1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad in Special (SVC) Criminal Case No.6/1997, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the further direction to run substantive sentences concurrently.

2. It is the case of the complainant – Lokayukta Police that the appellant being a public servant employed as Headmistress of Boys Urdu Primary School No.5, Bora – Imam Galli, Dharwad, on 07.12.1995 demanded and agreed to accept a sum of Rs.500/- from the complainant – Bashasab Khadarsab Hubballi of Dharwad, as illegal gratification for issuing a marks-card of 4th standard and Transfer Certificate in respect of the complainant, thereby she is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further charged against the accused that being a public servant, employed as a Headmistress of Boys Urdu Primary School, Dharwad, on 07.12.1995 at about 14:10 hours in her office room at Dharwad, in furtherance of her demand, she accepted a sum of Rs.500/-, by corrupt or illegal means or by using her position as a public servant and thereby obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.500/- to herself, which amount is other than the legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for her official favour referred to above, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed criminal misconduct, which is an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all six witnesses and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-35 and produced M.Os.1 to 10. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge was pleased to hold the accused guilty and sentenced her, as hereinbefore mentioned.

The convicted accused has filed this appeal.

4. Heard Shri B.V. Somapur, learned counsel appearing for the accused – appellant and Shri M.B, Gundawade, learned counsel appearing the respondent – Lokayukta.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not proved the ingredients under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the prosecution has not produced cogent and clear evidence regarding the demand of illegal gratification. He submits that the evidence of the complainant – P.W.4 – Bashasab Khadarsab Hubballi, is contrary to the averments made by him in the complaint. He further submits that the complainant has not stated before the Court that the accused has demanded the amount of Rs.500/- for issuing the marks-card of the complainant. He further submits that the shadow witness P.W.1 – Smt. Venku Sanjeevappa Adagal, has also not spoken in clear terms regarding demand made by the accused for issuing the marks-card of the complainant – P.W.4. On the other hand, it is elicited from the mouth of P.W.4 that one teacher by name Tahsildar, had met the complainant on the previous day and it is the said Tahasildhar, who has mentioned that the work of the complainant would be done, if he were to spend Rs.500/. It is further brought to the notice that P.W.4 – the complainant has stated that he had met the teacher Tahasildhar and had handed over the sum of Rs.500/- to the said teacher Tahasil