JUDGMENT L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J.—There are two appeals filed against the order passed in Special Case No. 28/2001 by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. Now the appeal filed before this Court by the Lokayuktha Police for enhancement of punishment and the appeal filed by the accused is for setting aside the same. 2. The prosecution submitted that the punishment awarded by the Sessions Judge is not in consonance with the gravity of offence. Hence he submitted to enhance the same and the accused has submitted that the prosecution has not proved itself beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the order suffers and liable to be set aside. 3. Since both the appellants have submitted by challenging the order passed in Special Case No. 28/2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, heard both the parties and passed this common order. 4. The facts of the case are as follows: The complaint has been lodged by P.W. 10 who is the brother’s son of P.W. 12, whose lands have been submerged and under the special scheme he was eligible for rehabilitation. Accordingly, he made an application to the Rehabilitation Center under the specific provisions of the said scheme, he could get similar extent of land of his choice. P.W. 12 wanted to purchase certain extent of land and the prospective seller who will receive the sale consideration directly from the office. When P.W. 12 made effort to get the compensation, according to him the accused who was working as Revenue Inspector in Rehabilitation Center at Bilagi has demanded Rs. 5,000/- as bribe to get the compensation sanctioned from Alamatti Office, in order to negotiate P.W. 12 asked P.W. 10 to make effort to get the compensation amount from the accused office. Now the complaint was made by P.W. 10-complainant and stated that he told the accused that he will pay Rs. 1,000/- for which the accused has made a demand of Rs. 2,000/- as a bribe in order to release the compensation amount towards the prospective seller of the land. 5. The land of P.W. 12-Ramappa was submerged in U.K.P. Towards the same Government has sanctioned of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. He had applied to Rehabilitation Center at Bilagi in connection with the said compensation, P.W. 10 had approached the accused who was the Revenue Inspector working at Rehabilitation Center at Billagi. It is alleged that the accused has demanded Rs. The land of P.W. 12-Ramappa was submerged in U.K.P. Towards the same Government has sanctioned of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. He had applied to Rehabilitation Center at Bilagi in connection with the said compensation, P.W. 10 had approached the accused who was the Revenue Inspector working at Rehabilitation Center at Billagi. It is alleged that the accused has demanded Rs. 2,000/- from the complaint in order to send the concerned documents to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Alamatti and get sanctioned the amount on compassionate grounds. When the complainant requested the accused to reduce the amount, the accused did not consider and told the complainant that on payment of Rs. 2,000/- only the cheque will be issued. On 16.12.1997, P.W. 10 had approached the accused and gave the demanded amount of Rs. 1,000/- and requested him to issue the cheque. Accepting the same, the accused further demanded remaining of Rs. 1,000/- for which P.W. 10 requested the accused that he would pay the remaining amount on 18.12.1997. On the said date, P.W. 10 had approached the Lokayuktha Inspector, Bijapur and recorded the complaint which is marked as Ex. P10 and registered a case in Crime No. 9/2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and issued FIR. Thereafter, entrustment mahazar was made as per Ex. P2. In the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 Rs. 1,000/- has been collected from the complainant (20 currency notes of Rs. 50/- denomination each) before the police and the Lokayukata Inspector applied Phenophthalein powder to the said currency notes and gave to P.W. 4 to count and again it was given to the complainant with a necessary instruction. When the hands of the P.W. 4 were washed in sodium carbonate solution, the said solution turned into pink colour. On the same day, the trap party went to Bilagi and as per instructions, the complainant alongwith P.W. 1 had approached the accused and as it is stated by P.Ws. 1, 4 and 10 that the accused demanded Rs. 1,000/- and on demand the same has been paid to the accused. The same has been collected and counted and thereafter a signal made to the trap party, they entered into the office and conducted the trap. The statement of the accused was recorded and the other officials’ named P.Ws. 7 and 8 also have been recorded. 