JUDGMENT A.S. PACHHAPURE, J.—The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ for the sake of convenience), 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The appellant who is the accused before the Trial Court was working as Assistant Director of Professional and Executive Employment Exchange at Bangalore. P.W. 1 S. Sudhakar lodged the complaint Ex. P1 on 4.12.2001 before P.W. 4 Sri B.A. Joyappa Dy. SP Lokayukta stating that he is a Post Graduate in Civil Engineering and the Karnataka Government had issued a notification to fill backlog vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community and as he belonged to Bovi Community, he went, to the office of the accused for registering his name. He met the appellant/accused, the Assistant Director, in the morning at about 11.30 a.m. and requested the accused to recommend his name for the backlog vacancies as he was getting age barred. The accused demanded Rs. 2,000/- to sponsor his name and though the complainant expressed his inability to pay that much of amount, the accused insisted for payment of bribe, failing which he informed that, he cannot recommend his name for appointment. It is in these circumstances that the complainant P.W. 1 returned from the office of the accused and approached and submitted the complaint Ex. P1 on 4.12.2001 to P.W. 4 the Dy. S.P. P.W. 4 registered the complaint in Crime No. 38/2001 and secured the attesting witnesses P.W. 2 and C.W. 3 and in the presence of the said witnesses and other police officials including the complainant, he prepared the entrustment mahazar and at that time, the complainant produced the four notes of Rs. 500/- denomination amounting to Rs. 2,000/-. They were treated with phenolphthalein powder. There was a test with regard to the conversion of Sodium Carbonate solution into pink colour, after touching the notes and washing the hands in the Sodium Carbonate solution and, thereafter, the instructions were given to the complainant, to give a signal after the payment, of the amount of bribe to the accused, on demand, so that the Police Officers and other witnesses would, enter into the office of the accused. Accordingly, the Entrustment Mahazar Ex. Accordingly, the Entrustment Mahazar Ex. P.3 was drawn and thereafter, the raiding party went near the office of the accused wherein P.W. 1 the complainant and P.W. 2 the shadow witness made an entry into the office and after wishing the accused, they sat on the chair. The complainant introduced P.W. 2 as his friend to the accused and thereafter requested to sponsor his name for the backlog vacancy. The accused asked as to whether he has brought the amount, and accordingly, the complainant paid the money in the hands of the accused. After the receipt of the amount, the accused kept, it in his left, shirt pocket and the complainant came outside and gave the signal as instructed. It is thereafter that the Police Officials entered the office and seized the notes and washed both the hands of the accused in the Sodium Carbonate liquid which turned into pink colour. The shirt, pocket was also washed into the solution which turned into pink colour. The explanation of the accused was sought and a mahazar was drawn in the office of the accused. Thereafter, the statement of the witnesses was recorded and the sanction order Ex. P11 was obtained from P.W. 3 and on completion of the evidence, the charge-sheet was filed against, the accused for the abovesaid offences. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and in their evidence, the documents Exs. P1 to P22 and M.Os. 1 to 10 were marked. The statement, of the accused was recorded. He has examined DWs. l and 2 the officials of his office and got marked the documents Exs. D1 and D1(a). The Trial Court after hearing the counsel, for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record convicted the appellant/accused for the offences stated supra and the appellant was ordered to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The points that arise for my consideration are: (1) Whether the prosecution proves that the appellant/accused being a public servant accepted an amount of Rs. 2,000/- other than legal remuneration to do an official favour for sponsoring the name of the complainant for the backlog vacancies and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act? (2) Whether the prosecution further proves that the appellant, being a public servant committed a criminal misconduct by corrupt or illegal means and by obtaining an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as pecuniary advantage abusing his position as a public servant, and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act? (3) Whether the judgment and order of the Trial Court warrants any interference? 3. I have taken all the three points together for consideration as they are interrelated. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Sanction Order is illegal and that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind to the facts while granting the Sanction and therefore, it is his contention that the prosecution of the appellant itself is illegal and erroneous. On this aspect of the matter, as could be seen from the provisions of Section 19(3)(a) of the Act. It reads: “19(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).— (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of. or any error, omission, irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby;” So, in the appeal, which has been filed by the accused challenging the conviction, the appellant cannot put forth a plea that the sanction order is either erroneous, irrelevant, etc., unless failure of justice has in fact occasioned in the opinion of the Court. To consider this aspect of the matter, it is necessary to peruse the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. 4. To consider this aspect of the matter, it is necessary to peruse the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. 4. P.W. 1 is the complainant, whereas P.W. 2 is a shadow witness and whatever procedure that was required for the Entrustment Mahazar was followed by P.W. 4 and other police officers and four currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination were given by P.W. 1 to the Dy. S.P. alongwith the complaint Ex. P1 and Entrustment Mahazar Ex. P3 was held. A test was also made regarding the conversion of the Sodium Carbonate liquid into pink colour after washing the hands of the complainant treated with phenolphthalein powder in the liquid and it turned into pink colour and the complainant, was instructed to pay the bribe amount only on demand by the accused. It is relevant at this stage to note that on the date of the incident, in the morning, the complainant had gone to the office of the accused and at that time, when he requested to sponsor his name for a backlog vacancy, the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as the bribe amount to sponsor his name and at that time, the complainant, had given the relevant documents, which were kept in the tray in the office of the appellant. At this juncture, it is contented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused was not on duty on that day and that he came to the office at 4.30 p.m. and that the complainant P.W. l and P.W. 2 came into the office and tried to push the notes into his hands and he refused to receive the same and wanted a complaint, to be filed and at that time, the Lokayukta officials made entry into the office. 