The court affirmed that evidence of legal gratification was conclusive, thereby confirming the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and emphasizing the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

M G Uma, J.

The accused in Spl.Case.No.63/2009, on the file of the learned Principal Session Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, is impugning the Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 01.07.2013, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act'), and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that, the complainant had filed an application for change of khatha of his property situated at Sathanur village. The accused was working as a Bill Collector in Revenue Department at Hunasamaranahalli Grama Panchayat. To do the official favour, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.7,000/-, out of which, he received Rs.2,500/-. He again demanded the balance amount of Rs.4,500/- on 24.03.2008. Since the complainant was not interested in paying the illegal gratification, he filed the first information with Lokayuktha Police. Lokayuktha Police conducted pre-trap panchanama, entrusted the amount of Rs.4,500/- to the complainant and asked him to go and meet the accused along with the shadow witness- PW2. Accordingly, the complainant and the shadow witness went and met the accused and asked for change of khatha. The accused again demanded the illegal gratification, and received Rs.4,500/- tendered by the complainant. The accused being the public servant demanded and accepted the illegal gratification to show the official favour and thus, committed misconduct punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act. The Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the above said offences and summoned the accused. Accused has appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5, got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and identified MOs.1 to 10 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. However, Exs.D1 to D2 got marked during cross examination of PW1.

4. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, passed the impugned order convicting the accused for the above said offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

5. Heard Smt. Rajeshwari. M, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

My answer to the above point is in 'Partly Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

7. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused was working as a