1,000/- and on demand the same has been paid to the accused. The same has been collected and counted and thereafter a signal made to the trap party, they entered into the office and conducted the trap. The statement of the accused was recorded and the other officials’ named P.Ws. 7 and 8 also have been recorded. After the trap conducted, the prosecution has recorded the mahazar as per Ex. P1. As per the trap panchanama Ex. P1, the trap team went to Bilagi at 16.00 hours and reached at 17.20 hours near Rehabilitation Center and trap was conducted at 19.30 hours and it is referred in Ex. P1 that after conducting the trap, the hands of the accused were washed in the sodium carbonate solution and it returned into expected (pink) colour. 6. On the basis of the case made out by the prosecution, the case has been registered in special case No. 28/2001 on the file of Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses of which P.W. 1 is the shadow witness who supported the prosecution. P.W. 2 is the police constable who carried FIR to the Court. P.W. 3 is the sanctioning authority to prosecute the accused as per Ex. P7. P.W. 4 is co-pancha presenting during the entrustment mahazar and also the witnesses to the recovery of the bribe amount. P.Ws. 5 and 9 who were presenting during the proceedings. P.W. 6 is the police constable who brought FSL from Bangalore. P.Ws. 7 and 8, Rehabilitation officers at Bilagi. P.W. 10 is complainant. P.W. 11 is Investigating Officer. P.W. 12 is the land owner whose land has been submerged. The documents have been marked by the prosecution, which were marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P13 of which Ex. P1 is trap panchanama. Ex. P2 is the entrustment panchanama, Ex. P6 is the sealed cover containing FIR, Ex. P7 is the sanctioning order, Ex. P10 is the complaint. On the basis of the accused none have been examined as defence witnesses and documents have been marked as Ex. D1 to Ex. D3. Ex. D1 is the statement made by the accused before the police-P.W. 5, Ex. D2 is marked portion on Ex. P10, Ex. D3 is the statement of P.W. 12. 7. The learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that on the basis of the prosecution evidence of P.Ws. D1 to Ex. D3. Ex. D1 is the statement made by the accused before the police-P.W. 5, Ex. D2 is marked portion on Ex. P10, Ex. D3 is the statement of P.W. 12. 7. The learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that on the basis of the prosecution evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 12 are material, P.W. 10 is the complainant, he has deposed in his chief examination that the land owner P.W. 12, the younger brother of his father, they are residing in a joint family. P.W. 12-his uncle owned two acres of land and the same was submerged. The Government was decided to distributing compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the prospective seller. Since P.W. 12 was aged he was looking after the office work. He identified the accused present before the Court and further he submitted that in the month of November, 1997 the accused has demanded the said amount. He asked him to how much amount he would pay, in response he told that he could pay only Rs. 1,000/- for which the accused did not agree. In Rs. 2,000/- as a bribe of which of Rs. 1,000/- amount was paid and for the remaining amount he requested for some time. Accordingly, he made a complaint before the police at Billagi on 18.12.1997. 8. It is further stated that in the chief examination since he did not agree to pay the balance amount and he approached the lokayuktha police on 17.12.1997 at Bagalkot, but the Lokayukta Officer was not available and thereafter he was taken to Bijapur Lokayukata police station during the said night. He further deposed that Ex. P3 who carried FIR to the open Court and the amount which was collected from the complainant of a denomination of Rs. 50/- in twenty numbers and they were spread the powder in the said currency and the same was given back to complainant and kept in the shirt pocket. He went to the Rehabilitation Office alongwith P.Ws. 1, 4 and other officials of Billagi Lokayuktha police. As per the instructions, they went to the office and on demand made by the accused paid the said amount and as per the signal made to the police trap team came inside and caught the accused. He went to the Rehabilitation Office alongwith P.Ws. 1, 4 and other officials of Billagi Lokayuktha police. As per the instructions, they went to the office and on demand made by the accused paid the said amount and as per the signal made to the police trap team came inside and caught the accused. P.W. 1 who is the shadow witness, he also in the chief examination has deposed that he went near the door very close to the accused and P.W. 10 heard the discussions went between the parties and he also witnessed amount demanded by the accused and the amount collected which was kept in the pant pocket. 