JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/AO is convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of 1988 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in CC No.28 of 2003 dated 27.12.2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Assistant Electrical Inspector, Standard Laboratory, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. The defacto complainant was possessing wireman permit. On 16.09.2000, he obtained application form to get ‘B’ Grade Electrical Contractors Licence from the office of the Secretary, A.P. Electrical Licencing Board, Hyderabad. As per the requirement, a test certificate has to be enclosed along with the application. P.W.1 paid challan of Rs.100/-towards the testing fee. On 21.09.2000, he went to the Standard Laboratory and on purchasing challan, he was issued instrument testing application form. The said form was filled up by P.W.1 and approached the appellant along with two instruments and requested him to do the necessary test and submit the testing report. To do the needful, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.650/- i.e., to conduct instrument test and forward test report. Aggrieved by the said demand, a complaint was made on 27.09.2000. The trap was laid on 28.09.2000. On the trap date, the trap party including P.W.1-complainant, P.W.2-independent mediator, Inspector of Police, DSP and others met in the office of ACB. After concluding pre-trap proceedings Ex.P7 report was drafted. Thereafter, they proceeded to the office of the appellant. P.W.1 went inside the office accompanied by P.W.2 at 12.35 p.m. P.W.2 came out of the office and relayed signal indicating the acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and others went into the office and confronted the appellant regarding the bribe. The appellant was tested with sodium carbonate solution which turned positive on both hands. When questioned regarding the bribe amount, the appellant broke into tears and produced the bribe amount.

3. After concluding the post trap proceedings under Ex.P13, investigation was handed over to the Inspector. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. The learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of accepting the bribe amount and convicted as stated supra.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit firstly that there is no evidence of demand, secondly, there was no official favour which was pending with the appellant and thirdly, the learned Special Judge erred in drawing presumption against the appellant when the witness P.W.1 himself turned hostile to the prosecution case and denied having given complaint. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments reported in the cases of; i) C.M.Girish Babu v. State of Kerala : (2009) 3 SCC 779; ii) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P( F.B) : 2015 (10) SCC 152; iii) B.Jaya Raj v. State of A.P. : (2014) 13 SCC 55; iv) State of Kerala v. C.P.Rao : (2011) 6 SCC 450; v) Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam : 2013 (3) ALT (Crl.) (SC) 316; vi) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra : (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371 and argued that i) in the absence of demand, the ingredients under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act are not attracted. Mere recovery of the amount divorced from the circumstances cannot be made basis for conviction; ii) The version, though not given at the earliest point of time, the version given at the time of Section 313 Cr.P.C examination has to be considered.

5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that at the earliest point of time, the money was recovered from the shirt pocket, which in