JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) was tried, convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13{2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). Therefore, he has filed this appeal. 2. I have heard Sri S.R. Krishnakumar, learned counsel for appellant/accused and Smt. T.M. Gayathri, learned counsel for respondent/Lokayukta and I have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief is as follows: During the year 2001, accused was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Directorate of Sericulture, his office was situate at Okalipuram at Bangalore. P.W. 2-Basappa was a Class III P.W.D. Contractor. P.W. 2 used to execute civil works contract entrusted on tender or piece work basis. During the year 2001, P.W. 2 had been entrusted with two tender works of value of Rs. 1,30,000/- and Rs. 1,45,000/- to be executed in the Government Cocoon Market Building at Chinthamani. In fact, bills in respect of works executed were settled. The accused, who was the Assistant Engineer asked P.W. 2 to do some additional works such as painting, fixing of window panes to Units I and II in Cacoon Market at Chinthamani and also to replace asbestos sheets to the roof of Government Cacoon Market Building at Chanthamani. Pursuant to the oral direction, P.W. 2 had executed works of value of Rs. 2,40,000/-. When P.W. 2 approached accused to issue work order and prepare bill to enable P.W. 2 to obtain payment for the works executed by him, accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 60,000/-, after much bargain, it was reduced to Rs. 43,500/-. On 12.7.2001 when accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 40,000/- from P.W. 2, he was trapped by Lokayukta Police at Bangalore. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused for aforestated offences. 4. On behalf of prosecution, P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 were examined and documents as per Ex. P1 to Ex. P32 were marked, so also material objects as per M.O. 1 to M.O. 12 were marked. On behalf of accused, one C. Ramesh was examined as D.W. 1 and documents as per Ex. D.1 and Ex. D.1(a) were marked. 5. 4. On behalf of prosecution, P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 were examined and documents as per Ex. P1 to Ex. P32 were marked, so also material objects as per M.O. 1 to M.O. 12 were marked. On behalf of accused, one C. Ramesh was examined as D.W. 1 and documents as per Ex. D.1 and Ex. D.1(a) were marked. 5. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for parties, held accused guilty of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. 6. In view of conviction of accused for aforestated offences, the following points would arise for determination: “(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that it has obtained a valid sanction to prosecute accused? (2) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused being a public servant while working as Assistant Engineer in the Office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Director of Sericulture at Okalipuram, Bangalore, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 40,000/- from P.W. 2 at about 8.50 a.m., on 12.7.2001 at Ramakrishna Lodge, situate on Subedarchatram Road, Bangalore, as a motive or reward to show official favour to P.W. 2-Basappa to issue work order and prepare bills of works, which were executed by P.W. 2 in the Government Cocoon Market Building at Chintamani as per oral instructions given by accused and thereby committed an offence under Section 7, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act? (3) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused being a public servant by corrupt and illegal means, misused his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage of Rs. 40,000/- from P.W. 2 at the place and time stated in point No. 2 and thereby committed an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act? (4) Whether the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record? (5) Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference? (6) What order?” 7. My answer to above points and reasons thereon are as follows: Regarding Point No. 1: At the relevant time, accused was working as Assistant Engineer in the Directorate of Sericulture. The Government of Karnataka was the appointing and removal authority of accused. Ex. P12 is the sanction order to prosecute accused. The sanction order was issued by P.W. 3-Padmavathi, the then Under Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Sericulture Section by order and in the name of Governor of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka was the appointing and removal authority of accused. Ex. P12 is the sanction order to prosecute accused. The sanction order was issued by P.W. 3-Padmavathi, the then Under Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Sericulture Section by order and in the name of Governor of Karnataka. As per the evidence of P.W. 3, she had placed necessary documents and reports before the Minister for Sericulture and Textiles, who on perusal of the report and documents accorded sanction as per Ex. P12. The defence has not challenged competence of the authority (minister) to accord sanction, but the defence has contended that sanction was accorded, without application of mind. 8. The law is fairly well settled when validity of sanction order is challenged for non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority, the same