9. P.W. 2 is the police constable who is in chief examination stated that on 18.12.1997 itself he has carried the FIR to the Court, which shows that P.W. 10 had approached the Lokayukta and made a complaint. P.W. 3 is the Deputy Commissioner of Gulbarga District in his chief examination satisfying himself about the offence committed by the accused. He has given sanction for prosecution. 10. P.W. 4 is the co-pancha present during the entrustment mahazar at Ex. P2 who recovered the amount from the accused. In the chief examination, he has deposed that all the pancha witnesses conducted the trap, thereafter they washed the hands which turned into expected colour. 11. P.W. 5 is the head constable who was present during the proceedings who also supported the prosecution case and the solution collected after washing the hands is seized and the amount collected from the accused is also seized. P.W. 6 is the police constable, who brought the FSL report from Bangalore wherein a reference has been made in the report that the liquid collected is the solution made for the purpose of trap. P.Ws. 7 and 8 were also working in the office of Rehabilitation Center have deposed that on 18.12.1997 the Lokayukta police have trapped the accused. P.W. 11 was working in Lokayukata police, Bagalkot who also supported the prosecution case and deposed that on the said point of time P.W. 10 appeared before him and lodged oral complaint which was reduced to writing complaint as per Ex. P10 and the case has been registered in Crime No. 90/1997 and FIR was sent to the Court in the sealed cover. P10 and the case has been registered in Crime No. 90/1997 and FIR was sent to the Court in the sealed cover. Again P.W. 11 sent a requisition to Water Supply Board and Executive Engineer, PWD, Bijapur to depute a staff each from the said offices to assist investigation in this case. Accordingly, P.Ws. 1 and 4 were returned to his office and they instructed to pay Rs. 1,000/- and the same was given in 20 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 50/-. P.W. 5 was asked to prepare sodium carbonate solution and accordingly it was prepared and narrated the whole proceedings at Billagi to trap the accused. In view of the said evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that the case has been made out beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) read with 32 of P.C. Act for which the proper punishment has not been imposed on the accused. Hence he made a prayer to enhance the punishment on the accused by allowing this appeal and also further submitted to dismiss the appeal filed by the accused. 12. The accused also filed an appeal in No. 1307/2003 by challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot on the following grounds: Primarily it is submitted by him that the accused already retired from his service and at this point of time if any punishment is imposed, it is only hardship to the person and no where a servant, for the purpose of he his punishment. Consequently, he has submitted that there is in built flaw in the prosecution case. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. As per trap panehanama Ex. P1 refers that the jeep in which the trap team went it was parked near the compound of Rehabilitation office the contrary to P.W. 4 who in chief examination has deposed that they parked the jeep one km. away from the office. P.W. 1 is in chief examination has deposed that he is not aware of the proceedings went in the office of the Lokayukta. The accused himself has made a written statement as per Ex. away from the office. P.W. 1 is in chief examination has deposed that he is not aware of the proceedings went in the office of the Lokayukta. The accused himself has made a written statement as per Ex. P12 that there were about 100-150 members together in the office, while going out side from the office someone put these currency notes in his pocket, he did not notice and the accused has denied the alleged demand made by P.W. 10. P.W. 4 in his chief examination himself has deposed that he was not aware about how much amount paid to the accused and also not aware about the powder which was used for solution and he parked his vehicle one km away from the office and he has also deposed that hands of the accused were washed and it did not turn to pink colour. However, he answered the question made by the prosecution about parking the jeep one km. away is denied. In respect of insistence in the statement made by the prosecution in their evidence, the learned counsel referred in the evidence of P.W. 5, in his cross-examination he has deposed that the vehicle was parked about 100 feet away from the office and he was not aware about the main door of the Rehabilitation office and the evidence of P.W. 7 in respect of gathering of persons all 100-150 members in front of the office was corroborated. The statement of the accused has stated that someone from gathering put the notes into pant pocket. 