JUDGMENT V. Jagannathan J.—This Criminal Appeal is by A-1. who has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was sentenced to two years S.I. and Rs. 20,000/- fine in respect of his conviction under Section 7 of the Act and to three years S.I. and Rs. 30,000/- fine in respect of the later offence, with default sentences. 2. The ease of the prosecution in short is that, the complainant viz., Dr.Irshed Ahmed Mehkri, along with his brother, inherited ancestral property from his paternal grand-father and in respect of change of khatha pertaining to house property No. 2 situate at M.S.Mehkri Lane. Jumma Masjid Road Cross. Bangalore, and property No. 24 situate at Papanna Lane, Revanna Shetty Pete, Bangalore, the complainant applied for change of khatha in the joint names of himself and his brother before the Chickapete A.R.O's office, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, on 1.3.2002. In respect of the two applications separately filed, the complainant obtained two acknowledgements bearing Nos.KTR.654 and KTR.655. 3. It is the ease of the complainant that on 20.3.2002, he met A-1 Krishnappa who, at the relevant time, was working as a Tax Inspector. Ward No. 28, Chickapete Range of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and at that time, A-2 Nagaraja was working as a peon in the office of the Revenue Inspector, Chickapete Range of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and A-1 gave the complainant two endorsements bearing Nos. 51/2001-02 and 52/2001-02 and asked the complainant to submit two affidavits explaining as to how the complainant acquired the above mentioned properties. The complainant submitted the affidavits and the accused-appellant told the complainant that the matter was a very complicated one and, therefore, the complainant has to pay Rs. 15,000/- in respect of each of the two properties thus totaling Rs. 30,000/-. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant contacted the accused-appellant number of times over phone and also met him at his work place and the appellant repeated his demand for Rs. 30,000/- to be paid. The complainant offered Rs. 8,000/- in respect of each of the properties but the demand of the accused was for Rs. It is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant contacted the accused-appellant number of times over phone and also met him at his work place and the appellant repeated his demand for Rs. 30,000/- to be paid. The complainant offered Rs. 8,000/- in respect of each of the properties but the demand of the accused was for Rs. 10,000/- for each file and finally, unwilling to pay the bribe amount, the complainant approached the Dy.S.P., Lokayuktha (P.W.5), and lodged his complaint as per Ex.P-2. 5. Entrustment mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P-4 and then, the complainant, accompanied by P.W.2 shadow witness, went to the office of the accused appellant, it is the case of the prosecution that A-1 demanded the money from the complainant and when the complainant replied that he has brought the amount, A-1 directed the complainant to pay the amount to A-2 and the complainant went along with A-2 to the ground floor and there the money was paid to A-2. A-2 received the amount and put in (sic) his pant pocket and then came to the first floor and confirmed receipt of the money by him to A-1. Thereafter. A-1 took out the file pertaining to the complainant and gave it to A-2 and told A-2 to take the endorsement, on the two files from the complainant without any date below the signatures. 6. After all these events P.W.1 came and gave signal to the police and the Lokayuktha officials came and caught held of A-2 and recovered the bribe amount which was with A-2. The hand wash of A-2 tested positive on being immersed in the chemical solution. Trap mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P-12. The defence of the accused was that the amount was accepted on behalf of Gopala Reddy, Revenue Inspector, for office expenses. On completion of the investigation, which included obtaining the sanction order as per Ex.P-15, charge sheet was submitted. 7. At the trial, following the accused pleading not guilty, the prosecution led the evidence by examining nine witnesses and getting marked Exs.P-1 to P-23 along with M.Os. 1 to 12. Accused statement was followed by the accused leading the defence evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 5 and marking 21 documents on their side. 8. 7. At the trial, following the accused pleading not guilty, the prosecution led the evidence by examining nine witnesses and getting marked Exs.P-1 to P-23 along with M.Os. 1 to 12. Accused statement was followed by the accused leading the defence evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 5 and marking 21 documents on their side. 8. The learned trial judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted A-1, the appellant herein, as first above mentioned and acquitted A-2, who, during the pendency of this appeal, is said to have died. 9. I have heard learned counsel Shri B.C. Rajanna for the appellant and learned counsel Shri S.G. Rajendra Reddy for the respondent-Lokayuktha and perused the records of this case. