The accused/respondent was working as Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Hyderabad during the relevant time. The Principal Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Hyderabad by judgment dated 28.11.2003 in C.C. No.13 of 1999 acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (in short, the Act). Questioning the said acquittal, the State preferred this appeal.

2. P.W-1 was a Labour Contractor and was having two labour contract establishments under the names and style of Sindhu Enterprises and Swetha Enterprises at Hyderabad. He was having licences for his two establishments under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. P.W-3 is son of P.W-1's brother. P.W-3 was also having licence for his contract labour establishment run under the name and style of Tirumala Enterprises. During the year 1997, both P.W-1 and P.W-3 applied for renewal of their respective licences for their respective establishments to the accused. EX.P-5 is application for renewal of licence of Tirumala Enterprises of P.W-3. Exs.P-6 and P-7 are applications for renewal of licences of Swetha Enterprises and Sindhu Enterprises respectively belonging to P.W -1. The licences were sought to be renewed for the year 199798. It is stated that P.W-1 also produced wages, attendance and bonus registers to the accused for verification. It is alleged that after verifying the registers, the accused instructed P.W-1 to come later and that on 25.09.1997 P.W-1 met the accused and requested him for renewal of licences, for which the accused demanded bribe of Rs. 9,000/- from P.W-1 and threatened P.W-1 to keep the file pending without renewing the licences unless the demanded bribe amount is paid and that when P.W-1 )aid bribe of Rs. 3,000/- the accused demanded for payment of remaining bribe amount of Rs. 6,000/- in two days. With the said allegations, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report dated 26.09.1997 to P.W-7 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B), Hyderabad. After issuing EX.P-12 F.I.R on the basis of EX.P-1 report, P.W-7 organised trap for the accused in the presence of mediators including P.W-2. P.W-2 is the then office superintendent in the Directorate of Insurance And Medical Services, Hyderabad. Before proceeding for the trap, pre-trap procedures were conducted under the cover of Ex.P-2 mediators' report on 26.09.1997. It is alleged that the trap was successful and that the accused was caught with possession of M.O-1 tainted currency notes of Rs. 6,000/- which was demanded and accepted by the accused. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. It is his contention that in his absence M.O-1 tainted cash wasdroppedbyP.W-1 in his office table drawer. The lower Court, by the impugned judgment, accepted the defence version and found the accused not guilty of the charges.

3. In this appeal, the Special Public Prosecutor contended that the lower Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion in favour of the accused even though abundant material was let in by the prosecution in support of its case and that this appellate Court has to appreciate the material on record afresh by making thorough scrutiny of the evidence and that there are no valid circumstances to accept the defence version. On the other hand, it is contended by the senior counsel for the respondent/accused that when the trial Court acquitted the accused on merits, there is reinforcement of innocence of the accused and that scope of scrutiny by the appellate Court against an order of acquittal is limited and that the appellate Court will be slow in interfering with acquittal recorded by the trial Court unless finding of the lower Court is highly unreasonable or manifestly unjust or perverse.

4. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (1) 2007 (2) ALT (Crl.) 284 (SC) =2007 (5) SCJ 230 = (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Supreme Court culled out powers of t