A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J.

1. The appellant was convicted 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'), by the learned Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural and Urban Districts, Bengaluru and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each count, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 months with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run consecutively.

2. The accusation which led to the trial of the appellant-accused is, that one Rakesh B. Jain (P.W. 2), lodged a complaint vide Ex. P. 6, alleging that on 18-7-1997, he submitted an application on behalf of his aunt, Smt. Bharati Ashok Jain (P.W. 7), for issue of a 'House plan', along with allotment letter paying the prescribed fee. The application was submitted before the Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board, and in connection with the same, P.W. 2 approached the accused-appellant, who was working as a Junior Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board, No. 2 Sub-Division, Kengeri Satellite Town. It was alleged that the accused being a public servant, demanded Rs. 1,000/- for the purpose of issue of 'House plan' and asked him to approach with the money. As P.W. 2 was not interested in paying the demanded amount, he lodged complaint vide Ex. P. 6, and the Lokayukta Police registered criminal case in Crime No. 37 of 1997 (Ex. P. 12) and arranged for a trap. The Investigating Agency of Lokayukta, after completing the formalities, conducted the trap on 5-11-1997 and 6-11-1997. During the trap conducted on 6-11-1997, Rs. 1,000/- (M.O. 5) was recovered from the person of the accused. After completion of the investigation, sanction order vide Ex. P. 11 was obtained from T. Timmegowda (P.W. 6) and charge-sheet was placed before the Special Court for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The accused having appeared in response to the summons issued, pleaded innocence and took the plea of false accusation.

3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case against the accused, examined 9 witnesses, as P.Ws. 1 to 9 and marked the documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 17 and brought on record-M.Os. 1 to 11. The accused, in order to establish his stand, examined one Lakshmamma, as D.W. 1. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 denied the allegations and has submitted a statement in connection with his defence.

4. The learned Trial Judge having regard to the rival contentions, raised the following points for consideration:

(i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused, being public servant, working as Junior Engineer, No. 2 Sub-Division, KHB, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore. On 6-11-1997 at about 6.15 p.m. has demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- from P.W. 2-Rakesh B. Jain as a motive or reward, to show official favour in favour of complainant in connection with issuing of a copy of the plan pertaining to the house belonging to one Smt. Bharathi Ashok Jain, aunt of the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(ii) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused, while working as a public servant, by corruptor illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant obtained for himself a pecuniary advantage of Rs. 1,000/- on 6-11-1997 at about 6.15 p.m. from the complainant and thereby committed an offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(iii) Whether the sanction order obtained to prosecute the accused persons produced in this case is valid and proper?

(iv) What order?

5. The learned Trial Judge divided the case into four segments as follows:

1. Pre-complaint stage - wherein the prosecution wants to prove dem