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant took me through the evidence of the material witnesses particularly P.W.1 complainant, P.W.2 shadow witness and P.W.6 Revenue Inspector and P.W.9 I.O. and argued that there are number of contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses. It was pointed out that the evidence of these witnesses clearly indicate that A-1 was only a Tax Collector and he was not the person for issuing khatha or making entries for transfer of khatha. Therefore, the question of A-1 demanding any bribe amount, or accepting the said amount from the complainant does not arise. It was also pointed out that P.W.1 is not even aware of the position held by A-1 in his office or the nature of work which was entrusted to A-1. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the evidence of the above witnesses clearly establish that A-1 never demanded or accepted the bribe amount, The evidence of the prosecution is that, it was A-2 who accepted the bribe amount and not A-1. As such, the trial court could not have convicted A-1 at all. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the presence of P.W.6 is not mentioned in Ex.P-12 trap mahazar, whereas, in the evidence it has come that P.W.6 was also present. It is then submitted that P.W.2 shadow witness did not verify as to who are all present in the office and, therefore, the court below could not have accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. It is then submitted that P.W.2 shadow witness did not verify as to who are all present in the office and, therefore, the court below could not have accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. At the same time, it is contended by the appellant's counsel that the evidence of the defence witnesses as well as the prosecution witnesses would go to show that it was one T.Chandrashekhar, who had acted on behalf of the complainant and said Chandrashekhar was not examined before the court. The possibility of the complainant meeting A-1 number of times also does not arise as it was Chandrashekhar who did all the work on behalf of the complainant. 12. As far as the endorsement in Ex.P-1 is concerned, the submission made is that, the prosecution has not examined the hand writing expert to prove the figures of Rs. 15,000/- written twice one below the other on the back of Ex.P-1 as written by A-1. Therefore, the question of A-1 making the said endorsement at Ex.P-1 does not arise. It was also pointed out from the evidence of P.W.9 that P.W.9 did not meet P.W.1 at all. As such, a close examination of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses would go to show that there are number of contradictions and the effect of the said contradictions and omissions is that the witnesses cannot be believed and a false case has been foisted against A-1. It is his submission that the complaint Ex.P-2 is a concocted one because, the complaint was drafted by the Dy.S.P. and not as per the say of the complainant. 13. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid submissions and referring to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in particular, the submission made is that, the trial court could not have convicted the appellant in respect of the offences with which he stood charged. Once it is established that A-1 did not accept the bribe amount, the question of proving the case against him, therefore, cannot arise. The learned counsel also submitted that A-1 has since retired from service is now aged more than 60 years. Therefore, the appeal be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the court below. 14. Once it is established that A-1 did not accept the bribe amount, the question of proving the case against him, therefore, cannot arise. The learned counsel also submitted that A-1 has since retired from service is now aged more than 60 years. Therefore, the appeal be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the court below. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha supported the judgment of the court below and submitted that the learned trial judge has considered the entire evidence very elaborately and, pointing to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as well as P.W.4, it is argued that the receipt of the bribe amount by A-2 on behalf of A-1 is clearly established and A-2 has further confirmed, the same by reporting back to A-1 and further A-1 handed over the file of the complainant to A-2 with a direction to take endorsement, of the complainant on it and the recovery of the amount from A-2 is also established. Therefore, the trial court committed no error in accepting the prosecution case. 15. It is further argued that the acceptance of the bribe amount by A-2 on behalf of A-1 is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant also cannot be interfered with. Reference was made to the observations of the trial court at paragraphs-55 and 69 to submit that A-1, though was not the competent person to issue the khatha, was, in fact, rendering assistance and used to process the papers for change of khatha. Therefore, the evidence goes to show that A-1 also had some role to play in the ultimate issuance of khatha and, as such, the trial court, after careful analysis of the entire evidence on record, has rightly convicted A-1 and A-2 was acquitted because, there was no evidence to show-that A-2 had accepted the bribe amount on his behalf but, on the other hand, A-2 had accepted the amount only on behalf of A-1. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. 16. Having thus heard both sides and after going through the reasoning given by the court below, the point for consideration is whether the appellant has made out a case for this court to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the court below. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. 16. Having thus heard both sides and after going through the reasoning given by the court below, the point for consideration is whether the appellant has made out a case for this court to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the court below. It is well settled law that the appellate court cannot interfere with the judgment of the court below unless it is shown that the findings recorded are perverse in nature or the view taken is an unreasonable one. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid principle, the judgment of the court below will have to be assessed or evaluated. 17. It is not in doubt that A-1 was the Tax Collector and not the Revenue Officer. But, whether A-1 had demanded the bribe amount and accepted the same is the only point for consideration. P.W.1, who is the complainant, is also a doctor by profession and deposed in his evidence that he had been working in St. Martha's Hospital. In the course of his evidence, P.W.1 has deposed about the request made by him to A-1 for the change of khatha and A-1 demanding the bribe amount of Rs. 15,000/- in respect of each of the two applications and bringing the amount down to Rs. 10,000/- each and the complainant, being unwilling to pay the bribe amount, approaching the Lokayuktha police and lodging his complaint as per Ex.P-2. In Ex.P-2, P.W.1 has clearly stated that he was not willing to pay the bribe amount and the demand was made by A-1 Krishnappa. 18. As far as trap is concerned, it has come in the evidence of P.W.1 that he went along with the shadow witness to the hall where A-1 was sitting and A-2, was also sitting on a bench in front of A-1 and A-1 asked P.W.1 as to whether he had brought the bribe amount and on being told in the affirmative, A-1 pointed out to A-2 and told P.W.1 to pay the amount to A-2. This witness has further deposed in his evidence that A-1 told A-2 to collect the amount and report back to him and thereafter A-2 took P.W.1 and the shadow witness P.W.2 to the ground floor and A-2 asked P.W.1 to give the bribe amount and accordingly P.W.1 took out the bribe amount and gave it to A-2 and A-2 received it and put it into his right hand side pant pocket and thereafter, both P.W.1 and A-2 came to the first floor along with the shadow witness and went before A-1 and then A-2 told A-1 that amount has been received and thereafter. A-1 asked P.W.1 to sigh on the two endorsements without putting the date and then A-1 handed over the file to A-2 and then A-2 gave two endorsements to P.W.1 for his signature. After putting the signatures, P.W.1, along with the shadow witness and A-2. came down and then, signal was given to the Lokayuktha police. 19. The further evidence of P.W.1 is that. C.W.14 i.e., I.O., asked A-2 about the bribe amount and A-2 produced the same from his right hand side pant pocket and the notes were found tallying with the notes mentioned earlier in Ex.P-3 and thereafter, the hand wash of A-2 was taken and it tested positive. As far as the file is concerned, P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence that P.W.14 asked A-1 about the file and A-1 produced two files from his table and the first file pertained to property No. 24 and the second file pertained to proper No. 2 and thereafter, the xerox copies of the two filed were taken and they were attested by the Assistant Revenue Officer. The witness has also deposed about the explanation being taken from both the accused by C.W.14 and says that the explanation given by A-1 was false and the trap mahazar is Ex.P-12 and it confirms recovery of Rs. 20,000/- from A-2. 20. The witness has also deposed about the explanation being taken from both the accused by C.W.14 and says that the explanation given by A-1 was false and the trap mahazar is Ex.P-12 and it confirms recovery of Rs. 20,000/- from A-2. 20. P.W.2 T. Srinivas is the shadow witness and he has fully corroborated P.W.1 in all material particulars by deposing at paragraph 7 of his evidence giving all the details of he and P.W.1 going to the office of A-1 and A-1 telling A-2 to collect the amount from P.W.1 and thereafter A-2 taking him and P.W.1 to the ground floor and P.W.1 handing over the amount to A-2 and then A-2 putting the same into his pant pocket and thereafter A-2 bringing P.W.1 and the shadow witness to the first floor and A-2 informing A-1 about the receipt of the amount. 