( 1. ) THE State through Lokayuktha calls in question the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial Court in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (l) (d) read with 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

( 2. ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is to the effect that the respondent herein, while working as the Food Inspector, Srirangapatna town, demanded and accepted Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from complainant Govindaraja for doing an official favour in the form of enabling the complainant to secure the licence as a kerosene dealer as the accused was required to forward the application.

Based on the complaint lodged by P.W. 1 Govindaraja with the lokayuktha Police as per Ex. P-2, the entrustment mahazar was conducted and thereafter, the complainant, accompanied by the shadow witnesses and the trap officials, went to the place of the accused and it is alleged that the accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification in the form of Rs. 500/- from the complainant in order to forward the application of the complainant towards securing the licence as a kerosene dealer.

( 3. ) THE trap mahazar was drawn as per Ex. P-10 and, as the hands of the accused were tested positive when immersed in sodium carbonate solution and as the currency notes worth Rs. 500/- were recovered from the pocket of the accused, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the respondent in respect of the offences first above mentioned. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 6 and 21 documents were marked in evidence apart from producing 9 materials objects, including the currency notes (M.O.4). The accused's stand was one of denial when questioned under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. and he led no evidence in support of his defence.

( 4. ) THE learned trial judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the complainant did not support the prosecution case and so also the shadow witness P.W. 5, and coupled with that, the Court also found defect in the sanction order and all these led to the trial Court taking the view that the prosecution had not brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the order of acquittal was passed in favour of the respondent and thereby driving the State to prefer this appeal.

I have heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri P. M. Nawaz for the State and the learned Counsel Shri C.G. Sundar for the respondent and perused the entire material on record.

( 5. ) THE submission of the appellant's Counsel is that the currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the accused and the lands of the accused were also tested positive when immersed in sodium carbonate solution and, therefore, the presumption arises by virtue of Section 20 of the P. C. Act. Even the complainant as well as the shadow witness have also spoken to the fact of the currency notes being found in the pocket of the accused. No explanation was forthcoming from the accused as to how the currency notes got into his pocket. Therefore, the trial Court could not have acquitted the accused.

( 6. ) THE further submission made is that the trial Court erred in finding infirmity in the sanction order when the sanctioning authority i. e. , P.W. 3 shanthakumari, has deposed in her evidence about the documents which were perused by her before coming to the conclusion with regard to the prima facie case in existence against the accused. Therefore, the said finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained in law particularly having regard tot he law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State by Police inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy, reported in 2005 (1) Kar. L.J. 41. Hence, the appellant's Counsel sought for reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and to convict the respondent-accused for the offences with which he stood charged.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the resp