Judgment

1. Leave granted. The Appellant, who is aggrieved of the judgment and order of concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Karnataka for the charges Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is under challenge in this appeal urging various legal contentions.

2. Firstly, the contention urged by Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant is that the demand of bribe made by the accused-Appellant on 18.10.2003 with the complainant PW-1, as per Exhibit P-1, the complaint lodged by him with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore on 21.10.2003. To prove this important material aspect of demand, the evidence of PW-1 is not corroborated by examining the father of PW-1, who was with him at the time of alleged demand made by the Appellant, therefore, the demand of illegal gratification alleged to have been made is not proved by the prosecution as required Under Section 7 of the Act, and the question of payment of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money from the Appellant to constitute an offence Under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act to punish him Under Section 13(2) of the Act is mandatory, the same is not proved by producing evidence on record and, therefore, conviction on the charges of the Appellant is not legal and valid. He further submits that this view is consistently taken by this Court in catena of cases by interpreting Section 7 of the Act, the relevant decisions on this aspect will be adverted to in the reasoning portion of this order.

3. Secondly, he would contend that the first charge made by the learned Special Judge against the accused is that the accused has accepted Rs. 1,500/- as illegal gratification from PW-1 on 20.10.2003 as a reward to show an official favour to the complainant for the purpose of issuing Katha extract of the property and thereby the Appellant has committed an offence punishable Under Section Under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, which charge made against the Appellant did not survive for consideration before the trial court as well as the first appellate court. The essential ingredient of demand which is very much relevant for constituting an offence Under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is not proved by the prosecution. Alternatively, he made another submission that the charges made by the learned Special Judge for the offence Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act is itself inconsistent with the material evidence collected by the Investigating Officer PW-6, therefore, the demand, payment and acceptance of illegal gratification are not proved. On this count also the finding of conviction is liable to be set aside and consequently the sentence imposed upon him also unsustainable in law.

4. Thirdly, the sanction accorded by PW-2, the employer, under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the Commissioner of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ("BMP") in exercise of his statutory power Under Section 19 of the Act to prosecute the Appellant for the aforesaid offence after perusal of the material available for his consideration on the accusation that the Appellant has demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- for issuing a Katha extract of the property to the de-facto complainant (PW 1). He is examined as PW-2 by the prosecution before the trial court to prove the fact of sanction order and charges made against the Appellant. At paragraph 5, in his evidence, he had spoken about the demand of bribe of Rs. 2,000/- by the Appellant from the complainant for the purpose of transfer of Katha in respect of the property in favour of the complainant and his father jointly and for issuance of the extract of Katha Certificate in respect of the said property. Therefore, there is a material contradiction between the first charge framed by the learned trial Judge, the sanction order and evidence adduced by both PW-1 and PW-2, therefore, the fin