13. P.W. 8 has deposed that on 16.12.1997, an information received from Special Deputy Commissioner pertaining to the uncle of the complainant and on 17.12.1997 the accused has forwarded the papers pertaining to the uncle of the complainant by putting an endorsement to his office. In respect of P.W. 10, the learned counsel submitted that Rs. 1,000/- which was said to have been paid to the accused and the receipt was issued. It is mentioned in the complaint that issuance of receipt which itself shows that what was paid has not been established that the same was bribe amount. With regard to the time of preparing the entrustment panchanama which varies from one witness to another witness. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted to allow this appeal and set aside the order. 14. With regard to the time of preparing the entrustment panchanama which varies from one witness to another witness. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted to allow this appeal and set aside the order. 14. In support of his submission relied upon the judgment reported in 2004 (2) KCCR 1233 in the case of Rajendran vs. State by Police Inspector B.O.I., reference made in para 9 of the judgment that in the absence of corroboration for the evidence of panch witnesses no reliance could be placed on the statement of P.W. 1-complainant and conviction can not be sustained. P.W. 10-complainant in his cross-examination he has stated that the officers have lack of memory about the vital facts. This judgment has been referred by the learned counsel in respect of the fact that P.W. 4 and another official witnesses did not depose. In the chief examination, P.W. 4 has deposed that he was not aware about the proceedings went into the office of the Lokayukta. He further deposed that the trap team went in a jeep, which was parked 1 km. away from the office, but controversy evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 10 and other official witnesses have deposed that the jeep was parked 100 ft. away which is contrary to P.Ws. 1 and 10, that the jeep was parked by the side of the compound of the office. This aspect the proceedings in the Lokayukta Office and also they unsure about the vehicle parked, which goes against the prosecution. This Court has not appreciated all these inconsistencies. The judgment reported in 2007 (1) Crimes 101 (SC) in the case of V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented Inspector of Police, it is submitted that illegality in the trap is a vital aspect. Accordingly, he submitted to set aside the order. 15. The appellant prosecution also relied on the judgment reported in (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 147 and also judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 2042 and it is submitted that when a currency is collected from the pocket of the accused and lies on him under Section 20 of P.C. Act presumption could be drawn that he has committed the offence of bribe. Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow their respective appeals. 16. On the basis of the submissions made by both the parties, the points that arise for my consideration are: 1. Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow their respective appeals. 16. On the basis of the submissions made by both the parties, the points that arise for my consideration are: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case of trap on the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the Sessions Court has considered all the aspects of both the parties? My answer would be in favour of the prosecution for the following: Reasons: I have gone through the L.C.R. and the records placed before me and also through the depositions of the parties. P.W. 1 is a shadow witness whose evidence corroborates with the case of prosecution. His evidence is very material and important for the prosecution. In view of the fact, that he deposed that while accused was demanding the bribe from P.W. 10, he was standing and observing both the parties and on the basis of the demand made by the accused, P.W. 10 has taken out thousand rupees from the front pocket of the shirt and handed over to the accused. The same was counted and kept in the pocket of his pant. This evidence of P.W. 1 is very important in view of the fact that the case of P.W. 10 that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe, which is corroborated by his evidence. The P.W. 1 further deposes that on 18.12.1997 at about 5.20 they left the office of Lokayukta at 4’Oclock and reached Bilagi at 5.20 p.m. and they parked their vehicle close to the Rehabilitation Office and at 7.20 p.m. the P.W. 10 informed that the accused was in his office and thereafter both P.W. 1 and 10 went to the