of the building and so the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellant. 7. On the other hand, Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the A.C.B., vehemently contended that there is absolutely no reason for a person like P.W.1 to foist a false case of this nature against the appellant; that there was no prior enmity between the appellant and P.W.1 and that in the absence of prior enmity or grouse against the appellant, the evidence of P.W.1 can be relied upon; that as the appellant was in a hurry to go on urgent work, he came down and asked P.W.1 to keep the amount in the dash board of the scooter; that, an official favour to be shown by the appellant was pending prior to the date of trap; that, unless the appellant signs the application of P.W.1, P.W.1 would not get the loan from the concerned bank for the purpose of installing submersible electrical motor and there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1; that, the tainted currency notes have been seized at the instance of the appellant only and as the dash board was locked there was no scope or possibility for P.W.1 or any other person to keep the amount in the dash board of the scooter of the appellant; that, the trial court, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly placed implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant/accused for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ? 9. The essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act are: i) that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant; ii) that he should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or dis-favour to any person. Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i) that he should have been a public servant; (ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant, and iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 10. The entire case of prosecution rests upon the solitary evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. When a case rests upon the evidence of a solitary witness, the law is well settled that it must be true, trustworthy, free from doubt and wholly reliable. When the evidence of a witness is put in the category of ‘wholly reliable’, then there is no legal bar to base conviction on the solitary testimony of the witness. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously so as to place any reliance on his evidence. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in VADVIVELU THEVAR V THE STATE OF MADRAS [1], wherein it was held thus: (para 10) “Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into these categories, namely: (i) Wholly reliable (ii) Wholly unreliable (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach on suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.” Basing on the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether P.W.1 is ‘wholly reliable witness’ or not. 11. It is in the evidence that P.W.1 is resident of Narsavani Kunta village in Anantapur district and he has got Ac.3.78 cents of land. He got dug a bore well under the Government scheme. At the time of digging of the bore well, P.W.5, who was the then Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Ananthapur Rural mandal, admittedly inspected the bore well in the land of P.W.1 in the month of August, 1996 and issued work order to P.W.1. Later, P.W.1 approached P.W.5 for sanction of loan to purchase submersible electrical motor. As per the instructions of P.W.5, he approached S.C. and S.T. Corporation and obtained application for loan, and after filling in the same, gave the same to P.W.5 on 2.2.1997. Then, P.W.5 instructed him to get the signature of the Village Development Officer viz. the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.5 was transferred and handing over the charge to P.W.3. 12. P.W.3, who was the then Mandal Engineering Officer, Ananthapur, was in-charge of the post of Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Ananthapur rural mandal from 23.03.1997 to 22.05.1997. According to P.W.3, in the month of April, 1997, P.W.1 came to him and requested to forward his application for financial status from S.C. Corporation to purchase electrical motor; again, on 24.4.1997, P.W.1 came to him with fresh application, on which he endorsed to obtain the signature of the Village Development Officer. Then, P.W.1 went and met the appellant to get his signature and made requests for several times. In the first week of April, 1997, when P.W.1 requested the appellant to sign, he demanded Rs.2,500/- to sign on the application. On 25.4.1997, when P.W.1 met again and requested the appellant to sign on the application, he again demanded to pay atleast Rs.1,000/-, otherwise he would not sign on the application. Not willing to pay that amount, P.W.1 went and narrated the incident to P.W.6, and to the narration of P.W.1, Ex.P2-report was scribed. After verifying antecedents of the appellant, the case was registered. P.W.6 secured presence of P.W.2 and others. P.W.6 also directed P.W.1 to bring the tainted currency notes and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the tainted currency notes, and numbers of the notes were duly noted down in Ex.P5-pretrap proceedings. P.W.6 specifically directed P.W.1 to hand over the money to the appellant only on demand made by him. He also directed P.W.1 to give the signal after receipt of the tainted currency notes by the accused. Then, the trap party proceeded to the village. P.W.1 got down from the vehicle at bus stop and proceeded to the house of the appellant, followed by the trap party members by walk. P.W.1 went to the house of the appellant, which was on upstairs, and knocked at the door. Then, wife of the appellant opened the door, and when he enquired about the appellant, she informed that her husband was in bath room. When P.W.1 was waiting in the verandah, the appellant came there 15 minutes later and asked whether he brought the amount. When P.W.1 nodded his head in affirmative, the appellant went inside the house and took some papers saying that he was going on urgent work and came to ground floor through stairs, where his scooter was parked. After the accused kept some papers in his dash board of scooter, P.W.1 showed the cash for which the accused asked him to put the cash in his scooter’s dash board. When P.W.1 kept the amount in the dash board, the appellant took out the scooter and was about to start his scooter. Then, P.W.1 gave the pre-arranged signal and the trap party stopped the scooter and took the appellant to his house. When sodium carbonate solution test was conducted to fingers of both hands of the appellant, colour of the solution has not been changed. Then, it is alleged that on the information given by the appellant, the tainted currency notes were found in the middle of the papers in the dash board of the scooter, which were seized, and the numbers of the tainted currency notes seized were tallied with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in Ex.P5. Thereafter, Ex.P8- post trap panchanama was drafated. 