JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.:-Leave granted.

2. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) by the learned Special Judge, Bangalore, and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer a further rigorous imprisonment for two months on the first score and four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and on failure to pay fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months on the second count, with the stipulation that both the sentences shall be concurrent.

3. In appeal, the High Court of Karnataka by the impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment from four years as far as the imposition of sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act is concerned and maintained the sentence in respect of the offence under Section 7 of the Act.

4. The accusations which led to the trial of the accused-appellant are that H.R. Prakash, PW-1, the owner of Prakash Transport, was having a contract for the transport of transformers belonging to Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane (KAVIKA), Bangalore, and the said agreement was for the period 15.9.2000 to 14.9.2001. Under the said agreement, the transporter was required to transport transformers from Bangalore to various places all over Karnataka. Despite the agreement for transportation, three months prior to the lodgment of the complaint, the transport operator did not get adequate transport work. The appellant, who was working as Superintendent of KAVIKA, Bangalore, was incharge of the dispatch department and, therefore, PW-1 approached him. At that juncture, a demand of Rs.10,000/- was made as illegal gratification to give him more transport loads. The accused-appellant categorically told PW-1 that unless the amount was paid, no load could be allotted to his company. Eventually, a bargain was struck for payment of Rs.5,000/- to get the load. As PW-1 was not interested in giving the bribe amount to the accused, he approached the Lokayukta and lodged a complaint as per Exht. P-1 which was registered as Criminal Case No. 9 of 2001. The investigating agency of Lokayukta, after completing the formalities, got a trap conducted. During the trap, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was recovered from the custody of the accused. After completion of all the formalities, sanction order was obtained from the competent authority and charge sheet was placed before the competent court for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

5. The accused persons pleaded innocence and took the plea of false implication.

6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked the documents, Exhts. P-1 to P- 12, and brought on record MOs-1 to 12. The defence, in order to establish its stand, examined a singular witness, DW-1.

7. The learned trial Judge posed three questions, namely, (i) whether the sanction order obtained to prosecute the accused was valid and proper; (ii) whether the prosecution had been able to prove that the accused had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- as a motive or reward for the purpose of showing an official favour to the complainant, i.e., allotting transport loads and thereby committed the offence under Section 7 of the Act; and (iii) whether the prosecution had proven that the accused, by means of corrupt and illegal means, abused his position and obtained a pecuniary advantage in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, as a result of which he committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The learned Special Judge, analyzing the evidence on record, answered all the questions in the affirmative and came to hold that the prosecution had been able to brin