office and he stood very close to P.W. 10 and noticed the demand made by accused. This evidence of P.W. 1 proves the case of prosecution. After the entry of trap team the accused was insisted to co-operate to clean his hand and thereafter the hands were washed in the solution and the same turned into pink colour. The same were marked as per M.O. No. 5, 5(a), 6 and 6(a). On demand of the accused, he has placed bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- in the right pocket of his pant before them. All the notes, which were recovered from the accused were counted and tallied with the track panchanama. The same were marked as per M.O. No. 5, 5(a), 6 and 6(a). On demand of the accused, he has placed bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- in the right pocket of his pant before them. All the notes, which were recovered from the accused were counted and tallied with the track panchanama. Though P.W. 1 has deposed that he was not aware about what went in the Office of Lokayukta, but it is not very material to prove the case of prosecution. In the cross-examination P.W. 1 has again deposed about the bribe amount demanded and collected by the accused and thereafter washing of his hands in solution, which converted into pink colour and also panchanama as per Ex. P2 was drawn in the Office itself in the presence of accused. He has further deposed that Ex. P2 was not prepared in the office of Lokayukta. The discrepancy evidence of P.W. 1 is that he does not remember in which room the accused was sitting in the office. There is some inconsistency with regard to the time also, but that itself is not sufficient to say that the evidence of P.W. 1 is incredible one. The suggestions made to P.W. 1 are that he has seen the accused receiving an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. has been denied. P.W. 2 is the P.C., who has carried the F.I.R. to the Court, which is also an important material witness. Immediately after the complaint has been filed by P.W. 10, orally the same was reduced to writing and registered a Crime No. 9/1997 and F.I.R. was sent in a sealed cover to the Court. This evidence of P.W. 2 goes to show that on 18.12.1997 P.W. 10 has appeared before the P.W. 11, the Investigating Officer and he has made an oral complaint and the same was taken as per Ex. P10 and forwarded to the Court. The evidence of P.W. 2 is helpful to the prosecution to the extent that there was no loss of time in forwarding the F.I.R. to the Court. 17. P.W. 3 was working as Deputy Commissioner as on that day. In his chief-examination he has stated that on looking into the report of P.W. 11 and other material papers he has satisfied himself and permitted the Lokayukta to prosecute the accused. 17. P.W. 3 was working as Deputy Commissioner as on that day. In his chief-examination he has stated that on looking into the report of P.W. 11 and other material papers he has satisfied himself and permitted the Lokayukta to prosecute the accused. When P.W. 3 is a Disciplinary Authority of the accused, has deposed before the Court that he is satisfied with the case of the prosecution which also supports the prosecution. P.W. 4 is a pancha for recovery and he was present throughout the proceedings. He was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer. In his chief-examination he has narrated about the proceedings which went on in the office of Lokayukta and also in Recovery Office and he has supported to the prosecution. He has deposed that the trap team went to Bilagi by jeep and it was parked about a km. away. Though the said evidence goes contrary to the evidence of P.W. 1, 10 and 11, but it is not very useful to disbelieve the case of prosecution. He has further deposed that the accused was trapped and also he was a witness to Ex. P2 the panchanama. In his cross-examination also he fortifies the case of prosecution reiterating that vehicle was parked 1 km. away from the office. But in view of the evidence and materials placed by the prosecution, much weightage will not be given to the evidence of P.W. 4. But P.W. 4 was in definite terms of the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused. P.W. 5, who is also an official witness, i.e., Head Constable was present during all the proceedings of trap. He has deposed in the cross-examination that he was standing about 100 ft. away from the office. He was not aware about on which side the main door was situated. P.W. 7 and 8 are also working in the office of Rehabilitation, where the accused was also working. In their chief-examination and cross-examination they have deposed about the nature of work dealt by accused and further they have also deposed that on 18.12.1997 in the evening they heard the noise of jeep and noticed that the accused was taken inside the office by police and he also learnt that the accused was trapped by Lokayukta