could be proved by the prosecution by producing original sanction order or by adducing allude evidence to prove satisfaction recorded by it. In the case on hand, P.W. 3 has given evidence relating to procedure followed to accord sanction to prosecute accused. The sanction order as per Ex. P12 indicates that the sanctioning authority on perusal of the report submitted by the Inspector General of Lokayukta Police and also after going through the facts contained in the documents and also consideration of the facts relating to demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused has recorded prima facie satisfaction that accused is liable to be tried for aforestated offences thus accorded sanction to prosecute accused. I do not find any infirmity in the sanction order. Therefore, I answer point No. 1 in affirmative. Regarding Point No. 2: 9. The fact that accused was working as Assistant Engineer in the Directorate of Sericulture and he was in-charge of works executed by P.W. 2 in Government Cocoon Market at Chintamani and P.W. 2 had executed two tender works as aforestated has not been disputed. However, execution of six items of work on oral instructions given by accused and authority of accused to give such oral instructions to P.W. 2 and authority of accused to issue work order have been seriously disputed by the defence. The defence has also disputed the case of prosecution that accused had demanded and accepted bribe from P.W. 2. 10. However, execution of six items of work on oral instructions given by accused and authority of accused to give such oral instructions to P.W. 2 and authority of accused to issue work order have been seriously disputed by the defence. The defence has also disputed the case of prosecution that accused had demanded and accepted bribe from P.W. 2. 10. Before adverting to the evidence of P.W. 2 regarding crucial aspects such as demand of bribe before first information was lodged, demand and acceptance of bribe by accused from P.W. 2 on 12.7.2001 at 8.50 a.m. in Ramakrishna Lodge, Subedarchatram Road, Bangalore, it is necessary to advert to the documentary evidence regarding civil works, which are said to have been executed by P.W. 2 on the oral instructions given by accused. The documentary evidence in the form of Ex. P6 would indicate estimate for replacing damaged A.C. Sheet to Government Cocoon Market at Chintamani (Unit I) at a cost of Rs. 46,000/-, details of estimate are found at Ex. P6. The technical sanction was accorded on 16.3.2001 and financial sanction was accorded much before that date. The second item relates to providing improvements to Government Cocoon Market at Chintamani (Unit I) at a cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The next item which included providing window panes and plastering was estimated at Rs. 33,000/-. The technical sanction was accorded on 16.3.2001 and financial sanction was accorded much before that date. Similarly, Ex. P6 contains estimation of execution of replacement of damaged A.C. Sheet to Government Cocoon Market at Chintamani (Unit II) at a cost of Rs. 46,000/-. From the letters of correspondence, I find these works had to be immediately executed to protect the interest of farmers, who would bring cocoons to the market. 11. It is the case of prosecution that P.W. 2 had executed these works on the oral instructions given by accused by spending a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-. P.W. 2 has deposed; after works were executed, he requested accused to issue work order and prepare bills for the works executed by P.W. 2, for which accused demanded bribe of Rs. 60,000/-, which was later reduced to Rs. 43,500/-; accused was also threatening P.W. 2 that he would issue work order and issue bills in the name of some other person. 12. 60,000/-, which was later reduced to Rs. 43,500/-; accused was also threatening P.W. 2 that he would issue work order and issue bills in the name of some other person. 12. The learned counsel for accused referring to evidence of P.W. 5 has submitted that out of the nine works which were not included in the tender, P.W. 2 had completed two works after the date of trap. The works were inspected on 20.9.2001. On 14.9.2001 work order was issued. In fact P.W. 2 had given requisition to issue work order on 16.8.2001. 13. The learned counsel for accused would submit that out of nine works, P.W. 2 had completed two works on 20.9.2001. Therefore, either on 12.7.2001 or before that date neither bills nor any documents relating to execution of these works were pending with accused. The accused did not have any official favour to discharge in favour of P.W. 2, equally so P.W. 2 had no official favour to seek from accused. 14. I have referred to aforestated documents in view of submission made by the learned counsel for accused with reference to evidence of P.W. 5-Gangadharaiah. 15. After going through the evidence of P.W. 5 I find on the date of incident, P.W. 2 had completed work long before and requested accused for issuance of work order. After going through the contents of Ex. P6, I find that technical sanction for work order was issued on 16.3.2001, even before that financial sanction was issued by the Director of Sericulture. Considering the exigency, separate tenders were not called for execution of these works. The accused, who was in-charge of execution of tender works had orally instructed P.W. 2 to execute these works on piece work basis. P.W. 2 had executed all the works, which were imminent to safeguard the interest of farmers who used to bring Cocoons to Government Market at Chinthamani. