Judgment

KASLIWAL, J.:- This special leave petition (criminal) is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 19-11- 1990. The petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ and in default of payment of fine to suffer two month,. simple imprisonment under each count with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently, by an order of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases dated 24-11-1988. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.

2. We have heard Mr. P. P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. This is a trap case in which the petitioner was alleged to have accepted an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - as illegal gratification on 5-7-1986 while working as Sub-Inspector of Excise at his office-cum-residence at Godavarikhani. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that PW 1 A. Baswa Reddy took arrack contract in partnership of his brother

 A. Rajender Reddy PW 2 and one Arjun for sale of arrack for Ramagundam group in Karimnagar district for one year from 1-10-1985 on payment of Rs. 14 lakhs rental per mensem payable by 20th of each month. The petitioner was the Excise Sub-Inspector, Ramagundam. On 3-6-1986 the petitioner called PW 1 through a constable PW 6 A. Narender. PW 1 met the accused-petitioner on the same day at 9.00 a.m. The accused demanded bribe of Rs. 50,000/- and threatened that otherwise he would seize the arrack depot at Godavarikhani and its machinery for supplying arrack in polythene sachets without permission. When PW 1 requested the accused to reduce the bribe the accused told, him that he used to take mamool of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the previous contractor. On 4 -7-1986 the accused again called PW 1 to his office-cum-residence and asked him to pay the bribe of Rs. 50,000/ - by the next evening otherwise, threatened him as done earlier. PW 1 on the same day submitted a complaint Exhibit P. 1 to Shri P. Bal Reddy, the then DSP, ACB, Warangal Range. The DSP with the assistance of two mediators planned a trap. On 5-7-1986 at about 2.00 p.m. PW 1 met the accused at his office-cum-residence and on a demand made by the accused he gave an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Immediately thereafter PW 1 gave a signal to the raiding party and thereupon DSP, ACB PW 9 and other members of the raiding party rushed into the office-cum-residence of the accused. The hands of the accused were got washed by a solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned pink. An amount of Rs. 50,000/-was recovered from the possession of the accused. The accused was then charged for offences under Sec. 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused denied the charges. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. The accused in his explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gave a long statement. But in substance, his defence was that on 5-7-1986 at about 2.00 p.m. while he was at his office-cum-residence PW 7 an Excise constable told him that PW 1 had come to meet him. The accused then called in P W 1.Then gave a slip Exhibit D. 7 showing the remittances made by him towards arrears of rental till 4 -7-1986.The same was in the handwriting of PW 2. The accused further stated that PW 1 informed him that he could not deposit the amount towards arrears of rental on that day as banking hours were over, as it happened to be a Saturday and then offered to give him a cash of Rs. 50,000/- towards payment of arrears. So saying, PW 1 took out a cover containing currency notes and pushed it on the t