JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, J.--This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction of the Appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. 2. In brief the facts that led to the filing of the case by the prosecution is as under: During 1995 the Appellant was working as Meter Reader in K.E.B. N-3, Sub-Division Office, Basaveshwaranagar. It is not in dispute the complainant-Rajan who is examined as P.W. 1 along with his friend Ravi was running a cable T.V. net work called "Raj Video Vision" in rented premises belonging to one Ratnamma. 3. According to the complainant, when the accused visited the premises for recording the reading in the meter he informed him about the defect in the meter and also consequence of such defect i.e., back-billing for about six months. It is also on record, for further details the accused directed P.W. 1 through the Junior Engineer. According to the complainant on 13.3.1995 at about 1.30 p.m. the accused was in his house i.e., quarters. He demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- from P.W. 1 as illegal gratification to show an official favour i.e., not issuing back-billing in respect of the meter belonging to the complainant. It is further alleged, he misused his position as meter Reader and demanded Rs.2,000/- to show official favour for not sending back-billing charges to the complainant. It was a total denial on the part of the accused. 4. Totally seven witnesses were examined. Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P. 18 and 12 M.Os. were marked. No evidence was let in so far as defence is concerned. 5. P.W. 1 is the complainant, P.W. 2 is the shadow witness, P.W. 5 is another witness to the entrustment and also seizure mahazars, P.W. 3 is the sanctioning authority for launching the prosecution. P.W. 4 is the Junior Engineer under whom the accused was working and he described the duties and functions of accused, P.W. 6 is the official witness who carried the articles to F.S.L. and P.W. 7 is the I.O. who investigated and filed the charge sheet. 6. P.W. 4 is the Junior Engineer under whom the accused was working and he described the duties and functions of accused, P.W. 6 is the official witness who carried the articles to F.S.L. and P.W. 7 is the I.O. who investigated and filed the charge sheet. 6. Ex.P. 1 is the complaint lodged by P.W. 1 to Lokayuktha prior to the alleged incident at 1.30 p.m. As per the contents of Ex.P. 1, the illegal gratification amounted to Rs.5,000/- was demanded creating apprehension in the mind of P.W. 1 that there will be disconnection of power supply if such amount was not paid and they would also issue back bill for Rs.10,000/-. On receipt of the complaint, Crime No. 8 of 1995 came to be registered with Lokayuktha Police and they also conduct entrustment mahazar in the presence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 who speaks about the trap mahazar as per Ex.P. 3 wherein twenty Rs.100/- notes treated with phenolphthalene powder were handed over to P.W. 1 with the instruction that only on demand from the accused such amount may be handed over.P.Ws. 2 and 5 apart from I.O.-P.W. 7 speak about the entrustment mahazar and proceeding to the house of accused. 7. It has come in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 that P.W. 2 alone had accompanied P.W. 1-complainant to the house of accused and entered the house while P.W. 5 was waiting outside for the signal to be given by P.Ws. 1 and 2. It would be relevant, to refer to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 1. According to the deposition of P.W. 1 the amount demanded Rs.7,000/- to keep quiet and this is not to disconnect and not to issue back billing. Rs.7,000/- was demanded by the Assistant Engineer, the amount had to be handed over to the accused-Appellant. Even the demand made by the Assistant Engineer was revealed to the complainant by his brother Ravi, who is not examined before the Court. He further says they did not have Rs.7,000/- therefore they informed the accused and the line man that they would go to the Assistant Engineer and pay the money on 11.3.1995. 8. However, on 12.3.1995 for not keeping up their word power supply was disconnected. He further says they did not have Rs.7,000/- therefore they informed the accused and the line man that they would go to the Assistant Engineer and pay the money on 11.3.1995. 8. However, on 12.3.1995 for not keeping up their word power supply was disconnected. According to him, the accused came to him asking why the amount was not paid to the Assistant Engineer and he promised the accused he would positively pay the amount on the same day at his residence. But by evening on the advice of his friend Mr. Ravi, he decided to lodge a complaint before the Lokayuktha and approached Lokayuktha on 13.3.1995. What is relevant to be noticed here is the contents of the complaint never speak about the demand by the Assistant Engineer through Ravi or through the accused-Appellant. It was a direct demand from the accused himself for showing some official favour i.e., not to disconnect the power supply and issue back billing. By the time it came for evidence the version is altogether different including the quantum of amount demanded. It becomes Rs.7,000/- and the demand was not from the Appellant but it was Assistant Engineer. 9. According to the complainant when thy went to the house, the accused refused to receive the money saying he did not bring the entire amount of Rs.7,000/-. It is also not mentioned in the complaint that entire amount was not brought. If we take the contents of complaint the entire amount would come to Rs.5,000/- and as per the deposition the amount of demand was Rs.7,000/-. The entire evidence of P.W. 1 nowhere says there was demand from the Appellant-accused for the amount and he handed over Rs.2,000/- to him. On the other hand, he says he forcibly kept Rs.2,000/- in his pocket and on his request the accused counted the same and kept in his shirt pocket. He further says he requested him to connect the power supply to enable him to run the cable. P.W. 2 with regard to the same facts deposes, when they went to the house of the accused they saw the scooter of the accused and saw the inmates of the house as well. According to this man, the accused asked P.W. 1 whether the amount was brought and PW-1 replied that he borrowed the amount from P.W. 2. P.W. 2 with regard to the same facts deposes, when they went to the house of the accused they saw the scooter of the accused and saw the inmates of the house as well. According to this man, the accused asked