13. The earliest version as narrated in Ex.P1 would go to show that on 2.2.1997, P.W.1 went to the office of the Mandal Development Officer, who informed that he had to obtain signature of the appellant, who was the Village Development Officer; then, he immediately met the appellant, but the appellant did not sign and he was made to move around the appellant several times; thereafter, again when he met the appellant in the first week of April, 1997, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.2,500/- so as to sign in the application form; that, when he questioned as to why he had to pay the amount as the Government was helping them as they are illiterate tribes, the appellant categorically stated that unless he paid the amount, he would not sign; that, on 25.4.1997, P.W.1 met the appellant and requested to sign on the application, the appellant insisted to pay the bribe, otherwise, he would not sign; that, when P.W.1 requested him stating that he could not pay the amount as he was a small farmer, the appellant bargained and insisted to pay atleast Rs.1,000/- and returned the application by saying so. 14. As seen from Ex.P1-application it has to be signed by the Inspecting Officer apart from other officials. There is no evidence to show that the appellant is the officer, who has to make an enquiry, for the purpose of getting the required loan by P.W.1. The specific evidence of P.W.3, who was the then Mandal Parishad Development Officer at the relevant point of time of the incident, would go to show that in the month of April, 1997, P.W.1 came to him and requested him to forward his application for financial assistance to purchase electrical motor from S.C. Corporation, and he directed him to obtain signature of the Village Development Officer; that, again on 24.4.1997, P.W.1 came to him with fresh application and he endorsed on it to obtain the signature of the Village Development Officer on the application. In cross-examination, he admitted that, as seen from Ex.P1, he had not made any endorsement on it directing the Village Development Officer to inspect and to put his signature in Ex.P1. But, admittedly, after the trap in this case, he made endorsement on the fresh application received from P.W.1 by referring to the concerned Village Development Officer for his inspection and to put his signature on the application. Whenever an application is received by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, he has to forward the application to the inspecting officer for conducting necessary enquiry with regard to the correctness or genuineness of the contents of the application. It is not in dispute that Village Development Officer is the subordinate to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer. So, when an application is presented by any beneficiary to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, in the fitness of things, in all fitness and fairness, he should have received the same and entered in the concerned register and forwarded the same to the inspecting officer to know the correctness or otherwise of the contents of Ex.P1. That procedure has not been followed in this case. However, after the trap, admittedly, P.W.3 forwarded fresh application of P.W.1 to concerned inspecting officer to make an enquiry. The question of the appellant signing on the application, even assuming that he is the inspecting officer, does not arise, unless he made inspection of the site to know whether the bore well was dug to enable P.W.1 to get the loan for installing a submersible electrical motor. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is no evidence to show that an official favour to be shown or done by the appellant to P.W.1 was pending with the appellant prior to the date of the trap. 15. Admittedly, the contents of Ex.P2-complaint were read over and explained to P.W.1 after recording the same and they were admitted by him to be true and correct. The specific allegation is that when P.W.1 met the appellant in the first week of April, 1997, he demanded Rs.2,500/- to sign on the application and when he questioned why he had to pay the amount as the government was helping him as he belongs to scheduled tribe community, the appellant categorically stated that he would not sign on the application, he did not pay that amount. This aspect has not been stated by P.W.1 in his evidence. On the other hand, his evidence would clearly go to show that for the first time the appellant demanded to pay Rs.1,000/- on 25.4.1997. He further testified that before digging the bore well, he brought the appellant to the land and showed the proposed bore well. But, that aspect of the case has not been mentioned either in Ex.P2 or in Ex.P3 or when P.W.1 was examined by police during the course of investigation. He himself admitted that prior to 25.4.1997, the appellant had not demanded any amount. 16. It is in the evidence that P.W.1 applied for bore well in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.78 cents in survey no.53/1C. It is also not in dispute that during the year 1985-86, the Government got borewell dug in the said land. From the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that subsidised loans should not be granted if the beneficiary had already availed such subsidised loan from the Government. As per Ex.P4, a bore well was drilled in the land in survey no.53 of N.N. Kunta village. Similarly, P.W.5 also stated that if the loan is availed by the beneficiary, he should not be sanctioned second loan and that the farmer should not have availed any financial assistance from the Government department for this purpose. Therefore, P.W.1 is not at all eligible for sanction of loan for installation of motor. 17. The application, if any, to be filed by P.W.1 for the purpose of sanction of loan for purchase of electrical motor has to be processed through the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and on his instructions only the inspecting officer has to inspect the concerned land and verify the contents with reference to the applications and submit the same to him. Therefore, the approach of P.W.1 directly to the appellant cannot be said to be proper procedure, and the case of P.W.1 that he went and approached the appellant for the purpose of getting signature on the application form, appears to be highly improbable in view of the fact that there was no direction/endorsement from the Mandal Parishad Development Officer to the appellant to inspect the land in question. There is no documentary evidence to show that either P.W.3 or P.W.5 directed the appellant prior to the date of trap to inspect the land of P.W.1 and submit a report. That procedure was not followed by P.W.1. After the trap also, P.W.1 had not obtained signature of concerned official directly without due process. There is evidence on record that after the trap, an endorsement was made by P.W.3 on a fresh application of P.W.1 directing the Village Development