1 .This criminal appeal is at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, in CC No.3 of 1996 acquitting the respondent - accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard Sri Gani-A-Musa, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for ACB and Sri M. Venkatanarayana, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.

3. On the allegation that the respondent demanded an amount of Rs.100/- as illegal gratification from PW 1 for the purpose of doing official favour, namely, for issuing certified copies of two settlement deeds and accepted the bribe, charges were framed by the trial Court against him under Sections 7, l3(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was tried for the said charges.

4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined before the trial Court PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs. P1 to P 19 besides marking Mos. 1 to 6. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW 1, acquitted the respondent of the aforementioned charges. Challenging the order of acquittal, the State preferred the present appeal.

5. The brief facts according to the prosecution are that one Smt. Chengamma, a close relative of PW 1 contrary to the agreement executed by her before the elders in respect of disposal of her property executed two settlement deeds in favour of one Mr. K. Babu in respect of certain property. PW 1, who wanted to obtain certified copies of the settlement deeds made an application before PW4 the Sub-Registrar on 9.2.1994. The Sub-Registrar instructed the respondent to cause verification of the documents for the purpose of issuing the certified copies. According to the version of PW 1, the respondent for the purpose of issuing certified copies demanded from him an amount of Rs.200/- initially, subsequently however collected an amount of Rs.50/- for the purpose of purchasing requisite nonjudicial stamp paper and demanded bribe of Rs.100/- for issuing the certified copies of the required document. It is said that PW 1 who was not willing to pay the bribe, approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB Tirupati and lodged a report with him on 14.2.1994. At about 8:00 a.m., on the strength of the said report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB registered a case against the respondent under Sections 7, 11, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at 12 noon on the same day. Thereafter, he got laid a trap on the same day during the course of which it is alleged that the respondent in the Office of the Sub - Registrar, Nagiri demanded from PW 1 an amount of Rs.100/- as bribe for issuing the certified copies, accepted the same and placed the amount on his table. Thereafter, it is said that PW 1 went outside and gave signal to the raiding party which on receiving rushed in and in the course of post-trap proceedings the chemical test conducted on the fingers of the respondent yielded positive result and thereafter an amount of Rs. 100/- was recovered from the table of the respondent.

6. One of the crucial issues considered by the learned trial Court is that as per Order 848 of the Madras Registration Manual, the party has to make an application for grant of certified copies directly to the Sub-Registrar and the Sub-Registrar has to receive the same personally and issue the certified copies. There is also however no dispute about the procedure to be followed for the grant of certified copies in the Sub-Registrar's Office. At the trial, PW4 the Sub-Registrar in his evidence stated that on 8.2.1994 PW 1 submitted an application to him for grant of certified copies and he instructed the respondent to verify the documents for the purpose of issuing certified copies. According to him, the respondent verified the documents and informed that as the settl