JUDGMENT A.S. PACHHAPURE, J.—The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 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 herein who is the accused before the Trial Court was employed as a Second Division Assistant in the Mysore City Corporation and it is the case of the prosecution that to do some official favour, i.e., for getting an allotment of site to the complainant, the appellant/accused demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from P.W. 4 Shivalingaiah as a gratification other than legal remuneration for showing an official favour, assuring him that he would get the site to the complainant on payment of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- and to pay the same in monthly instalments of Rs. 500/-. In furtherance of this demand, it is the case of the prosecution that as the complainant was not willing to pay the money, he approached the Lokayuktha Police and submitted his complaint Ex. P9 and thereafter the Police Officers held the entrustment mahazar Ex. P4 and at that time, the complainant gave a note of Rs. 500/- denomination which was treated with phenolphthalein powder and was returned to the complainant after making a test of the conversion of Sodium Carbonate solution into pink colour by washing the hands of the complainant in the said solution. The complainant was instructed to pay the money to the accused when demanded and thereafter, to come outside and give a signal by pretending to cough. So accordingly, on 12-6-1996, the Police Officer P.W. 7, after the arrival of P.W. 4 Shivalingaiah secured two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 2 and 3 and in their presence held the Entrustment Mahazar Ex. P4, after registering the complaint in Crime No. 9/1996 and sent, the FIR in sealed cover to the Magistrate as per Ex. P6 and after the Entrustment Mahazar and completion of all the process and washing their hands, gave Rs. 500/- note to the complainant and gave the instructions to give the signal as stated supra. P4, after registering the complaint in Crime No. 9/1996 and sent, the FIR in sealed cover to the Magistrate as per Ex. P6 and after the Entrustment Mahazar and completion of all the process and washing their hands, gave Rs. 500/- note to the complainant and gave the instructions to give the signal as stated supra. On the same day, P.W. 7 alongwith the complainant, the attesting witnesses and the Police Officials by walk went near the premises of the accused and P.W. 3 the shadow witness and P.W. 4 the complainant went inside the residence of the accused and at that time, the accused said to have demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- as agreed upon earlier and the complainant paid the amount to the accused, on demand, in the presence of P.W. 3, whom he introduced to the accused as his friend and the accused took the currency note and kept it on the table near by. The complainant came outside and gave the signal as instructed and the Police Officials entered inside alongwith P.W. 2 and disclosed their identity. The fingers of both the hands of the accused were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour and indicating the receipt of the amount by the accused. They seized the amount and held the mahazar and at that time sought the explanation of the accused regarding the receipt, of the money. The accused gave a confession letter Ex. P6 stating that he has committed a mistake by receiving illegal gratification and alter preparing the mahazar Ex. P7, the accused was arrested and released on bail. Thereafter, P.Ws. 5 and 6 held the further investigation and secured the Sanction Order from P.W. 1 and filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and the documents Exs. P1 to P18 and M.Os. 1 to 8 were marked. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He has taken the defence of total denial and claimed in the statement that he was not well on that day and lying on the cot and that the complainant forcibly put the note in his hands and thereafter, he kept it on the table and that the Police Officer later seized the note. Though the accused has not led any defence evidence, got marked Ex. Though the accused has not led any defence evidence, got marked Ex. D1 a portion in the statement of P.W. 2. The Trial Court after hearing the Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused and on appreciation of the material on record, held that there was demand and acceptance of unlawful remuneration to do some official favour and in the circumstances convicted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for another eight months for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. The sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The points that arise for my consideration are: (1) Whether the prosecution proves that the appellant/accused being a public servant, accepted or obtained gratification of Rs. 500/- other than the legal remuneration, as reward, to do an official favour to the complainant P.W. 4 and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act? (2) Whether the Prosecution further proves that the appellant/accused committed criminal misconduct by obtaining for himself an amount of Rs. 500/- by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing his position as a public servant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act? (3) Whether the appellant/accused has made out any grounds to warrant interference in the judgment and order of the Court below? 4. So far as the sanction is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that it is not in proper order and that P.W. 1 has not applied his mind in granting the sanction produced at Ex. P2. 