Once the demand and acceptance of a gratification is proved, the presumption arises that the accused received the amount as a motive or reward for showing official favor, unless rebutted by strong and convincing evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is arraigned as accused in Spl. C.C. No. 34/2006. The learned IV Addl. Dist. Judge & Special Judge, Belgaum has convicted the accused No.1-appellant herein for the offences punishable u/S 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 (for short P.C. Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the aforesaid offences and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/S 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

2. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned special counsel for the Lokayuktha and I have carefully perused the entire materials on record.

3. The brief facts that emanate from the records are that, the accused No.1-Ravi Bhimappa Avaradi was working as Village Accountant of Mahishwadgi village in Athani taluk, Belgaum district. It is alleged that the land bearing No. 296/5 and 257/1 were standing in the name of the father of the complainant Shrenik Chandappa Upadaya and there was a dispute between the complainants father and one Shripal Parish Upadaya of the same village. The said dispute was decided in favour of the complainant by the Civil court, Athani. After disposal of the said case the complainants father had given application to the Tahasildar for making diary entries as per the order of the Court. The said application was forwarded to the appellant being the concerned Village Accountant for further work. In this context it is alleged that the complainants father met the appellant many times requesting for the said work. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 05.10.2005 the complainant met the appellant in his private office at Athani. It is alleged that the accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/- for to do the favourable work to the complainant. The complainant, in fact expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and on bargaining, the same was reduced to Rs.2,500/-. It is the further case of the complainant that he gave Rs.500/- as advance and told that the balance amount will be paid within 4 or 5 days. As the complainant did not wish to pay any bribe to the accused, he lodged a complaint before the Lokayuktha Police, who have laid the trap against the accused.

4. It is alleged that on 11.10.2005 the complainant and other shadow witness went to the office of the accused (private office) at Athani and it is alleged that the accused No.1 has demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- for the purpose of doing official favour to the complainant and insisted to give the same to accused No.2- Bhimappa Mallappa Janwad who was sitting there in the office. Accordingly, in the presence of appellant-accused No.1 himself the complainant gave the said amount to the hands of accused No.2 on the direction issued by accused No.1. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused has demanded and accepted the said bribe amount as illegal gratification for the purpose of showing official favour in favour of the complainant by abusing his position as a public servant and thereby committed the above said offence. The accused No.2 was also charged for the offence of receiving the said bribe amount at the instance of accused No.1 a sum of Rs.2,000/- and he has also committed the offence u/S 8 of the P.C. Act.

5. During the pendency of the case before the trial Court, the accused No.2 died and the proceedings against him was abated. Accused No.1 (appellant herein) was found guilty for the above said sections and the trial Court has recorded the judgment of conviction and sentenced the accused for the above said offences, against which, the present appeal is preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued before this Court that though there was some evidence placed before the Court by the