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for accused that all the works were executed long after the date of alleged trap cannot be accepted. 16. The evidence of P.W. 2 that he had executed works before 12.7.2001 and he had not executed any work in the Government Cocoon Market after the date of trap has not been controverted. The prosecution has no case that the above works were entrusted to some other contractor and they were executed by some other contractor. 16. The evidence of P.W. 2 that he had executed works before 12.7.2001 and he had not executed any work in the Government Cocoon Market after the date of trap has not been controverted. The prosecution has no case that the above works were entrusted to some other contractor and they were executed by some other contractor. The matter can be viewed from another angle. If P.W. 2 (Class III P.W. D Contractor) had created problems to accused by lodging a false complaint against him on 12.7.2001, it looks improbable that P.W. 5 would entrust the same work to P.W. 2. Therefore, the contention of defence that above works were executed long after trap, therefore, requisition for issuance of work order was given by P.W. 2 on 16.8.2001 and work inspection was done by P.W. 5 on 20.9.2001 cannot be accepted. 17. On careful consideration of evidence of P.W. 5 and contents of documents as per Ex. P6, I find P.W. 2 had executed works and he was after the accused for taking necessary steps for issuance of work order and preparation of bills in relation to execution of works which are stated as showing: 1. Improvement to GCM, Chintamani, Unit 2, Part A (Painting) for Rs. 50,000/-. 2. Improvement to GCM, Chintamani, Unit 2, Part B (Providing glass, asbestos cement sheet for rain water and plastering) for Rs. 33,000/-. 4. Replacing damaged AC Sheet at GCM, Chintamani, Unit I, for Rs. 46,000/-. 5. Providing replacing damaged AC Sheet at GCM, Chintamani, Unit 2, for Rs. 46,000/-. 8. Providing improvements to GCM, Chintamani, Unit 1, Part A (Painting) for Rs. 50,000/-. 9. Providing improvements to GCM, Chintamani, Unit 1, Part B (providing glass to windows) for Rs. 33,000/-. 18. In view of above discussion, it cannot be said that as on 12.7.2001, P.W. 2 did not have any official favour to seek from accused, equally so accused had no official work to discharge in favour of P.W. 2. 19. Now adverting to crucial point of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe, we have evidence of P.W. 2-Basappa, P.W. 1-Badrinath (shadow witness) and P.W. 6-B.S. Jayaraj (Police Inspector of Lokayukta at Bangalore). 20. P.W. 2-Basappa has deposed; he lodged first information as per Ex. 19. Now adverting to crucial point of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe, we have evidence of P.W. 2-Basappa, P.W. 1-Badrinath (shadow witness) and P.W. 6-B.S. Jayaraj (Police Inspector of Lokayukta at Bangalore). 20. P.W. 2-Basappa has deposed; he lodged first information as per Ex. P10 on 11.7.2001; he had taken the assistance of his brother-in-law by name Muniraju; P.W. 2 is an illiterate person, he knows to affix his signature had affixed his signature; Ex. P10 was prepared by said Muniraju as per information given by P.W. 2; the first information as per Ex. P10 was lodged at 9.30 a.m. on 11.7.2001 with Lokayukta Police at Bangalore. In the first information, P.W. 2 has stated that as per oral instructions given by accused, P.W. 2 had executed works in Government Cocoon Market at Chintamani; that he had completed all the works; P.W. 2 had spent a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- to execute aforestated works. When P.W. 2 demanded work order and preparation of bills, accused (the then Assistant Engineer in Directorate of Sericulture) demanded bribe of Rs. 43,500/-; accused instructed P.W. 2 to handover the same on 11.7.2001 in the office; as P.W. 2 was not willing to bribe, he approached Lokayukta police and lodged first information. 21. The learned counsel for accused referring to the contents of Ex. P10 would submit after first information was lodged, P.W. 2 has given further statement to the effect that accused, in fact had received percentage of amount from P.W. 2 in relation to tender works executed by him. P.W. 2 has not deposed the same before Court. 22. The accused was prosecuted for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in respect of additional works, which were executed by P.W. 2 on the oral instructions given by accused. Therefore, there was no need to prove the past conduct of P.W. 2. The failure of prosecution to prove payment of percentage of bill amount to accused in respect of tender works executed by P.W. 2 is of no consequence. 23. The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 relating to preparations of trap made in the Office of Lokayukta Police at Bangalore has not been controverted. Even otherwise, I find there is consistent evidence of P.W. 2 regarding smearing of phenolphthalein powder on 80 currency notes of Rs. 23. The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 relating to preparations of trap made in the Office of Lokayukta Police at Bangalore has not been controverted. Even otherwise, I find there is consistent evidence of P.W. 2 regarding smearing of phenolphthalein powder on 80 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination and entrustment of the same to P.W. 2 and instructions given to P.W. 2 by P.W. 6 (Police Inspector of Lokayukta). The evidence regarding phenolphthalein test does not require any discussion. