Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, once the prosecution proves the acceptance of an undue advantage by a public servant, the law presumes the existence of gratification as a motive or reward, shifting the burden onto the accused to prove their innocence.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION SENTENCE DATED 27.04.2013 PASSED BY THE SPL. JUDGE, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.92/2008 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(d) P/U/S 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 6 MONTHS AND PAY FINE OF RS.100/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 15 DAYS. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 YEAR AND PAY FINE OF RS.200/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 1 MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 13(1)(d) R/W SEC. 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is by the accused being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2013 passed in Special C.C.No.92/2008 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City (trial Court) by which the trial Court has passed the following:

ORDER

Under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused Mr.K.Govindappa is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7, and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His bail bond stands cancelled.

2. Case of the prosecution is that one Asha K.Nayak, wife of complainant -PW1 and her colleague Sheela Shetty, had submitted forms for C.G.F.N.S course (Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools) had paid prescribed fee of Rs.1,000/- in the form of demand drafts. And in this connection, complainant had gone to the Karnataka Nursing Council, Surya Apartment No.71, A Street, Anandarao Extension, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, to submit the applications and had handed over the same to the concerned clerk. At that time the said clerk demanded Rs.250/- for each application. The complainant had replied that he had no money to which the said clerk had stated that he would not receive the applications without money and accordingly the complainant was sent back.

3. In this connection a complaint was lodged which was registered in Crime No.5/2004 for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `P.C. Act').

4. After successful trap and drawing up of mahazar in that regard, a charge sheet is filed alleging that accused/appellant, was working as a `D' group employee of Karnataka State Nursing Council, Surya Apartment No.71, A Street, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, and was a `Public Servant'. That he had demanded a sum of Rs.250/- each from Asha K. Nayak and Sheela Shetty. And since he had demanded the money which was paid, he was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act. Charges framed, read over and accused denied and sought to be tried.

5. Prosecution examined five witnesses as PW1 to PW5. Exhibited 19 documents P1 to P19 and 13 material objects MO1 to MO13. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and he pleaded and denied the incriminating evidence brought against him.

6. Trial court framed the following point for its consideration:

"(i). Whether the prosecution proves that the accused while working as `D'