These two appeals are disposed of by a

common judgment as they arise from judgment

dated 26.7.2012 in PCA CC No. 1/2011 on the file

of Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar.

2. In Criminal Appeal No. 885/2012, the

appellant (referred to as ‘accused’) was convicted

for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)

read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

(for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of

two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default

sentence for three months for the offence under

section 7 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for

a period of two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with

default sentence of three months for the offence

under section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.

:: 4 ::

3. Criminal Appeal No. 153/2013 is preferred

by Lokayukta seeking enhancement of sentence.

4. The events resulting in prosecution of the

accused are that PW1, Chikka Reddappa, while

working as a Police Constable at Vemgal Police

Station, Kolar District, applied for the post of a

lecturer in Government Junior Colleges with the

prior

permission

of

department

and

got

selected as a lecturer in Economics. He was

posted to Mangaluru Government Junior College,

Yelaburga. On 3.10.2009, he gave a requisition

to the Superintendent of Police for issuing the

relieving letter. Accused was working as a clerk in

establishment

branch

of

office

of

Superintendent of Police. The allegation is that

the accused demanded for a bribe of Rs.8,000/-

for issuing the relieving order and at last he

demanded for Rs.5,000/-. On 6.10.2009 when

PW1 met the accused, he threatened the former

:: 5 ::

saying that unless Rs.5,000/- was given to him, he

would write a letter to the Education Department

for canceling his selection as a lecturer. When PW1

said that he was unable to arrange Rs.5,000/-, the

accused

then

scaled

down

demand

to

Rs.4,000/-. As PW1 was not ready to pay the

bribe, he went to Lokayukta Police Station, Kolar,

and made a report on 7.10.2009 as per Ex.P1. FIR

was registered, trap was laid on the said day

against

accused

and

tainted

money

of

Rs.4,000/-

was

recovered

from

accused.

Thereafter charge sheet came to be filed after

further investigation.

5. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses,

PWs1 to 9 and relied on 25 documents, Exs.P1 to

P25, and 9 material objects MOs1 to 9. During

trial, the defence got marked four documents as

per Exs.D1 to D4.

:: 6 ::

6. I have heard the arguments of Sri

S.P.Kulkarni, learned senior counsel, appearing on

behalf of Sri J.I.Kittur, learned counsel for the

accused and Sri B.S.Prasad, learned standing

counsel for Lokayukta.

7. Sri S.P.Kulkarni, learned senior counsel

for the appellant, attacked the judgment of the

trial court on two grounds, namely the prosecution

of the accused was bad for the reason that PW6

was not the sanctioning authority and the sanction

order issued by him does not disclose application

of mind. His argument was that the accused was

appointed by the government on compassionate

ground

and

therefore

authority

to

issue

sanction

was

government,

not

PW6,

Superintendent of Police. Second point he argued

was that if the sanction order as per Ex.P18 is

perused, it may be seen that there was no

application of mind by PW6. The answers given by

:: 7 ::

him in the cross-examination indicate that after

PW6

sanction

order,

ADGP,

Lokayukta communicated to him suggesting some

corrections to be incorporated in the sanction

order. PW6

has admitted

to have received

communication. Moreover PW6 has admitted that

the draft orders were also provided to him. For

these reasons, a clear inference could be drawn

that PW6 did not apply his mind while passing the

sanction order and in support of this line of

argument,

he

has

placed

reliance

two

judgments (1) A.Muraleedharan vs State of

Kerala

[1986

Crl.LJ

904]

and

(2)

C.V.Krishnamurthy vs State [2019 (1) KCCR

S.N.1].

8. Sri B.S.Prasad countered this argument by

arguing that