P.W. 1 whether the amount was brought and PW-1 replied that he borrowed the amount from P.W. 2. He further says the accused informed him that Rs.2,000/- was not sufficient for him, as he had to share it to three or four persons. But however, the accused received Rs.2,000/- and kept the said amount in his pocket. Then they came out of the house. No further talk took place between P.W. 1 and the accused when the money was given to the accused by P.W. 1. If P.W. 1 informed that money was borrowed from P.W. 2 while handing over Rs.2,000/- to the accused, definitely P.W. 1 ought to have stated the exact words he used during the talk at the important point of time. On the other hand, P.W. 1 says the accused refused to receive the money and he forcibly kept it in his pocket but the evidence of P.W. 2 is not to the said effect. He only says he was saying that it was not sufficient. However, in the cross-examination P.W. 2 admits at para-6 that there was no demand for the amount from the accused to P.W. 1. On close perusal of Para-6 one could gather that he was not at all ready to speak the truth before the Court and he gave all evasive answers to the suggestion made by the learned Counsel for the accused. Many of the answer are to the effect that he does not remember. If he could remember all other details like entrustment mahazar etc., how he could not remember the details at the exact time of demand and payment of illegal gratification which is to be explained by the prosecution. He could not even remember the exact contents of Ex.P. 3 even after going through the contents of Ex.P. 3. So for as Para-9 is concerned, he cannot even remember whether he stated before the police about the payment of Rs.2,000/- when he accompanied P.W. 1 to the house of the accused. He does not remember about the statement of the accused that he had to share it with three or four persons. So for as Para-9 is concerned, he cannot even remember whether he stated before the police about the payment of Rs.2,000/- when he accompanied P.W. 1 to the house of the accused. He does not remember about the statement of the accused that he had to share it with three or four persons. The entire evidence of P.W. 2 when compared to the evidence of P.W. 1 would point out that P.W. 2 reluctantly deposed and finally he admits that he is aware that if he does not depose before the Court as per the contents of mahazar, he would be put to trouble by Lokayuktha. This would definitely goes to show that he was only obliging Lokayuktha and was not ready to say what exactly happened. The very purpose of examining the shadow witness is to rule out possibility of complainant accomplishing their revenge against the public servant for not obliging certain demands of the public. Therefore unless the evidence of the complainant and the shadow witness corroborate with each other it is not safe to convict the accused persons. 10. The entire evidence of P.W. 1 suggests that it was the Assistant Engineer who demanded the money but he want to pay the money to the meter reader. If the accused was the agent or was the person collecting on behalf of the Assistant Engineer then Section 13 is attracted. So far as Section 7 is concerned, the person who is accused should demand and receive illegal gratification to do an official favour. In the present case so far as Section 7 is concerned even the trial Court Judge has rightly said none of the ingredients of Section 7 were established by the prosecution. So far as Section 13 is concerned, the above evidence would go to show that he was not even accepting the money on behalf of the Assistant Engineer but money was kept forcibly in his pocket by the complainant. 11. As already stated above, in the absence of corroboration for his evidence by P.W. 2 no reliance could be placed on the statement of P.W. 1 and conviction cannot be sustained. So far as Section 7 there is presumption but so far as Section 13 no such presumption could be raised. 11. As already stated above, in the absence of corroboration for his evidence by P.W. 2 no reliance could be placed on the statement of P.W. 1 and conviction cannot be sustained. So far as Section 7 there is presumption but so far as Section 13 no such presumption could be raised. Even other wise, the evidence placed by the prosecution do not establish the charges levelled against the accused either under Section 7 or under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 12. Coming to the question of sanction, though the learned Government Pleader submits it was the Superintending Engineer who was the appointing authority and also the sanctioning authority for launching prosecution, he is not able to place before the Court any material in support of his contention. 13. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Appellant brought to the notice of the Court Regulation 14-A Sub-clause (e) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal Regulations, 1987 where the Board alone is the competent authority to impose a penalty on the delinquent employees. It also refers to an investigation into the misconduct by Lokayuktha and the departmental enquiry done in the Board. The Board would be the sole authority to remove or dismiss he delinquent employee. In case proof of misconduct the Board would be alone sanctioning or competent authority to sanction the prosecution. P.W. 3 speaks about the sanction issued by him as Superintending Engineer as per Ex.P. 4. But if we go through the entire evidence it is clear that based on the report of the Lokayuktha without exercising his independent mind to the facts put forth before him he sanctioned prosecution of the Appellant. In other words, it is nothing but mechanical order without exercising his mind to the facts available. There is nothing on the sanctioning order or Ex.P. 4, which would go to show he had an opportunity to look into the relevant papers or records before sanctioning the prosecution. Therefore, apart from being the sanctioning authority even sanction granted by him is not in accordance with law and it has no sanctity. 14. Viewed from any angle the judgment and order of conviction passed against the Appellant cannot be sustained and accordingly it is reversed. 15. Hence, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 14. Viewed from any angle the judgment and order of conviction passed against the Appellant cannot be sustained and accordingly it is reversed. 15. Hence, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bail bond and the surety bond stands cancelled. If any fine amount is in deposit the same shall be returned to the Appellant-accused.