office. This evidence goes to show that accused was trapped by the team of P.W. 11, which supports prosecution case. This evidence goes to show that accused was trapped by the team of P.W. 11, which supports prosecution case. In cross-examination P.W. 7 has further deposed that on 18.12.1997 when he was working in the office about 100-150 persons were standing in front of his office and accused was working with them. Then trap team has taken the accused inside the office and later he learnt that they are the trap team members. Similarly P.W. 8, who is also an Officer working in the Office of Rehabilitation, has also deposed that the accused was also trapped on 18.12.1997 at about 7.30 p.m. 18. P.W. 10, who is the complainant has deposed that P.W. 1, 10 and 12 were living in the joint family and the land belongs to P.W. 12, which was submerged and he was entitled for the Rehabilitation Scheme for which Rs. 60,000/- was granted as a compensation and in order to disburse the said amount the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and in the month of November 1997 he has paid Rs. 1,000/- to accused and has taken further time to pay the remaining amount and before that he went to the Lokayukta Office and made a complaint. Ex. P3 is the sealed cover containing F.I.R., which was sent to the Court and he has identified his signature. He has also deposed in his chief-examination that Rs. 1,000/- was given to the Lokayukta office, which were smeared with powder and the said currency notes were kept in his shirt and the same was paid to the accused inside the office. Thereafter he has given the signal as per the instruction of Lokayukta police. Even in the cross-examination at para No. 7 he has denied the suggestions made by accused that he has filed a false complaint in order to knock out Rs. 60,000/- payable to the prospective seller. At para No. 8 of his evidence he has deposed that the jeep in which they had been to Bilagi was parked near Badagandi road, the said distance is at a place of less than a kilometre from the Rehabilitation Office of Bilagi. 19. P.W. 11 is also an Investigating Officer. He has narrated before the Court in the cross-examination about the trap conducted where the accused has been taken into custody. 19. P.W. 11 is also an Investigating Officer. He has narrated before the Court in the cross-examination about the trap conducted where the accused has been taken into custody. P.W. 12, who is the beneficiary of the scheme in his cross-examination has deposed that he had not executed any Power of Attorney to P.W. 10 and further he was not knowing on which date the application was filed in the said office and he has informed P.W. 10 to get the cheque for the compensation amount, and P.W. 10 in turn has said that he has been awarded Rs. 60,000/- and hence he did not go to the office. In his cross-examination he has further deposed that P.W. 10 has informed him about the bribe demanded by accused. Later he has informed P.W. 12 about the demand made by accused. In turn he has directed P.W. 10 Chandrashekar to file a complaint. Further he has repeated his version and he himself has informed P.W. 10 to file a complaint before the police. On going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it clearly goes to show that raid has taken place and the accused has been trapped for having demanded and collected the bribe amount. 20. On the basis of the materials placed as per Ex. P1, which is a trap panchanama P.W. 1 and 4 are the witnesses to the trap panchanama as per Ex. P1. The contents of panchanama have been examined wherein it has been referred that on 18.12.1997 the trap team had been to Bilagi in a jeep bearing No. CAG 318 at 16.05 hours and reached Bilagi by 17.20 hours and the jeep was parked near the Rehabilitation Office compound and P.W. 10 was asked to find out whether the accused was present in the office or not. At first instance he replied that the accused was not in the office. Thereafter at 17.20 hours he responded that accused was present in the chair and then P.W. 1 and 4 went to the spot and at 19.30 hours P.W. 10 came outside and made a signal to the trap team, then trap team went inside the office and they have introduced themselves to the accused and he has also disclosed that he is working as Revenue Inspector and on deputation he is working in this office. P.W. 10 was asked about what is going on in the office and in response he has stated about the acceptance of Rs. 1,000/- on demand and the same was collected and counted from both the hands and kept in the right side pocket of pant. One Biradar was asked to prepare the solution and thereafter both the hands of accused were washed and the liquid has turned into pink colour and the same was stored in the bottle and marked as M.O. No. 1, 5 and 5(a). It is further written in Ex. P1 that accused had