Gogoi, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirming the order of conviction passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, City Civil Court Hyderabad, whereby the accused appellant has been found guilty of commission of the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). The accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offences and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused appellant was, at the relevant point of time, working as a Mandal Revenue officer (MRO) in the Ranga Reddy District of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The complainant K. Venkataiah (PW 2) had a fair price shop in Dadupally village. On 8.11.1995, the complainant, it is alleged, had approached the accused appellant for release of essential commodities against his shop for the month of November, 1995. The accused appellant, it is claimed, demanded a bribe of Rs.250/- to issue the release order. As the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount, he had approached listed witness No.9 K. Narsinga Rao, (since deceased) Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Hyderabad on 9.11.1995 and submitted a written complaint (Exbt. P-11) before him. According to the prosecution, LW-9 after verifying the contents of the complaint registered a case and issued Exhibit P-12 (FIR). LW-9 directed the complainant to come with the bribe amount on 13.11.1995. It is also alleged that LW-9 summoned PW 1, S. Hanuma Reddy, Deputy Director of Insurance to act as a panch witness and explained the details of the complaint (Exbt. P-11) to him. Furthermore, according to the prosecution, LW-9 got the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder and also explained to PW 1 the significance of the sodium carbonate solution test. The details of the trap that was planned and explained to all concerned including the complainant. Accordingly, the plan was put into execution and on receipt of the pre-arranged signal to the trap laying officer, the police party headed by LW-9, which also included PW-5, rushed into the office of the accused appellant. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on the right hand fingers of the accused as well as the right shirt pocket. Both tests proved to be positive. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused.

4. Chargesheet was filed against the accused-appellant on completion of investigation. Upon grant of sanction for prosecution, congnizance of the offences alleged was taken and charges were framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In the course of the trial 5 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 12 documents (Exbts. P-1 to P-12) besides 10 material objects (MOs 1 to 10) were exhibited. The plea of the accused was that on the date of the trap, PW-2, the complainant had put the currency notes in his shirt pocket with a request to have the same deposited in the bank as fee for renewal of the licence of the complainant. It was at this point of time that the police party had come and seized the currency notes after taking the same from his pocket.

5. We have heard Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mayur R. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

6. PW2, the complainant, did not support the prosecution case. He disowned making the complaint (Exbt.P-11) and had stated in his deposition that the amount of Rs.250/- was paid by him to the accused with a request that the same may be deposited with the bank as fee for the renewal of his licence. He was, therefore, declared hostile. However, PW1 (panch witness) had testified that after being summoned