S.B. Sinha, J. — Appellant herein was working as a Surveyor in the Mandal Revenue Office. He was a military personnel.

2. Admittedly, a demand was made by a Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) of P. Bhemavaram village of Butchayyupate Mandalam in Vishakhapatnam; District for allowing P.W. 3 (M. Subrahmanya Raju) to cut and remove casurina trees. P.W.2-Amaraneni Ammarao sold the land in question to P.W. 3. He made a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau alleging that he had purchased 4 acres of land with casurina growth and the same was being objected by the MRO on the premise that a part thereof belonged to the Government.

3. The MRO, allegedly, wanted determination of the said question and restrained him from lifting any casurina growth. He met the said MRO on the next day informing him that no part of the Government land was mixed up with his land. Allegedly, a demand for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was made from him by the MRO. While the talks were going on, the appellant, allegedly, intervened and asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. When he again met the MRO, he was informed that he would not be permitted to remove the casurina trees until the demanded amount was paid. On the basis of the said complaint dated 11.12.1988, a purported pre-trap proceedings started at 3 p.m. on 12.12.1988. The trap party consisting of 8 persons, allegedly, started for the village of which Appellant was a resident. They reached the village in the evening. The informant did not know the location of the residential house of the appellant. According to P.W. 2, an unknown person had led them thereto. The said person examined himself as D.W. 1 being Yannamsetti Appalanaidu and not by the prosecution. Offer of the said sum of Rs. 2,000/- was, allegedly, made to the appellant by way of gratification, which he allegedly accepted. He is said to have been caught red handed.

4. Apart from usual pleas, the appellant categorically took the plea of false implication stating that he had animosity with the local M.L.A. - Shri Yeeri Naidu and one Shri Rama Murthy, the Surpanch of P. Bhimavaram village. Admittedly, son of the appellant was working as an assistant to Shri Yeeri Naidu. The said Shri Ram Murthy nurtured grudge against the appellant for not granting D-Form pattas to him and his family members. The raid was conducted at the instance of Shri Ram Murthy.

5. The learned Special Judge analysed the evidences brought on record by the prosecution in great details. In his judgment, the learned Trial Judge considered the matter from various angles, viz., (i) peculiar facts of the case; (ii) nature and conduct of P.W. 2- the complainant (who was held to be wholly untrustworthy); (iii) the manner in which trap proceedings were undertaken by the Anti Corruption Bureau and which were, thus, held to be not reliable as it was brought on records that Shri Ram Murthy also indirectly participated in the said trap proceedings and, in particular, P.W. 2 was brought by him to the village; (iv) Although, the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that the appellant, upon acceptance of the tainted amount, counted the same with both of his hands, only fingers of one of his hand turned pink; (v) the trap party came in and asked the A.O. to produce the amount, which he denied to have accepted; and allegedly, at that time three more people entered the house and stated that the amount was available in one of the rooms; (vi) In Exhibit P. 7 post trap panchanama, the words ‘from bed room corner, the cash has been picked up by A.O. and handed over to the Inspector’, has been interpolated; and (vii) there were contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, vis-a-vis, their statements before the Investigating Officer.

6. On an appeal made by the respondent, the High Court, however, allowed the criminal appeal, principally relying on the provisions of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the premise that th