21. P.W.2 has further stated that A-1 gave the file to A-2 and told him to take endorsement of P.W.1 and A-1 also gave instructions to A-2 to take the signatures of P.W.1 on the endorsement and then P.W.1 received the endorsement and thereafter P.W.2. along with A-2 and P.W.1 came to the ground floor and then gave signal to the Lokayuktha police. This witness has also confirmed in the course of his evidence about the recovery of the tainted amount from the pocket of A-2. As far as the files are concerned, P.W.2 has confirmed that the files were with A-1 and they were produced by A-1 in the presence of C.W. 14 and after taking xerox copies, the files were given back to A-1. This witness has also continued that the explanation given by A-1 was a false one. 22. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in particular clearly establishes the prosecution case that A-1 asked P.W.1 to pay the amount to A-2 and A-2 received the same and thereafter A-2 confirmed to A-1 about the receipt of the amount and only then, A-1 handed over the files to A-2 to take the endorsement of P.W.1. 22. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in particular clearly establishes the prosecution case that A-1 asked P.W.1 to pay the amount to A-2 and A-2 received the same and thereafter A-2 confirmed to A-1 about the receipt of the amount and only then, A-1 handed over the files to A-2 to take the endorsement of P.W.1. This evidence dearly shows that, though being a Tax Collector, A-1 also had a role to play in the matter of issuance of khatha and the learned trial judge has referred to this aspect in the course of his judgment and has observed at paragraph-69 that P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence that A-1 acted in a competent way stating that he would do his work and P.W.4, the sanctioning authority, has also deposed in his evidence that A-1 can process the papers for change of khatha. Thus, the evidence on record also shows that A-1 also had some role to play in the matter of issuing khatha although P.W.6 Revenue Inspector also issues the khatha. 23. The learned trial judge has considered the entire evidence in great detail in the course of his judgment and, as far as A-1 being brought within the ambit of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act is concerned, the learned judge of the trial court relied on an Apex Court ruling reported in Virendranath Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 490 to observe that, when the complainant had paid the amount to A-2 at the request of A-1, it was as if A-1 had himself had taken the amount and passed it on to A-2 and, as such, A-1 can be convicted rightly under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C.Act. The learned judge has also referred to the reason for acquitting A-2 by observing that there was no evidence to show that A-2 had demanded the bribe amount. 24. Having thus considered the evidence from all angles, I do not see any case made out by the appellant for this court to interfere with the well considered judgment of the court below. The findings recorded cannot be termed as perverse in nature or the view taken as an unreasonable one. Therefore, no interference is called for as regards the conviction of the appellant. 25. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of the, sentence. The findings recorded cannot be termed as perverse in nature or the view taken as an unreasonable one. Therefore, no interference is called for as regards the conviction of the appellant. 25. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of the, sentence. He submitted that the appellant is more than 60 years of age and, therefore, sentence be reduced. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha is that, the sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) could be considered for modification. 26. Having thus heard both sides, the following order is passed. 27. The conviction of the appellant by the court is sustained. 28. In respect of conviction under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, the sentence imposed by the court below is reduced to one year while maintaining the fine amount as it is and so also the default sentence. As far as the sentence in respect of Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act is concerned, the sentence of three years is reduced to one year while maintaining the fine amount as it is along with the default sentence. 29. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant is entitled to set off in respect of the period if any spent in custody. 30. The appeal is allowed in part only to the extent of the sentences being reduced as above. 31. The trial court shall take necessary steps to secure the presence of the appellant for him to undergo the sentence.