Manjula Chellur, J.--This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction of the Appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.

2. In brief the facts that led to the filing of the case by the prosecution is as under:

During 1995 the Appellant was working as Meter Reader in K.E.B. N-3, Sub-Division Office, Basaveshwaranagar. It is not in dispute the complainant-Rajan who is examined as P.W. 1 along with his friend Ravi was running a cable T.V. net work called "Raj Video Vision" in rented premises belonging to one Ratnamma.

3. According to the complainant, when the accused visited the premises for recording the reading in the meter he informed him about the defect in the meter and also consequence of such defect i.e., back-billing for about six months. It is also on record, for further details the accused directed P.W. 1 through the Junior Engineer. According to the complainant on 13.3.1995 at about 1.30 p.m. the accused was in his house i.e., quarters. He demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- from P.W. 1 as illegal gratification to show an official favour i.e., not issuing back-billing in respect of the meter belonging to the complainant. It is further alleged, he misused his position as meter Reader and demanded Rs.2,000/- to show official favour for not sending back-billing charges to the complainant. It was a total denial on the part of the accused.

4. Totally seven witnesses were examined. Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P. 18 and 12 M.Os. were marked. No evidence was let in so far as defence is concerned.

5. P.W. 1 is the complainant, P.W. 2 is the shadow witness, P.W. 5 is another witness to the entrustment and also seizure mahazars, P.W. 3 is the sanctioning authority for launching the prosecution. P.W. 4 is the Junior Engineer under whom the accused was working and he described the duties and functions of accused, P.W. 6 is the official witness who carried the articles to F.S.L. and P.W. 7 is the I.O. who investigated and filed the charge sheet.

6. Ex.P. 1 is the complaint lodged by P.W. 1 to Lokayuktha prior to the alleged incident at 1.30 p.m. As per the contents of Ex.P. 1, the illegal gratification amounted to Rs.5,000/- was demanded creating apprehension in the mind of P.W. 1 that there will be disconnection of power supply if such amount was not paid and they would also issue back bill for Rs.10,000/-. On receipt of the complaint, Crime No. 8 of 1995 came to be registered with Lokayuktha Police and they also conduct entrustment mahazar in the presence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 who speaks about the trap mahazar as per Ex.P. 3 wherein twenty Rs.100/- notes treated with phenolphthalene powder were handed over to P.W. 1 with the instruction that only on demand from the accused such amount may be handed over.P.Ws. 2 and 5 apart from I.O.-P.W. 7 speak about the entrustment mahazar and proceeding to the house of accused.

7. It has come in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 that P.W. 2 alone had accompanied P.W. 1-complainant to the house of accused and entered the house while P.W. 5 was waiting outside for the signal to be given by P.Ws. 1 and 2. It would be relevant, to refer to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 1. According to the deposition of P.W. 1 the amount demanded Rs.7,000/- to keep quiet and this is not to disconnect and not to issue back billing. Rs.7,000/- was demanded by the Assistant Engineer, the amount had to be handed over to the accused-Appellant. Even the demand made by the Assistant Engineer was revealed to the complainant by his brother Ravi, who is not examined before the Court. He further says they did not have Rs.7,000/- therefore they informed the accused and the line man that they would go to the Assistant Engineer and pay the money on 11.3.1995.

8. However, on 12.3.1995 for not keeping up their word power supply was disconnected. According to him, the accused came to him asking why the amount was not paid to the Assistant Engineer and he promised the acc