JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter described as accused). The Trial Court, i.e., Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad in Calendar Case No.80 of 1996, had held the respondent guilty of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act), while directing his acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution version, as unfolded during trial, is as follows:The accused herein is a public servant. He demanded a sum of Rs.300/- from PW-1, a Traveling Ticket Examiner in South Central Railway on 11.1.1995 and accepted the same on 16.1.1995 at 5.40 p.m.

PW-1 was working as TTE in South Central Railway and the accused was working as Assistant Commercial Manager, Ticket Checking Division. He was the controlling authority of PW-1, who joined in Railway service in the year 1981 as Clerk in Hubli Division. In the year 1989-1990 he was promoted as Ticket Collector. The performance of PW-1 was not satisfactory. Therefore, he was repatriated to Hubli Division. However, the accused cancelled those orders. The accused was not granting leave to PW-1. During January 1995, PW-1 went to the accused with an application to grant leave for 10 days. Then the accused asked whether he has taken the charge-sheet issued against him. Thereupon, PW-1 replied that it was not served on him but he collected the same from the Chief Ticket Inspectors office. Ex. P.1 is the charge sheet dated 10.1.1995.

After receiving the charge sheet, PW-1 went to the office of the accused and explained him orally about the charges leveled against him. The accused told PW-1 that he was prepared to grant leave if he gives explanation to the charges in writing immediately. PW-1 refused to give explanation immediately. The leave application given by PW-1 was torn away by the accused stating that he would pass the orders of repatriation.

On 12.1.1995 PW-1 met the accused and asked for cancellation of repatriation orders and also for leave. Then the accused allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.300/- as consideration for the work. PW-1 left the office of the accused saying that he will get the money.

On 14.1.1995 PW-1 was present at Sankranti Mela organized by Rail Nilayam. The accused was also posted there. In the Mela the accused asked PW-1 whether he brought full money. PW-1 replied that since the banks were closed, he could not get the money and that he would pay the money after the banks reopen.

On 16.1.1995 PW-1 went to PW-8, the CBI Inspector. On the basis of the complaint given by PW-1, he registered the case in R.C. 2 (a)/95, Hyderabad against the accused. Ex. P.14 is the FIR. PW-8 took up further investigation. He mobilized two persons to act as mediators for the trap. On 16.1.1995, he prepared first mediators report Ex. P.5 in the presence of trap party which included the mediator PW-2 and other CBI officers. PW-2 was instructed to accompany PW-1 to give a signal by wiping the face when the accused accepts the money.The trap party proceeded to the office of the accused at about 5 p.m. At about 5.25 p.m., PWs. 1 and 2 entered into the office of the accused where the other members of the trap party stood outside the office. At about 5.40 p.m. PW-2 came out of the office and gave pre-arranged signal. The entire trap party entered into the office. PW-8 questioned the accused who told him that money was kept in the left side shirt pocket. When questioned by the trap party, the accused told them that the money was returned as hand loan taken by PW-1 from him on 15.1.1995 in the presence of PW-3. After complying with all formalities, the second mediators repor