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that on 11.7.2001, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were sent to the Office of accused, viz., Reshme Bhavan situate at Okalipuram, Bangalore. The accused was not found in the office. P.W. 2 was informed that accused had gone to Ramanagaram on official work. When P.W. 2 was in Reshme Bhavan (Office of Director of Sericulture), the accused contacted one of his colleagues over phone, P.W. 2 also spoke to accused who informed P.W. 2 to bring bribe amount to Ramakrishna Lodge at 8.30 a.m. on 12.7.2001. Therefore, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, C.W. 3, P.W. 6 and other members of raiding party returned back to the Office of Lokayukta Police. The tainted currency notes were received from possession of P.W. 2 and kept by P.W. 6 (Police Inspector). P.W. 2 was asked to visit the Office of Lokayukta Police at 8 a.m. on the following day. On 12.7.2001, at 8 a.m. tainted currency notes were handed over to P.W. 2 by P.W. 6 and instructions were reiterated by P.W. 6. On 12.7.2001 at 8 a.m., raiding party consisting of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, C.W. 3, P.W. 6 and other members proceeded towards Ramakrishna Lodge situate on Subedarchatram Road at Bangalore. The jeep was stopped at a distance of 200 feet from Ramakrishna Lodge. 24. On 12.7.2001 at 8 a.m., raiding party consisting of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, C.W. 3, P.W. 6 and other members proceeded towards Ramakrishna Lodge situate on Subedarchatram Road at Bangalore. The jeep was stopped at a distance of 200 feet from Ramakrishna Lodge. 24. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that jeep was stopped at a distance from Ramakrishna Lodge on Subedarchatram Road at Bangalore, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were sent to Ramakrishna Lodge; accused was found in reception hall; after seeing P.W. 1, accused took him to restaurant and they were sitting on chairs in front of a table and P.W. 1 was sitting on a chair adjacent to them; accused demanded bribe from P.W. 2; when P.W. 2 offered the bribe, accused told P.W. 2 to wait for some time; thereafter accused proceeded to a telephone booth located in the reception; P.W. 2 also entered telephone booth; accused was making a phone call; at that time, accused demanded bribe from P.W. 2; P.W. 2 gave bribe amount to accused; P.W. 1 through glass pane was able to watch what was transpiring between P.W. 2 and accused; thereafter P.W. 2 came out and gave pre-determined signal to P.W. 6, who rushed to the place and held the hands of accused and recovered tainted currency notes (bribe amount) from possession of accused; as there was gathering of public, P.W. 6 took the accused to a room in the upstairs; the fingers of both hands of accused were dipped in two bowls containing sodium carbonate solution; the resultant wash turned into pink colour and the resultant wash was collected in separate containers and the same were sealed; thereafter accused was taken to his office from where four stamp papers containing signatures of P.W. 2 were seized from possession of accused under a mahazar is consistent but for some minor discrepancies. 25. As already stated, evidence of P.W. 6 regarding registration of case and preparations made to trap the accused and reasons for not trapping the accused on 11.7.2001 and arrangements made to trap accused on 12.7.2001 has not been seriously controverted. The evidence of P.W. 6 (Police Inspector) about apprehension of accused from telephone booth is not controverted. 25. As already stated, evidence of P.W. 6 regarding registration of case and preparations made to trap the accused and reasons for not trapping the accused on 11.7.2001 and arrangements made to trap accused on 12.7.2001 has not been seriously controverted. The evidence of P.W. 6 (Police Inspector) about apprehension of accused from telephone booth is not controverted. P.W. 6 has deposed at 8 a.m., on 12.7.2001, raiding party consisting of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, C.W. 3, led by him reached Ramakrishna Lodge and jeep was stopped at a distance of 200 feet from the lodge; P.W. 6 instructed P.W. 2 to pay bribe amount only if it is demanded by accused; P.W. 6 instructed P.W. 1 to accompany P.W. 2 to see as to what would transpire between accused and P.W. 2. P.W. 6 has deposed; after reaching Subedar Chatram Road, jeep was stopped at a distance of 200 feet from Ramakrishna Lodge; P.W. 6 sent P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to the reception area of the hotel; P.W. 6, C.W. 3 and other members of raiding party took positions in different places in the premises of hotel; at about 8.40 a.m., one person (later identified as accused) came near P.W. 2; at that time, P.W. 2 who was sitting in reception area got up and wished him; accused also reciprocated; P.W. 2 and accused came to dining hall area of the restaurant; they were followed by P.W. 1; after some time, accused got up from dining area and entered a telephone booth situate in the reception hall; P.W. 2 also entered the telephone booth; after 2 or 3 minutes, P.W. 2 came out of telephone booth and gave pre-determined signal to P.W. 6 by rolling up his shirt sleeves; P.W. 6, C.W. 3 and other members