IMPORTANT POINT
Ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, if established, warrants conviction.
If an accused is not represented by any counsel, Court should appoint any lawyer on his behalf.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused against the judgment and final order dated 24.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.1792 of 2004.

2. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (accused) and confirmed the judgment of the trial court which convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo two years’ RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-in respect of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 7 and to undergo four years’ RI and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-in respect of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13 (2) of the Act with respective default clauses therein to suffer further imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Courts below were justified in convicting and awarding sentences to the appellant for the offences specified above?

4. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant, relevant facts, which lie in a narrow compass, need mention infra.

5. The appellant was working as a Warden of a hostel of college known as "Medical and Engineering College (SC/ST) Hostel at Banashankari I Stage, Bangalore”. The Hostel is run by the Social Welfare Department of the State. The complainant (PW-3) was the student of B.E. Course during 1999-2000 and was occupying one room in the hostel. He failed in second semester and, therefore, appeared in the examination and was declared pass in 2001. This enabled him to join the third semester. However, the complainant was required to apply afresh to seek readmission in the hostel because he could not clear the examination as provided in the Hostel Rules. The complainant, therefore, made a fresh application to the Hostel Authorities seeking re-admission and allotment of a room. His application was to be forwarded to the District Officer through the appellant after getting countersigned from the Principal of the College. The appellant did not provide hostel facilities to the complainant and compelled him to frequently visit his office to clear his file. The accused also told the complainant that he (complainant) would get re-admission in the hostel only after paying to him (appellant) Rs. 2000/-as illegal gratification.

6. The complainant finding that he would not get re-admission in the hostel unless he pays Rs. 2000/-to the appellant by way of illegal gratification, went to the Office of Lokayukta and lodged complaint (Ex-P-9) about this incident against the appellant. The Lokayukta officials found substance in the appellant's complaint and accordingly registered the complaint for giving effect to it. Four currency notes of Rs.500/-denomination (total Rs. 2000/-) were, accordingly, prepared by smearing sodium carbonate on each note and were given to the complainant by CW-3. The complainant was asked to keep four notes in his pocket by CW-14. The complainant and raiding party sleuths (CW-2, CW-3 and CW-14) went to the Hostel in Lokayukta’s Police Jeep on 03.12.2001 at around 4.15 p.m. At about 6.30 p.m, the appellant came in the office. The appellant entertained the complainant and shadow witness (PW-4) and first took them to his chamber and then told them to go to room No. 5 and wait in the room. The appellant then around 7.00/7.15 p.m. came in the room and demanded the amount from the complainant. The complainant then gave the currency notes of Rs. 2000/-to the appellant, which were smeared with the solution. The appellant took the notes in his right hand and then kept them in the left hand side pocket of his trouser. The raiding party then arrived and trapped the appellant. His hands were immersed in the chemical solution, which on being dipped, turned into pink colour. The appellant'