4. So far as the sanction is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that it is not in proper order and that P.W. 1 has not applied his mind in granting the sanction produced at Ex. P2. To prove the grant of sanction, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 the Commissioner of Mysore City Corporation who was the appointing and removing authority of the appellant/accused from service and he states in his evidence that the records pertaining to the trap were produced before him and that after the perusal of the records in detail including the documents produced by the IGP Lokayuktha, passed an order granting sanction as per Ex. P2. Even as could be seen from the Sanction Order Ex. P2, it reveals the application of mind by P.W. 1 in granting the sanction to prosecute the appellant/accused and further, as could be seen from the cross examination, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1. Just a suggestion has been made to P.W. 1 that he has not applied his mind, while granting the sanction. The perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 and the Sanction Order Ex. P2 reveals that P.W. 1 being a competent person to grant, the sanction has issued the Sanction Order, after going through the file and having been satisfied himself of the offences alleged to have been, committed, has granted the sanction. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused cannot be accepted. 5. So far as the demand and acceptance is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the evidence led by the prosecution is inconsistent and there are material discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 and further, he contends that there is no demand of unlawful remuneration by the accused and further that, the accused was not a person competent to sanction the permission and therefore, it is his contention that the appellant/accused has not committed any offence and the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellant/accused. 6. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the witnesses, who were secured by P.W. 7 on the date of the Entrustment Mahazar Ex. P4, i.e., on 12.6.1996 and a test was done in the presence of the complainant, after the complaint Ex. 6. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the witnesses, who were secured by P.W. 7 on the date of the Entrustment Mahazar Ex. P4, i.e., on 12.6.1996 and a test was done in the presence of the complainant, after the complaint Ex. P9 was filed, after holding the notes, the fingers of the complainant were dipped into the Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour turned to pink. After giving relevant, instructions to the complainant and P.W. 3 the shadow wintess, the mahazar Ex. P4 was drawn. The perusal of the evidence of P.W. 2 reveals some minor discrepancies, wherein P.W. 2 states that the note to be given to the accused was kept in a paper and that he does not know as to what happened to the paper, though he states that the note was kept on the table. Furthermore, some inconsistency in the statement of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is noticed, which pertains to the question as to whether the accused was sitting all along till the Police arrived inside the house, after the payment, of the bribe. P.W. 3 states that he was sitting on a cot near the table which was at a distance of about 5 to 6 feet from the cot. Both P.Ws. 3 and 4 consistently state that after entering into the premises of the accused, the complainant told the aecused that as agreed upon, he has brought an amount of Rs. 500/- and paid the same and the accused who took it, kept the currency note on the table. So far as P.W. 4 is concerned, he does not speak about the demand, but speaks in his evidence that he told that he has brought the amount of Rs. 500/- as demanded and the accused asked the money and he gave it in the hands of the accused. It is relevant to note that prior to the trap, there was a discussion between the complainant and the accused wherein the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to get a site allotted to the complainant and this amount was payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 500/- and the accused agreed to receive Rs. 500/- every month. So in the context of this discussion, even if the accused without demanding the amount receives or accepts the same, that fulfills the requirement of Section 7 of the Act. 7. 500/- and the accused agreed to receive Rs. 500/- every month. So in the context of this discussion, even if the accused without demanding the amount receives or accepts the same, that fulfills the requirement of Section 7 of the Act. 7. The perusal of Section 7 of the Act reveals that a public servant whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, to mean, even the acceptance of the bribe is an offence and the acceptance may be implied or expressed. Though amongst the two witnesses, P.Ws. 3 and 4 one says that there was a demand, the other says that there was no specific demand by the accused and that after explaining the payment to be made, the complainant said that he has brought the money and gave it to the hands of the accused which he accepted. So this discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is not material in view of the fact, that acceptance of the money is itself sufficient to fulfil the requirements of Section 7 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused also contended about some discrepancy in the mahazar wherein there is some mistake, so far as the payment of amount even before the entry of P.Ws. 3 and 4 in the premises of the accused. But the reading of the sentence reveals that it is a mistake committed by oversight, while preparing the mahazar and that is not sufficient to discard the oral evidence. 