of raiding party came near P.W. 2; P.W. 2 showed accused and told P.W. 6 that accused has received bribe amount by demanding the same from P.W. 2; as instructed by P.W. 6, staff of Lokayukta Police surrounded accused; P.W. 6 introduced himself to accused and explained purpose of his visit; P.W. 6 informed accused that he was under arrest; P.W. 6 asked accused about his name and address; accused disclosed the same. P.W. 6 questioned accused about bribe amount. The accused produced bribe amount from right side pocket of his trousers. P.W. 6 questioned accused about bribe amount. The accused produced bribe amount from right side pocket of his trousers. P.W. 6 instructed C.W. 3 to verify serial numbers and denomination of tainted currency notes with reference to Ex. P1. C.W. 3 on verification found serial numbers and denomination of tainted currency notes tallied with serial numbers and denominations of amount mentioned in Ex. P1. Thereafter, tainted currency notes were kept in a cover and it was sealed. The accused was taken to a room in lodging section. The phenolphthalein test was conducted by dipping fingers of both hands of accused in separate bowls containing sodium carbonate solution, the resultant wash turned into pink colour and the resultant wash was collected in separate bottles and the same were sealed. In the meanwhile, P.W. 6 asked accused if he is willing to give any explanation, he may do so. In response to the same, accused gave his statement, which was incorporated in trap mahazar (Ex. P5). The accused gave written explanation as per Ex. P27. P.W. 6 prepared a rough sketch of occurrence. Thereafter, P.W. 6 completed trap mahazar as per Ex. P5. P.W. 6 and other members of raiding party proceeded to the office of accused and collected necessary documents, including blank stamp papers (four in number of face value of Rs. 20/- each). They had been purchased in the name of P.W. 2. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) collected necessary documents and completed trap proceedings. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) recorded statements of witnesses. P.W. 6 sent incriminating material to Forensic Science Laboratory. The Investigating Officer after obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute accused submitted charge sheet. During cross-examination of P.W. 6, I find preparation made by P.W. 6 to trap accused has not been seriously controverted. The presence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 (shadow-witness) at 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m. in Ramakrishna Lodge has not been controverted. The recovery of tainted currency notes in a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from possession of accused is not controverted. On the other hand, accused has come out with a version that during March 2001, P.W. 2 had approached him to arrange a loan of Rs. 40,000/- from D.W. 1-C.Ramesh, who was also a Class I P.W. D Contractor. When the accused approached D.W. 1, D.W. 1 told accused that he would lend a sum of Rs. On the other hand, accused has come out with a version that during March 2001, P.W. 2 had approached him to arrange a loan of Rs. 40,000/- from D.W. 1-C.Ramesh, who was also a Class I P.W. D Contractor. When the accused approached D.W. 1, D.W. 1 told accused that he would lend a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to P.W. 2 on the security of accused. Thereafter, D.W. 1 lent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to P.W. 2 who assured to return the same within a month thereafter. P.W. 2 did not repay the loan amount to D.W. 1. Thereafter, D.W. 1 was pressurising accused to get back his money from P.W. 2. The accused demanded P.W. 2 to repay loan amount to D.W. 1. P.W. 2 told accused that he would bring the loan amount of Rs. 40,000/- to Ramakrishna Lodge on 12.7.2001 at 8.30 a.m. Accordingly, P.W. 2 came to Ramakrishna Lodge with a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and offered the same to accused. The accused told P.W. 2 to wait for some time for arrival of D.W. 1. P.W. 2 told accused that he could not wait any longer. Thereafter, accused proceeded to a telephone booth to contact D.W. 1 to ask him to go over to Ramakrishna Lodge to collect the loan amount. When accused was talking to D.W. 1 over phone, P.W. 2 thrusted tainted currency notes into right side pocket of trousers of accused. Immediately, accused was apprehended by P.W. 6. Therefore, accused had sought to contend there was neither demand nor acceptance of bribe amount. In support of this version, accused examined D.W. 1-C. Ramesh. 26. The learned counsel for accused would submit that as per evidence of P.W. 1 (shadow witness), P.W. 1 had not over heard conversation between accused and P.W. 2 in Ramakrishna Lodge. There is no evidence to prove that accused had demanded bribe from P.W. 2. Therefore, interested testimony of P.W. 2 that there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused cannot be accepted. 27. The learned counsel for accused has drawn my attention to evidence of P.W. 1 to submit that P.W. 1 has admitted that he could not overhear conversation between accused and P.W. 2 either in dining hall or telephone booth. 28. 27. The learned counsel for accused has drawn my attention to evidence of P.W. 1 to submit that P.W. 1 has admitted that he could not overhear conversation between accused and P.W. 2 either in dining hall or telephone booth. 