JUDGMENT:

This criminal appeal is preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Prl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysore in Special case No.69/2004 dated 26.06.2010 convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The factual matrix of the appeal is that the accused was working as FDA at Nataka Karnataka Rangayana, Kalamandira, Mysore. It is stated that on 27.08.2002, accused demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from C.W.1 – Aluru Doddaningappa who was working as Attender in the Rangayana, as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for showing official favour that is to submit the records pertaining to the arrears of salary of C.W.1 to the higher authority for sanction. In this regard, CW.1 gave a complaint to the Lokayukta Police on 28.08.2002 and based on the said complaint, the Lokayukta Police Inspector conducted Entrust mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and later the trap was laid and seizure mahazar was conducted. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Subsequent to laying of charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences, the accusation was read over and explained to the accused and he did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate the case against the accused, in all examined seven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and also got marked M.Os.1 to 9.

4. Subsequent to the closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but the accused denied the incriminating statement appeared against him and he did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On the part of the accused Exs.D1 to D3 were got marked.

5. The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused and the Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta, rendered the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months imprisonment. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned Spl.P.P. for the respondent – Lokayukta.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the court below erred in convicting the appellant based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which is highly interested, contradictory, unreliable and artificial. He contends that the evidence of PW.1 said to be the author of complaint as per Ex.P1 is full of material omissions and contradictions and the same does not speak about the demand or acceptance as alleged by the prosecution.

8. He further contends that the Court below has committed serious error in convicting the appellant relying on the sanction order as per Ex.P5 issued by PW.6 which is not a valid order and the same was not accorded as per law. The trial Court erred in convicting the appellant since PW.2 who is a panch witness to Ex.P2 – Entrust Mahazar is a stock witness and thus, he being a untrustworthy witness, his evidence could not have been relied by the trial Court. The conviction of the appellant based upon his evidence is bad in law.

9. He further contends that the Court below ought to have taken the defence statement as recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the documents as per Exs.D1 to D3 which clearly shows that a false case is foisted against the appellant. Further, it is contended that Court below committed serious error in convicting the appell