JUDGMENT A.S. PACHHAPURE, J.—The State by Lokayukta Police have filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent for the charge under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ for short). 2. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under: It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent who was the public servant working as 2nd Division Surveyor in the office of the Assistant Director of Land Records Nagamangala demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from the complainant-Ramesh (P.W. 1) to measure Sy. No. 255 of Hullenahalli village and to issue a survey sketch. In pursuance of the demand made, it is claimed by the prosecution that on 18.2.2000 in between 10.45 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., the accused received the illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- and, therefore, is guilty of the offences referred to supra. P.W. 1-Ramesh submitted the complaint at Ex. P1. P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 are the witnesses who were said to be present at the time of the entrustment mahazar Ex. P2. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked documents at Exs. P1 to P10 and M.Os. 1 to 10. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He has taken the defence of total denial and claimed that the survey work was done much earlier to the date and there was no pending work of the complainant with him. He got marked Exs. D1 to D3 in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court after hearing the prosecution and the Counsel for the accused and on appreciation of the material on record held that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of remuneration of Rs. 500 from P.W. 1 for doing an official favour and that no work of the complainant was pending with the accused as on 18.2.2000. In the circumstances, it held that there was no question of showing any official favour to the complainant and hence it granted an order of acquittal. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State by Lokayukta Police has preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the respondent. 4. In the circumstances, it held that there was no question of showing any official favour to the complainant and hence it granted an order of acquittal. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State by Lokayukta Police has preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the respondent. 4. The points that arise for my consideration are: (i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from P.W. 1- Ramesh to do official favour? (ii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of criminal misconduct? (iii) Whether the trial Court was justified in granting the order of acquittal? 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has committed an error in granting the acquittal solely because the complainant turned hostile, though there was ample material on record about the receipt of illegal gratification by the accused-respondent. So also it is his contention that even in the evidence of the complainant who has turned hostile, there is material to show that there was a demand for an amount of Rs. 500/- for giving the survey sketch (durasti patra) after survey of the land bearing Survey No. 255 of Hullenahalli village of the complainant. He submits that despite the fact that no work was pending with the accused on the date, the conduct of the accused in receiving the amount, of Rs. 500/- from the complainant without disclosing him that the file has been sent to Tahasildar or the Assistant Director of Land Records, amounts to criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. On this aspect of the matter, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court reported in the case of Thammanna vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2001 Kant. 3636. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this is an appeal against acquittal and the Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with the orders of the acquittal and further he submits that even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the Court below cannot be accepted. 3636. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this is an appeal against acquittal and the Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with the orders of the acquittal and further he submits that even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the Court below cannot be accepted. It is also his contention that the complainant has turned hostile to the prosecution and that there was no pending work with the accused and, therefore, the question of demanding the unlawful remuneration or bribe does not arise for consideration. On these grounds he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. It is true that the Appellate Court will have to be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal and if a second view is possible, the view accepted by the Court below cannot be disturbed. But at the same time, it is relevant to note that in case the material placed on record by the prosecution is sufficient to hold the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that the second view of his innocence cannot be inferred from the material placed on record, the Appellate Court can re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion of guilt of the accused. 8. In this context, if the material placed on record is perused, P.W. 1 is the complainant who submitted the complaint Ex. P1 to the Lokayukta Police. He states that his father is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 255 and survey was held by the accused. He also states that he was pursuing the accused to provide him the survey sketch (durasti patra) and that accused was postponing the same on the ground that his superior officer is not available and the sketch has not been prepared. In so far as the demand of Rs. 500/- he states that when he submitted the complaint Ex. P1, the Lokayukta Police gave Rs. 500/- notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and asked him to go to the accused, pay the amount on demand. He does not admit the entrustment mahazar in the office of Lokayukta Police as per Ex. P2. He further states that he went to the accused on that day and kept an amount of Rs. 500/- on the table in the house of the accused and that the Lokayukta Police who were waiting outside came and held the accused. He does not admit the entrustment mahazar in the office of Lokayukta Police as per Ex. P2. He further states that he went to the accused on that day and kept an amount of Rs. 500/- on the table in the house of the accused and that the Lokayukta Police who were waiting outside came and held the accused. He admits his signature on the entrustment mahazar Ex. P2 and the spot mahazar Ex. P3. The complainant was treated hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination he states that the accused has demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- from him for issue of the survey sketch. He also admits about the complaint filed by him as per Ex. P1. Furthermore, he admits that during the spot mahazar, when the fingers of the accused were washed in the sodium carbonate liquid, it turned to pink colour. 9. So according to him he kept money of Rs. 500/- on the table and came outside. Now to this extent the complainant supported the version of the prosecution and, therefore, it is necessary to find out as to whether there is other material on record to strengthen the case and to prove the accused guilty. 10. P.W. 3 is the shadow witness and was a Second Division Assistant in the DDPI Office. He alongwith P.W. 2 went to the office of the Lokayukta police on 17.2.2000 at 4.30 p.m. and they were called upon to appear on the next date at about 8.00 a.m. Both these witnesses speak the presence of the complainant alone, lodging of the complaint Ex. P1, production of five notes of Rs. 100 denomination, application of phenolphthalein powder to the said notes and drawing up of the entrustment mahazar Ex. P2. 