” This appeal is preferred by the appellant accused being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 6.12.2010 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysore, in Spl.Case No.71/2007 on the grounds mentioned at ground Nos.7 to 19 of the appeal memorandum.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Lokayuktha police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the ' Act-” ). The accused was working as FDA in Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru on 15.9.2006. When the complainant N. Krishna approached him for issue of sale deed, the accused demanded Rs.1,000/- from the complainant as gratification other than legal remuneration as motive for showing official favour. Pursuant to the said demand, the accused accepted the sum of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant on 16.9.2006 as illegal gratification and he being the public servant has misused his official position and by corrupt or illegal means, obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.1,000/- for himself from the complainant. Hence, case was registered and then, the entrustment and trap mahazars were conducted and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and produced the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 to 9. After considering the merits of the case, ultimately, the Special Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and also the learned SPP for the respondent Lokayuktha.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the demand said to have been made by the accused for the bribe amount is not proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that the accused took charge on the very same day, when the alleged trap was laid, and no work of the complainant was pending with the accused. It is also his submission that P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Looking to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, P.W.2, who was panch witness to entrustment mahazar, was not present when the alleged demand for the bribe was made by the accused. In the evidence at Para Nos.10, 11 and 14, P.W.2 has clearly stated that accused has not committed any offence. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that perusing the evidence of P.W.3, sanction order is not in accordance with Section 19 of the Act and it is bad in law. The evidence of P.W.4 goes to show that no liquid was found in the bottle and hence, there is no corroborative evidence by P.W.4 about the alleged demand for bribe by the accused person. P.W.4 deposed that Krishna is the accused present before the court. The learned senior counsel also submitted that unless demand is proved satisfactorily, mere recovery of the currency notes is not sufficient. The accused is not the authority to make the allotment of site. Lastly, he made the submission that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has relied upon the following decisions:

i. In the case of Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana (Judgment dated 05.04.2010 in Crl.A.630/2003 ' - Supreme Court of India) : (AIR 2010 SC 1589)

ii. In the case of Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat

(Judgment dated 24.04.2002 in Appeal (Crl.)546/2002 ' - Supreme Court of India) : (AIR 2003 SC 2169)

7. Per contra, the learned Spl.P.P appearing for respondent made the submission that looking to the materials produced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary, it has proved its case