28. In order to appreciate this submission, it is necessary to refer to the events preceding the trap instructions given by accused to P.W. 2 to meet him at Ramakrishna Lodge between 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m., on 12.7.2001. After first information was lodged on 11.7.2001, P.W. 6 after making necessary preparations to trap accused, proceeded to office of accused alongwith P.W. 2, shadow witness and other members of raiding party. The accused was not in his office. It was learnt that accused had gone to Ramanagaram. In fact, accused had called one of his colleagues over phone, when P.W. 2 was in the office of accused, he spoke to accused who informed P.W. 2 to meet him near Ramakrishna Lodge at 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m. on the following day, i.e., 12.7.2001. During cross-examination of P.W. 2, it has not been suggested to P.W. 2 that on 11.7.2001, when accused spoke to P.W. 2, the conversation that took place between accused and P.W. 2 related to return of loan amount allegedly lent by D.W. 1 to P.W. 2 and assurance given by P.W. 2 to accused to repay loan on the following day. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was sitting on a chair in front of a table next to the table where accused and P.W. 2 were sitting. P.W. 1 has deposed the conversation taking place between accused and P.W. 2 was not clear to him. But P.W. 1 could make out that they were talking to each other. In the circumstances, though P.W. 1 did not clearly hear conversation between accused and P.W. 2, yet he could make out demand of bribe by accused. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be suspected. Thus, we have credible and consistent evidence in proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by accused. 29. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has filed a written submission wherein it is specifically stated in the month of March 2001, P.W. 2 had approached accused and requested to put a word to D.W. 1 to lend a sum of Rs. 29. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has filed a written submission wherein it is specifically stated in the month of March 2001, P.W. 2 had approached accused and requested to put a word to D.W. 1 to lend a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and he would return the same in the month of April 2001. The accused put a word to D.W. 1 and D.W. 1 lent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to P.W. 2. P.W. 2 did not return the amount. Even after lapse of 2 to 3 months, P.W. 2 did not repay the loan. D.W. 1 scolded accused stating that on his words, D.W. 1 had lent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to P.W. 2. Therefore, accused demanded P.W. 2 to repay loan amount to D.W. 1. It is also submitted by accused that as on the date of trap, when he was drinking coffee, P.W. 2 offered the amount payable to D.W. 1. The accused asked P.W. 2 to wait till the arrival of D.W. 1. After some time, P.W. 2 told accused that he could not wait any longer. The accused went to a telephone booth and contacted D.W. 1 over phone. At that time. P.W. 2 followed the accused to telephone booth and thrusted bribe amount into right side pocket of trousers of accused to falsely implicate him. 30. From the evidence of P.W. 2 I find that he had contacted accused on 11.7.2001 over phone and P.W. 2 was asked to meet accused at 8.30 a.m. near Ramakrishna Lodge on the following day has not been controverted. Though accused had filed written statement running to three pages, he has not stated that P.W. 2 had informed accused that he would meet him at 8.30 a.m., on 12.7.2001 alongwith a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to repay loan to D.W. 1. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 2 regarding meeting P.W. 2 and accused at 8.30 a.m. on 12.7.2001 in Ramakrishna lodge was at the instance of accused, cannot be discarded. 31. D.W. 1-C.Ramesh has deposed; at the relevant time, he was a Class I P.W.D. Contractor and he had executed works worth Rs. 30-40 lakh under the supervision of accused. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 2 regarding meeting P.W. 2 and accused at 8.30 a.m. on 12.7.2001 in Ramakrishna lodge was at the instance of accused, cannot be discarded. 31. D.W. 1-C.Ramesh has deposed; at the relevant time, he was a Class I P.W.D. Contractor and he had executed works worth Rs. 30-40 lakh under the supervision of accused. D.W. 1 has deposed; he knew P.W. 2, who was also one of the P.W.D. Contractors; P.W. 2 approached D.W. 1 for financial assistance at the behest of accused; P.W. 2 had assured D.W. 1 to repay loan by April 2001; P.W. 2 did not repay loan even after expiry of 2 or 3 months; D.W. 1 asked accused to see that amount is repaid by P.W. 2 as loan was paid to P.W. 2 at the behest of accused; accused insisted P.W. 2 to repay loan to D.W. 1; during first week of July 2001, accused contacted D.W. 1 and asked him to go over to Ramakrishna Lodge near Kapali theatre at about 9 a.m. on 12.7.2001 to collect money from P.W. 2; D.W. 1 reached Ramakrishna Lodge at about 10 a.m. on 12.7.2001; neither accused nor P.W. 2 was present in the said place; during afternoon, he came to know that accused had been trapped. During cross-examination, D.W. 1 has deposed; P.W. 2 and D.W. 1 were not competitors of any work executed by them. D.W. 1 has deposed; he had not come in contact with P.W. 2 prior to the year 2001 and there was no money transaction between D.W. 1 and P.W. 2 prior to 2001; P.W. 2 had not approached D.W. 1 for any financial assistance. D.W. 1 did not insist security from P.W. 2 for lending financial assistance; D.W. 1 requested P.W. 2 for repayment of loan amount about 5 or 6 times; P.W. 2 had told D.W. 1 that he would repay loan amount after receiving payment of his bills; D.W. 1 did not take any coercive steps; it seems that P.W. 2 had repaid loan amount during the month of September 2001. D.W. 1 has admitted that Contractors’ Co-operative Society at Bangalore would lend money to the needy members of the society. 