Budihal R.B., J.

1. Since these two appeals are arising out of the common judgment and since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they have been taken up together to dispose of them by common judgment. Cri. Appeal No. 764 of 2009 is preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in Special Case No. 63 of 2004, dated 8-9-2009.

2. Cri. Appeal No. 284 of 2010 is preferred by the appellant-complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of inadequate sentence dated 8-9-2009 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in Spl. Case No. 63 of 2004.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Shamanna is the complainant in this case. It is alleged that complainant is a resident of Vijayapura Village of Devanahalli Taluk. Smt. M. Nagarathnamma is his elder sister. In Sy. No. 287 of Vijayapura, property measuring 35 x 35 feet (site) stands in the name of his elder sister's husband's father viz., Chikkaveerappa. The said site is in possession of M. Nagrathnamma, her husband had died. She sought for change of katha in the year 2000. In this regard, an application was submitted to Tahsildar, Devanahalli. Thereafter, a surveyor has come from the office of the Tahsildar, prepared the sketch after inspecting the property. Then, for change of the katha, records were sent to the Revenue Inspector, Vijaykumar i.e., the accused. But the accused has not transferred the katha and he was postponing the same. In this regard, complainant's elder sister has contacted the accused, even then her work was not done. So complainant's elder sister has given the GPA in favour of complainant. So he contacted the accused, requested to do the work of his sister. Then, the accused has demanded Rs. 5,000/- for transfer of katha. But complainant explained that they are poor, they cannot pay Rs. 5,000/-. Finally, the accused has asked at least to pay Rs. 4,000/- and to pay the said amount on 1-8-2002 at the residence or at the office of the accused and promised to change the katha. As the complainant was not interested to pay the bribe amount to the accused, he approached the Lokayukta Police and lodged the complaint dated 31-7-2002 as per Ex. P. 1.

4. It is also the case of the prosecution that, on the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered as per Ex. P. 10. Thereafter, the entrustment mahazar was prepared in the office of Lokayukta as per Ex. P. 2. Trap was laid against the accused as per mahazar-Ex. P. 3. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. Then, the Trial Court, after framing the charge, conducted the trial against the accused and ultimately considering the oral and documentary evidence so also the material objects, convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Trial Court, appellant/accused has challenged the legality and correctness of the said judgment; and the appellant-State in another appeal challenged the sentence imposed on the accused that it is inadequate and hence, sought for enhancement of sentence.

7. The appellants in respective appeals have challenged the judgment and order of the Trial Court on the grounds urged in their respective appeal memorandums.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for appellant/accused in Cri. A. No. 764 of 2009, who was also the Counsel for the respondent in Cri. A. No. 284 of 2010 so also heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent in Cri. A. No. 764 of 2009, who was also the appellant in Cri. A. No. 284 of 2010.

9. Lea