5. Now, to establish that he was not on duty on that day, the accused has examined DWs. 1 and 2 his officials and they have stated before the Court that on that day, the accused was on leave. But, it is relevant to note that there is no leave application and no such defence is taken by the accused during the course of examination of the witnesses and even when he offered an explanation, he never told before the Lokayukta Police that he was on leave. But, it is relevant to note that there is no leave application and no such defence is taken by the accused during the course of examination of the witnesses and even when he offered an explanation, he never told before the Lokayukta Police that he was on leave. For the first time, by examining the witnesses, a defence has been taken that, the appellant, was on leave. When, the appellant submits that he came to the office at 4.30 p.m., rather one cannot expect that a person would come to the office for giving leave application at 4.30 p.m. Though the attendance register has not been signed on that day, that itself does not lead to an inference that he was on leave. It may be possible that he had not signed the attendance register on that day either by oversight, or otherwise, and in case, if really he was on leave in the morning hours, then the leave application could have been sent much earlier to the office hours. The scrutiny of the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 reveals that from, the place where they were sitting, they were not able to see whether the accused was in his chambers or not. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that DWs. 1 and 2 are none other than the subordinate officials in the office of the appellant at the relevant time, and it may be that to help the accused, they have deposed for him. The fact that, no such defence was taken at the initial stage and there is the evidence of P.W. l which reveals that he had gone to the office of the accused in the morning and the further fact that the documents given by him to the appellant in the morning hours were produced by the appellant before the Lokayukta Police after the time of trap leads to an inference that the appellant was on duty on that day and the defence that has been put forth appears to be false. 6. Now, so far as the payment, and acceptance is concerned, it is in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they made an entry into the office and in the chambers of the accused, who was sitting in the chair and there were three chairs opposite to the table. 6. Now, so far as the payment, and acceptance is concerned, it is in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they made an entry into the office and in the chambers of the accused, who was sitting in the chair and there were three chairs opposite to the table. So the complainant wished the appellant, and thereafter, sat on the chair and repeated the request to sponsor his name for the purpose of backlog vacancies, as he is being age barred. The accused is said to have demanded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and accordingly, the complainant gave the notes which were treated with phenol phthalein powder and the accused took the notes, counted them and kept it in the left pocket of the shirt. Thereafter, the complainant went outside, gave the signal as instructed and the Police Officials entered inside alongwith other witnesses and asked the accused to produce the notes. Thereafter, the accused produced the notes and the hand wash of both, the hands of the accused was taken in the Sodium Carbonate solution and it turned into pink colour. So also, the shirt pocket wash was done in the Sodium Carbonate solution and it turned into pink colour and thereafter, a mahazar was drawn. So the evidence of the complainant P.W. 1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2 the shadow witness. There is consistency in the evidence of these two witnesses. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination as to raise any doubt with regard to the veracity of these two witnesses. The evidence is consistent, cogent and furthermore, even the officials examined have deposed before the Court regarding the drawing up of the entrustment mahazar Ex. P3 and the trap mahazar Ex. P8. The accused had also produced the documents including the Employment. Card Ex. P5 and the certificates and mark sheet Ex. P6. The hand wash of the complainant, at the time of the Entrustment Mahazar M.O. 2 and the hand wash of the accused at the time of the trap mahazar M.Os. 4 and 5 were sealed and the perusal of the evidence reveals that after washing the hands, the colour of the Sodium Carbonate solution turned into pink. In the circumstances, this material placed on record supports the version of the prosecution with regard to the payment of the bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the accused. So. 4 and 5 were sealed and the perusal of the evidence reveals that after washing the hands, the colour of the Sodium Carbonate solution turned into pink. In the circumstances, this material placed on record supports the version of the prosecution with regard to the payment of the bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the accused. So. from whatsoever angle the evidence is scanned, the material placed on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 7. So, the perusal of the evidence reveals sufficient material to prove the acceptance of bribe. Nowhere the appellant has pleaded that a failure of justice has occasioned due to the irregularity in granting the sanction. Even, otherwise, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W. 3, it is very much clear that the Government is the appointing authority and he has the authority to sign on behalf of and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka. So, he has gone through the file Ex. P12 and on perusal of the records, he has granted the sanction Ex. P11. Therefore, I do not find any such irregularity or illegality in the order of sanction. 8. The perusal of the judgment and order of the Court below reveals that the evidence has been appreciated in a proper perspective and the learned Judge, through his well, reasoned judgment has concluded that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and I do not find any error or irregularity in the judgment and order of the Court, below. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the offence was committed in 2001, about nine years back, I am of the opinion that, the interest of justice would be met, in case, if the sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act is reduced to one year maintaining the fine and default sentence. In the circumstances, the judgment and order of the Court below does not warrant any interference. In the circumstances, the judgment and order of the Court below does not warrant any interference. In that view of the matter, I answer Points 1 and 2 in the affirmative and Point No. 3 partly in affirmative and partly in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed confirming the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant/accused has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default sentence and imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. with and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default sentence. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.