32. In order to appreciate the contention of defence and evidence of D.W. 1, it is necessary to state that D.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were P.W.D. Contractors under the accused. D.W. 1 has admitted that Contractors’ Co-operative Society at Bangalore would lend money to the needy members of the society. 32. In order to appreciate the contention of defence and evidence of D.W. 1, it is necessary to state that D.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were P.W.D. Contractors under the accused. If P.W. 2 was in need of money, he would have directly contacted D.W. 1. It looks highly improbable that accused had reasons to offer himself as security for repayment of loan to D.W. 1 by P.W. 2. D.W. 1 was a Class-I P.W.D. Contractor, he has admitted to have executed contracts worth of Rs. 30-40 lakh under the supervision of accused. In the circumstances, if D.W. 1 had lent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to P.W. 2, D.W. 1 would have reflected the same in his books of accounts and income-tax returns filed by him. D.W. 1 has not produced a scrap of paper to show-that he had lent Rs. 40,000/- to P.W. 2 on the assurance given by accused. 33. In the written statement filed by accused, it is stated that P.W. 2 had brought the money to repay the same to D.W. 1, in that connection he met accused in Ramakrishna Lodge at 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m. on 12.7.2001. This statement is highly incredible. D.W. 1 has admitted that he had visited the house of P.W. 2 and similarly P.W. 2 visited the house of D.W. 1. In the circumstances, if P.W. 2 had approached the accused to return the loan amount to D.W. 1, there was no impediment for the accused to ask P.W. 2 to go to the house of D.W. 1 to repay loan amount. Therefore, the statement made by accused when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about availment of loan by P.W. 2 and evidence of D.W. 1 are clear after thoughts to wriggle out of the situation. D.W. 1, who is a Class I P.W.D. Contractor had executed works worth Rs. 30-40 lakh on supervision of accused. In the circumstances, it looks probable that D.W. 1 has given false evidence to help accused. Therefore, version put forth by accused through evidence of D.W. 1 falls to ground. On the other hand, it would fortify the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by accused. In the circumstances, it looks probable that D.W. 1 has given false evidence to help accused. Therefore, version put forth by accused through evidence of D.W. 1 falls to ground. On the other hand, it would fortify the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by accused. The defence version that P.W. 2 thrusted a sum of Rs. 40,000/- into right side trousers pocket of accused when he was talking to D.W. 1 over phone looks highly improbable. The accused was working as Assistant Engineer in the Directorate of Sericulture. P.W. 2 was a Class III P.W.D. Contractor. In the circumstances, situation of P.W. 2 overpowering the accused to thrust tainted currency notes of Rs. 40,000/- into right side trouser pocket of accused against the wish of accused looks highly improbable. It is obvious, these stories are invented by accused to wriggle out of the situation. The version of accused that P.W. 2 was impatient to wait. till arrival of D.W. 1 looks improbable, more particularly in the context of relative positions of accused and P.W. 2. If P.W. 2 had boitowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- at the intervention of accused and if he had come to repay the loan to D.W. 1, it looks improbable that P.W. 2 had betrayed impatience to wait for arrival of D.W. 1. Therefore, the contention of accused cannot be accepted. The evidence of D.W. 1 that he had lent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to P.W. 2, without taking any documents from P.W. 2 and without maintaining any documents regarding alleged loan transaction cannot be accepted. 34. The learned counsel for accused relying on decisions reported in (2006) 1 SCC 401 , in the case of T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1985 SC 79 , in the case of Khilli Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 SCC (Cri) 151, in the case of State of A.P. vs. T. Venkateswara Rao; and (2009) 3 SCC 779 , in the case of C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala would submit that in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, merely based upon recovery of tainted currency notes from his possession, accused cannot be held guilty. 35. 