11. Furthermore, P.W. 3 who is a shadow witness even at the time when he accompanied the complainant to the residence of accused states that the accused was in the house and the complainant asked for the survey sketch and the accused asked him as to whether he had brought the thing that he had told. He states that the complainant admitted having brought the money and gave an amount of Rs. 500/- in the hands of the accused. He states that the accused took this money in his right hand and kept it on the table. He states that the complainant admitted having brought the money and gave an amount of Rs. 500/- in the hands of the accused. He states that the accused took this money in his right hand and kept it on the table. So this version of P.W. 3 is consistent with the version of P.W. 1, the complainant who has also stated in his evidence having kept an amount of Rs. 500/- on the table. The inconsistency is only with regard to the payment of bribe in the hands of the accused. On this aspect of the matter, if the evidence is perused, both P.W. 2, the another witness and P.W. 4, the Investigating Officer state in their evidence that after they entered inside on a signal by the complainant, they caught the accused and his right hand wash was taken and the liquid turned to pink colour. So this fact stated by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and the evidence of P.W. 4 is consistent and it indicates that the accused received the money in his right hand and then kept the money on the table. So the mere fact that P.W. 1 has not stated about the payment of the amount in the hands of the accused, the fact of the liquid turned into pink colour is sufficient to hold that the accused had taken the amount in his hand and kept it on the table. The contents of the spot mahazar Ex. P3 also support the version of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. They have stated in their evidence that the spot mahazar was held in their presence and they had put their signatures on the spot mahazar. 12. Now to consider the contention of the accused that there was no pending work, he has relied upon Exs. D1 to D3 and other documents to establish that the work was not pending with him on the date when the amount is alleged to have been paid. The documents also reveal that on 5.1.2000 after the completion of the survey, the accused had sent the records to the Assistant Director of Land Records and the Tahsildar and that the file was not pending with him. It is solely on this ground that the trial Court has granted the order of acquittal. The documents also reveal that on 5.1.2000 after the completion of the survey, the accused had sent the records to the Assistant Director of Land Records and the Tahsildar and that the file was not pending with him. It is solely on this ground that the trial Court has granted the order of acquittal. On this aspect of the matter it is necessary to note that the complainant was unaware of the fact as to whether it is the accused who gives this survey sketch or his superior officer. It is in the context of these circumstances that the complainant states that he used to approach the accused for the purpose of survey sketch now and then and that it was not given by the accused though he went and approached the accused on many occasions. So this material placed on record would reveal that the complainant was not aware of the person who actually issues the survey sketch. If it was the Assistant Director of Land Records and/or the Tahsildar, there was no difficulty for the accused to inform the complainant to approach the superior officers for the purpose of getting the survey sketch. He does not do so and even in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. he states that he had completed the work of the complainant a month earlier to the date of incident and had sent the records to the Assistant Director of Land Records. Further he states that senior surveyor by name Manjegouda is responsible for filing a false complaint at the instance of the complainant. In so far as the enmity between the said Manjegouda and accused is concerned, no material is placed on record. 13. The scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 is consistent, cogent and is sufficient to hold that the accused received an amount of Rs. 500/- from the complainant and as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the Government Officials cannot be said as tainted witnesses and there is nothing to discredit their evidence. Merely because that P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the Government Officials is not sufficient to draw to an inference that they have supported the prosecution having fear of the Lokayukta Police. 14. Merely because that P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the Government Officials is not sufficient to draw to an inference that they have supported the prosecution having fear of the Lokayukta Police. 14. As could be seen from the charge, there is a case against the accused for the offences under Section 7 of the Act and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Insofar as Section 7 is concerned, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that “the accused accepted such gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to someone in the exercise of his official functions or rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to someone............”. 15. Now the fact that the accused is a public servant is not disputed. There is ample material on record to prove that the accused received an amount of Rs. 500/- and this is not a legal remuneration. The receipt of money was for himself. Furthermore, the accused was not legally entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 500/-. But the only link of the acceptance of the gratification for pending work has not been proved by the prosecution and the material on record reveal that the work to be done by the accused was completed much prior to the date of receipt of the amount. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no material to establish the offence under Section 7 of the Act. 16. Now as could be seen from the second charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act which reads thus: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, (a)............................................... (b).............................................. (c)............................................... In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no material to establish the offence under Section 7 of the Act. 16. Now as could be seen from the second charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act which reads thus: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, (a)............................................... (b).............................................. (c)............................................... (d) if he— (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; So as could be seen from this provision, it is necessary to note that the accused had completed the survey of the land of the complainant much prior to and he had a duty to send the records to the Assistant Director of the Land Records and though he had sent them he did not inform about this fact to the complainant before the acceptance of the amount of Rs. 500/-. So when the accused was not entitled to the legal remuneration, the receipt of Rs. 500/- is illegal and not permitted by law. The receipt of money for the work already done, without disclosing the completion of work is an act which is illegal. In that view of the matter, the accused has received the pecuniary advantage by way of receipt of Rs. 500/- from the complainant and is guilty of criminal misconduct. 17. Now as could be seen from the decision reported in ILR 2001 Kant. 3636 referred to supra, this Court held that even in case if the complainant turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, if the other material placed on record is sufficient, the Courts can award the conviction. So the scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 leads to an irresistible conclusion that the accused by illegal means received an amount of Rs. 500/- without disclosing the fact that the records have been sent to the Assistant Director of Land Records and thereby committed Criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. 1 to 4 leads to an irresistible conclusion that the accused by illegal means received an amount of Rs. 500/- without disclosing the fact that the records have been sent to the Assistant Director of Land Records and thereby committed Criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has committed an error in granting an acquittal so far as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. To this extent, I hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, as the work was not pending on the day, the grant of acquittal by the Court below is justified. In that view of the matter, I answer the points No. 1 in negative, No. 2 in affirmative and No. 3-partly in affirmative and partly in negative and proceed to pass the following order: ORDER Appeal is accepted in part. The respondent/accused is held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. He is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial Court shall secure the presence of the accused to undergo the sentence ordered. The accused is entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr. P.C.