taken Rs. 1,000/- from the pocket of his pant and the same was counted and all the notes were tallied with the entrustment and the same was kept in the cover marked as Article No. 7 and thereafter the pant has also been taken as Article No. 8. The accused was also asked to give his statement in writing and in response to the same he has got his statement written with the help of P.W. 7 saying and stating that he does not know Kannada language and cannot read and write and it is stated in the statement of accused that some one had kept the notes in his pocket with the help of P.W. 7 and for which he is not responsible. The entire proceedings had completed at about 22.30 hours on the same day. Ex. P2 is the entrust panchanama where the collected amount from the accused has been referred and all the process of trap was also referred in the entrust panchanama and solutions were prepared, which was counted by P.W. 4. After counting the same, P.W. 4 has washed the hands in the solution, which turned into pink colour. Ex. P3 is the cover containing the F.I.R. forwarded to the Spl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur on 18.12.1997 and Ex. P4 is a statement of P.W. 2. Ex. P4 is the report made to the Police Inspector about handing over of the currency notes to the Court and the Acknowledgment to that effect is as per Ex. P6 from the Special Court about receiving of F.I.R. Ex. P9 is the statement made by P.W. 7. The written statement of the accused prepared by P.W. 7 has been marked as Ex. P12, wherein it is stated that the Lokayukta police himself has collected the amount from his pocket. P6 from the Special Court about receiving of F.I.R. Ex. P9 is the statement made by P.W. 7. The written statement of the accused prepared by P.W. 7 has been marked as Ex. P12, wherein it is stated that the Lokayukta police himself has collected the amount from his pocket. When the hands of accused were washed in solution, it did not turn into pink colour. The F.S.L. report is marked as per Ex. P13, item Nos. 5, 6 and 7 disclose that one sealed quarter bottle contains the solution in which the right hand of A.G.O. was washed. Item No. 6 contains the solution in which the left hand was washed. In the opinion it has been referred as “presence of ion’s of phenolphthalate were detected by Spectral and T.L.C. Prodiles in solution in article No. 1, 5, 6; powder in article No. 2 currency in article No. 7 and pant in article No. 8.” This F.S.L. report goes to show that when the accused hands were washed in solution, the same turned into pink colour and it proves that the accused has committed the offence of corruption. 21. In the light of all the materials placed before the Sessions Court, the learned Judge has held that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has demanded and accepted the bribe from P.W. 10, which is nothing but an offence. The materials are produced on behalf of the accused as per Ex. D1 to 3. The statement made before police as per Ex. P5 and Ex. D2 marked portion on Ex. P10 and Ex. D3 statement of P.W. 12 is in no way helpful to the accused which fail to disprove the case of the prosecution. The complaint was made before the police and the F.I.R. was forwarded to the Court on the very same day without loss of any time and P.W. 1 and 4 were summoned to the office on the same day and entrust panchanama was prepared and immediately trap team went to the spot and after conducting the raid the currency notes which were collected from the accused were tallied with the entrust panchanama as per Ex. P2 and the Certificate issued by P.W. 3, the sanctioning authority after satisfying the case made out against the accused and the evidence of P.Ws. P2 and the Certificate issued by P.W. 3, the sanctioning authority after satisfying the case made out against the accused and the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 to the effect that the raid was made against the accused on the said date and time and the presence of P.W. 11 and his team on the said date they all go beyond reasonable doubt and proves the case of prosecution. After examining the materials and evidence on behalf of the prosecution I have gone through the judgment of the Sessions Court and examined it and I found no infirmities or scope to interfere in this order. Accordingly, I am satisfied with the reasons assigned therein and also the evidence of prosecution. No lapses have been committed by the lower Court, The ground taken by the prosecution in the appeal is for enhancement of the sentence. I find it is not worth at this stage since the accused has already retired from service to enhance the punishment. Accordingly, the appeal filed by prosecution for enhancement of punishment is also dismissed. Since I answer the above points in favour of prosecution, the appeal of accused for setting aside the order does not arise.