35. The learned counsel for accused would submit that evidence of P.W. 2 regarding demand and acceptance does not find corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 1. Therefore, learned trial Judge was not justified in holding accused guilty of aforestated offences. In a decision reported in (2006) 1 SCC 401 , in the case of T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the complainant was due in arrears of rent to the temple and accused had reasons to accept the amount from complainant towards arrears of rent. In a decision reported supra in the case of Khilli Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, the complainant had approached Head Constable attached to the police station and had, on demand, paid him some money by way of bribe to expedite submission of charge-sheet. The Supreme Court has recorded a finding that evidence of the panchas was not available to support the prosecution case. There were discrepancies in many material aspects. The place and the manner in which the bribe was said to have been offered and received made the prosecution story totally opposed to ordinary human conduct. In a decision reported supra in the case of State of A.P. vs. T. Venkateswara Rao, the Supreme Court has held accused could not have accepted bribe in the presence of P.W. 2, who was inimical to him. In a decision reported supra in the case of C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, the Supreme Court has held mere recovery of tainted money from accused when substantive evidence is not reliable, accused cannot be held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is obvious what has been held in the decisions cited supra was on the basis of facts and evidence obtained therein. In the case on hand, prosecution from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and documentary evidence has proved that P.W. 2 had official favour to seek from accused, so also accused had official favour to discharge in favour of P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 that as per the instructions given by accused, P.W. 2 had come Ramakrishna Lodge at 8.30 a.m., on 12.7.2001, accordingly, raiding party led by P.W. 6 proceeded to Ramakrishna Lodge does not suffer from discrepancies. The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 that as per the instructions given by accused, P.W. 2 had come Ramakrishna Lodge at 8.30 a.m., on 12.7.2001, accordingly, raiding party led by P.W. 6 proceeded to Ramakrishna Lodge does not suffer from discrepancies. The accused was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Directorate of Sericulture; his office is situate in Okalipuram, Bangalore. The meeting of accused and P.W. 2 in Ramakrishna Lodge at 8.30 a.m., was neither accidental nor a coincidence. It was pre-arrangement made at the instance of accused. If accused had not demanded bribe, he would not have asked P.W. 2 to meet him at the aforestated place and time. Therefore, place of meeting and arrangement of meeting of P.W. 2 and accused at the instance of accused itself is a strong incriminating piece of evidence against accused. The story put forth by accused that he had arranged loan from D.W. 1 to P.W. 2 and D.W. 1 lent loan to P.W. 2 on the security of accused and it was responsibility of accused to seek repayment of loan by P.W. 2 is highly unnatural. If D.W. 1 had lent loan to P.W. 2, he would have certainly maintained records. D.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were known to each other. They had visited the houses of each other. There was no need for either to go to Ramakrishna Lodge for repayment of loan. There is no documentary evidence to prove so called loan arrangement. The position of accused as a public servant would militate against his conduct that he had intervened to arrange loan from D.W. 1 to P.W. 2, who in fact were working as contractors under his supervision. 36. Thus on overall appreciation of evidence, I find that prosecution has proved that P.W. 2 had executed certain items of non-tender works in the Government Cocoon Market at Chintamani at the instance of accused and accused was expected to submit a report to prepare work order, in that connection, accused demanded illegal gratification from P.W. 2. The prosecution has proved that on 12.7.2001 at 8.30 a.m. or 9.00 a.m. accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 40,000/- from P.W. 2 in a telephone booth situate in Ramakrishna lodge as a motive or reward to take steps for issuance of work order and preparation of bills of works executed by P.W. 2. 37. The prosecution has proved that on 12.7.2001 at 8.30 a.m. or 9.00 a.m. accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 40,000/- from P.W. 2 in a telephone booth situate in Ramakrishna lodge as a motive or reward to take steps for issuance of work order and preparation of bills of works executed by P.W. 2. 37. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held accused guilty of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. I answer points 2 to 4 accordingly. Regarding Sentence: 38. The learned trial Judge has sentenced accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence under Section 7 of the Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. 39. It is seen an offence under Section 7 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment, which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. An offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 40. Having regard to minimum sentence provided under the Act and the absence of extenuating factors in favour of accused, I find sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is not severe. Therefore, I maintain the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 41. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment is confirmed.