9. Furthermore, so far as the instructions given by P.Ws. 7 to P.W. 4 it is contended that P.W. 7 had instructed P.W. 4 to give the money only when there is a demand and as there is no demand, the payment is voluntary and that it does not amount to acceptance of bribe under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. It may be that P.W. 7 has given such instructions to pay only when there is a demand but the discussion, referred to supra with regard to the inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 reveal that even the acceptance is sufficient to conclude the appellant/accused having committed the offence under Section 7 of the Act. 10. It may be that P.W. 7 has given such instructions to pay only when there is a demand but the discussion, referred to supra with regard to the inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 reveal that even the acceptance is sufficient to conclude the appellant/accused having committed the offence under Section 7 of the Act. 10. Furthermore, so far as the authority of the accused is concerned, he was a Second Division Assistant and was entrusted with the duty to maintain the inward and outward register in the office of the Corporation. In this context, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the accused had no authority to do any official favour to the complainant by allotting the site and in such circumstances, he contends that he alleged payment of Rs. 500/- itself does not amount to the receipt, of bribe to do an official favour which could not have been done by the accused. But the perusal of the complaint would reveal the statement of the accused to the effect that in case if the amount of Rs. 5,000/- is paid, he would get the site allotted to the complainant. So getting the site allotted is through some body may be a higher officer in the Corporation or the competent authority to allot the sites and receiving the bribe with such an assurance to get the site allotted by persuading the superiors fulfills the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. So, merely because that the accused had no authority to grant the site, it cannot be said that he has not committed the offences alleged. 11. When the witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 4 state in their evidence that, the accused received the money and kept the same on the table, an inference has to be drawn that he got up from the cot, received the money and kept it on the table which was by the side of the cot. In the circumstances, merely because that the witnesses state that the accused did not get up from the cot, it is not sufficient to overcome the version of the prosecution as regards the receipt of money by the accused and keeping the same on the table. In the circumstances, merely because that the witnesses state that the accused did not get up from the cot, it is not sufficient to overcome the version of the prosecution as regards the receipt of money by the accused and keeping the same on the table. The fact that the fingers which were washed in the Sodium Carbonate solution converting it into the pink colour reveals the acceptance of the bribe amount. 12. So viewed from any angle, the evidence though reveals some minor discrepancies substantially, it is consistent so far as the acceptance of the amount of Rs. 500/- by the accused for the purpose of showing an official favour for getting a site allotted to the complainant. It is said that there is no case without any discrepancy and ultimately, it depends upon whether the discrepancy is material or otherwise. Scanning the evidence led by the prosecution, it does not reveal any material discrepancies and the evidence of the complaint is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3 a shadow witness and P.W. 2 an attesting witness and furthermore, after washing the fingers of the accused, the Sodium Carbonate solution converted into pink colour and this conversion of the colour adds strength to the case of the prosecution, so far as the acceptance of the amount by the accused. 13. So the perusal of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court to award conviction for the offence referred to supra, reveals that, there is no error or illegality committed by the Trial Court. Furthermore, so far as the punishment is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the incident occurred in the year 1996 and that the appellant is not in service since then and therefore, he submits to show leniency by reducing the sentence of imprisonment, and the fine amount. 14. So far as the offence under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, the Trial Court has awarded the sentence of imprisonment for one year. It is just and proper. The appellant/accused is a Second Division. Assistant and considering the nature of the job, I think it would be just and proper to reduce only the fine amount to Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. 15. It is just and proper. The appellant/accused is a Second Division. Assistant and considering the nature of the job, I think it would be just and proper to reduce only the fine amount to Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. 15. So far as the offence under Section 13(2) of the Act is concerned, the minimum sentence is one year and the maximum is seven years. The Trial Court has awarded the sentence of imprisonment of two years. I think the interest of justice would be met, in case, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one year and the fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the appellant accused is ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. The substantial sentences are ordered to run concurrently. In the circumstances, I answer points 1 and 2 in the affirmative and Point No. 3 partly in affirmative and partly in negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part confirming the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. The appellant/accused 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 three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. Further, he is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences to run concurrently.