Point of Law :
Court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjunctures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touch stone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record and that the Court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of the case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. It is also settled principle that where there are two views are possible, benefit of doubt should be given to the Accused Officer

JUDGMENT :

1. Vide order dated 28.11.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.2518 of 2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment dated 05.09.2014 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2006 and remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh hearing after giving an opportunity to the Accused Officer to be represented before this Court, if necessary, through his advocate or through an advocate appointed by the Legal Services Committee.

2. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for hearing and heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the Appellant - Accused Officer and Sri T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel - cum – Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 14.03.2006, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.28 of 2001, the Accused Officer preferred the present appeal. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found the Accused Officer guilty of both charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). The trial Court sentenced the Accused Officer to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three (03) months and six (06) months respectively.

4. The facts leading to the present case are:

(i) The Accused Officer was Supervisor in District Co-operative Central Bank (DCCB), Armoor Branch, Nizamabad District at the relevant time.

(ii) Sri Pendi Pentoji, PW.1 - de facto complainant, resident of Argul village of Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad District, an agriculturist, absolute owner of Acs.3.20 guntas in all, applied for agricultural loan for the purpose of digging bore-well and erection of electric motor.

(iii) The said loan was sanctioned after following the due procedure, such as verification of documents, physical inspection of land and submission of quotations etc. The cheques were prepared and were kept with the Accused Officer for the purpose of handing over to PW.1. According to the prosecution, the Accused Officer demanded an amount of Rs.1400/- towards bribe from PW.1 to hand over the said cheques.

(iv) Since the said Pendi Pentoji was not interested in meeting the said demand of bribe, approached the ACB Officials on 08.06.1999 and lodged Ex.P-2 complaint.

(v) Thereafter, PW.8, DSP, ACB, conducted trap by following the procedural aspects including pre-trap and post-trap in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation, the ACB Officials laid a charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.28 of 2001.

(vi) The trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act, Accused Officer denied the charges, claimed for trial and the trial was conducted. During the trial, PWs.1 to 9 were examined, Exs.P1 to P19 were marked and Exs.MOs.1 to MO.8 were exhibited. DW.1 was examined on behalf of defence. On consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, convicted the Accused Officer vide judgment dated 14.03.2006 in C.C. No.28 of 2001 and sentenced him as stated supra.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant – Accused Officer preferred the present appeal.

6. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the Appellant - Accused Officer and Sri T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel - cum - Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases appearing on behalf of the respondent.

7. Impugning the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in case of this nature, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the Accused Officer with cogent evidence, establish all vital ingredients, such as demand, acceptance of bribe and recovery of the same. According to him, all of them would constitute into one integrated incident and one ingredient depends upon other. Therefore, in such a case, all the