This appeal is preferred by appellant/accused No.2 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.06.2011 passed in Spl.CC.No.6/2006 by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount he shall undergo SI for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint Ex.P-3 is that one Shylendra Babu S/o C.Shankar Reddy, who is PW-2, lodged the complaint alleging that his father acquired the property measuring 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.102/4 in Challakere Village Ring Road near Hennur Bansawadi Road. BDA acquired 23 guntas in said Sy.No.102/4 for the purpose of formation of ring road. Alternatively BDA gave three sites in HRBR Layout Block No.1 measuring 50 x 80 feet registered in the name of father of the complainant. To get the khata in respect of said sites, applications were filled in the name of his father and about six months back the same were submitted with Bangalore Mahanagar Palike Revenue Office at Shivaji Nagar, Commercial Street, Dispensary Road, but the Revenue Inspector Sri. C. B. Kumar-aswamy troubling the complainant on one or the other reason. On 27.04.2005 when the complainant enquired with Sri. B. Kumarswamy in his office for effecting the khata in respect of 3 sites, said Revenue Inspector told the complainant to pay the fees of Rs.10,500/- and to pay the bribe amount, totally the complainant has to pay Rs.45,000/-, then only he will effect the khata. On 28.04.2005 said Revenue Inspector told the complainant to bring Rs.10,500/- fees and Rs.20,000/- bribe amount, and after the khata was kept ready, he can pay the remaining bribe amount of Rs.25,000/-. Complainant was ready to pay fees amount of Rs.10,500/- but he was not willing to pay the bribe amount of Rs.45,000/- as demanded by Sri. C. B. Kum-arswamy. Hence, he lodged the complaint requesting to take legal action against the said Revenue Inspector.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered in Lokayukta Police Station Crime No.13/2005 for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. After conducting and completing the investigation, Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the said offences.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined six witnesses as PWs-1 to 6 and got marked the documents Exs.P-1 to P-25 and the material objects M.Os.1 to 14.

6. After considering the said materials, ultimately the Trial Court convicted appellant/accused No.2 for the said offences. Hence, appellant is before this Court.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused No.2 and the arguments of the learned Spl.PP for respondent/Lokayukta.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that allegations are only against accused No.1. Prakash and father of PW-2 has not been examined by the prosecution. PW-3/Nagaveni Kumari acted as panch witness in 8 other cases and she is a professional panch witness to the Lokayukta cases. Shadow witness has not been examined though he is very much alive. He has submitted that the evidence of complainant is not corroborated by the shadow witness. The authority, who issued the sanction order had not applied the mind to the materials and mechanically issued the sanction order. The appellant/accused No.2 was not having any pending work of the complainant to show official favour to the complainant. Hence, the learned counsel has submitted that prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case as against accused No.2. Hence, submitted to acquit the appellant/accused No.2.

9. Per contra, the learned Spl.PP for the Lokayukta during the course of his arguments submit