JUDGMENT A.N. Venugopala Gowda , J.—The appellant was put on trial for commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in Special Case No. 44/2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Tumkur. He was found guilty by Judgment dated 8.10.2009 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and was further sentenced for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) of the Act, to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run currently. Shortly stated, the facts are that, the appellant-accused, at the relevant time, was working as a Village Accountant at Bukkapatna, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District. It was the case of the prosecution that, Kodandarama Setty (PW-1), owns 30 Guntas of land in Sy. No 133/4, Bukkapatna Village, which came to him under a family partition in 1975-76 and that, he approached the accused to take an RTC extract and learnt that, only an extent of 12 Guntas was shown as belonging to him, instead of 30 Guntas and that the accused demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe for setting right the mistake and when Kodandarama Setty pleaded his inability to pay so much money and offered to pay only Rs.5,000/-, the accused at last, agreed to accept Rs.10,000/- in the first instance and to receive the balance, after the work was done. Kodandarama Setty assured the accused, that he will organize Rs.10,000/- in a day or two and would come back, for which, the accused said that the money should be paid prior to Ugadi festival, either at Sira or at Bukkapatna. Unwilling to pay the bribe amount to the Village Accountant, who is a Government servant and the demand made to pay the bribe being illegal, Kodandarama Setty lodged complaint in writing, on 15.3.1999, before the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Tumkur District, Tumkur. In the complaint, it was further stated that, as per the instructions of the Village Accountant, he had given application to the Tahsildar and the said application is now with the Village Accountant, Bukkapatna for necessary action. In the complaint, it was further stated that, as per the instructions of the Village Accountant, he had given application to the Tahsildar and the said application is now with the Village Accountant, Bukkapatna for necessary action. D. Narayanaswamy, P.I., Karnataka Lokayuktha, Tumkur (PW-10), having received the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 6/1999 for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) of the Act and sent the FIR to the Court. PW-10 decided.: to lay a trap and sent requisitions to the officers, wherein, B.K. Narasimhamurthy (PW-2) and B. Yoganna (PW-3) were working and after the arrival of PWs.2 and 3, PW-1 produced 100 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. The serial numbers of the currency notes were noted and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said currency notes and after observing the usual formalities and after demonstration regarding preparation of sodium carbonate solution and washing of hands, the pre entrustment panchanama/Ex.P2 was drawn and thereafter, PW-10 along with PWs. 1, 2, 3, 6 and his staff, went near the office of the accused and the complainant/PW-1 was instructed to hand over the entrusted currency notes to the accused, only when he makes a demand and was instructed to give the pre-determined signal. PWs. 1, 2 and 6 went to the office of the accused and they came back saying that the accused told that he would come to the house of PW-6. Complainant/PW-1, B.K. Narasimha Murthy/shadow witness and B.R. Manjunath/PW-6, went to the house of PW-6. Accused came to the house of PW-6 and told PW-1, that he has done his work and whether Kodandarama Setty has brought what was asked by him. PW-1 took out the entrusted currency notes and handed over the same to the accused, who kept the same in the secret pocket of his pant. PW-1 went out of the house of PW-6 and gave the pre-determined signal, by wiping his face. Immediately, the trap party led by PW-10 entered the house of PW-6. The complainant pointed out the accused and stated that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe amount. The accused was apprehended. PW-10 conducted the sodium carbonate solution test and the right hand wash of the accused was taken in the solution and it turned to pink colour. Immediately, the trap party led by PW-10 entered the house of PW-6. The complainant pointed out the accused and stated that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe amount. The accused was apprehended. PW-10 conducted the sodium carbonate solution test and the right hand wash of the accused was taken in the solution and it turned to pink colour. PW-10 asked the accused regarding the money and the accused took out the money from his secret pant pocket and produced. The serial numbers of the currency notes were verified with the currency notes mentioned in the entrustment mahazar and they tallied. Thereafter, PW-10 seized the pant of accused and the secret pocket of the pant was dipped in the solution and the solution turned to pink colour. The accused gave his written explanation and told that he had asked for loan and that the money given by PW-1 was the loan for education of his son. Trap panchanama was drawn in the house of PW-6, by PW-10, which was attested by PWs. 1, 2, 3, 6 and staff of PW-10, present at the time of trap. After completion of the investigation and obtaining the sanction for prosecution of the accused, charge sheet was filed. 2. The accused denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to bring home the charge, examined 10 witnesses. PW-1/Kodandarama Shetty is the complainant. PW-2/B.K. Narasimhamurthy is the shadow witness. PW-3/B. Yoganna is the panch witness to the pretrap panchanama and the trap panchanama. PW-4/B. Lokesh is an Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Kolar and had accompanied the trap party on the instruction of his official superior. PW-5/K.H. Gopalakrishne Gowda, Deputy Commissioner having examined the record of the case granted sanction for prosecution of the accused for the offences under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) of the Act. PW-6/B.R. Manjunath accompanied the complainant to the office of PW-10, participated in the pre-trap panchanama proceedings, accompanied the trap party and it is to his house, the accused came, sought and accepted the bribe amount from PW-1. PW-7/C.K. Ramaswamy is an engineer and prepared the sketch of the scene of offence. PW-8/N. Rangaiah is the Revenue Inspector. PW-9/Lakshmipathaiah Reddy is the Tahsildar. PW-10/D. Narayanaswamy is the Investigation Officer. 3. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is pre-trap panchanama. Ex.P3 is trap panchanama. Ex.P4 is statement showing the serial numbers of the currency notes. PW-7/C.K. Ramaswamy is an engineer and prepared the sketch of the scene of offence. PW-8/N. Rangaiah is the Revenue Inspector. PW-9/Lakshmipathaiah Reddy is the Tahsildar. PW-10/D. Narayanaswamy is the Investigation Officer. 3. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is pre-trap panchanama. Ex.P3 is trap panchanama. Ex.P4 is statement showing the serial numbers of the currency notes. Ex.P5 is the written explanation of the accused submitted during trap proceedings in the house of PW-6. Ex.P6 is xerox copy of the pahani and mutation extracts. Ex.P7 is sanction order for prosecution of accused. Ex.P8 is xerox copy of the sketch. Ex. P9 is xerox copy of the order of Tahsildar, dated 3.5.1999. Ex.P10 is letter dated 12.5.1999 sent by PW-9. Ex.P11 is FIR. Exs.P.12 and P. 13 are the requisitions sent by PW-10 to the officers, wherein PWs.2 and 3 were working. Ex.14 is sample seal. Ex.P15 is property form. Ex.P16 is chemical examiners report. Ex.D1 is the application of the complainant/PW-1, dated 24.2.1999, addressed to the Tahsildar, in the matter of rectification of the extent of land of Sy.No. 133/4, Bukkapatna Village. Exs.D4 and D5 are the mutation register extracts. Ex.D7 is certified copy of Akarband of land bearing Sy. No. 133/1. 4. MO-1 is sealed bottle containing sample solution of sodium carbonate. MO-2 is sealed bottle containing hand wash of PW-3/B. Yoganna, the panch witness. MO-3 is sealed bottle containing the resultant wash of left hand fingers of the accused. MO-4 is the sealed bottle containing the resultant wash of right hand fingers of the accused. MO-5 are 100 currency notes of Rs.100/-denomination (bribe amount). MO-6 is sealed cover. MO-7 is sealed bottle containing resultant wash of the secret pocket of the pant. MO-8 is pant of the accused, which he was wearing at the time of trap. MO-9 is sealed cover containing the pant. 5. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., while he denying the incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was put to him, has only stated that, he has no power to effect the change in RTC and the Tahsildar has not passed the order and hence he has not done anything. No defence evidence was adduced. 6. Based on the evidence, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty and he was convicted and sentenced, noticed supra, for the offences charged. No defence evidence was adduced. 6. Based on the evidence, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty and he was convicted and sentenced, noticed supra, for the offences charged. Assailing the Judgment of conviction and the Order of sentence, this appeal has been filed. 7. Sri A.H. Bhagavan, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant, contended as follows: a) Manner of lodging the complaint/Ex.P1 is not free from doubt. b) Accused had no authority/power to show any favour to the complainant/PW-1, in the manner allegedly desired by PW-1. c) There is no credible evidence with regard to the demand of the alleged bribe. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to find the accused guilty of the charged offences. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in (1) V. Venkata Subbarao Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, A.P., AIR 2007 SC 489 ; (2) 1979 Cri. L.J. 1087; (3) (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1; (4) 2010 (3) KCCR 1851 ; (5) 2008 (2) KCCR 985 . d) The defence and the material on record shows that, it was the Tahsildar/PW-9, who was the main culprit and for whom the amount of bribe alleged to have been accepted by the accused. Since, PW-9 was not prosecuted, the prosecution of the appellant and the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court is illegal. e) On account of the ill will, PVV-6 by joining hands with PW-1, has falsely implicated the appellant. f) The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, reversal of the impugned Judgment and Order is warranted. g) Alternatively, the sentence imposed is harsh. 8. Smt. T.M. Gayathri, learned advocate, appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended as follows: a) It was clinchingly proved by the prosecution by adducing credible evidence that the bribe was demanded from the complainant by the accused, who was a public servant and in pursuance of demand, the accused accepted the bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. b) PWs.1, 2 and 3 had absolutely no reason to speak against the accused and their disinterested testimony was bound to be accepted and was rightly accepted by the learned Trial Judge. c) The accused had no business to go to the house of PW-6 during office hours and accept the money from PW-1. b) PWs.1, 2 and 3 had absolutely no reason to speak against the accused and their disinterested testimony was bound to be accepted and was rightly accepted by the learned Trial Judge. c) The accused had no business to go to the house of PW-6 during office hours and accept the money from PW-1. No explanation of whatsoever nature has been offered by the accused for his presence during the office hours, in the house of PW-6. d) Explanation offered at the time of trap vide Ex.P5 and the statement made when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., are inconsistent and even otherwise has not been probabilised. e) Once it is proved that the accused accepted the amount, it was immaterial, whether, he was in a position to oblige the complainant or not or whether the accepted amount was for him or was for someone else as sought to be made out during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. f) Since, during the trial it has been proved that the accused has accepted the gratification, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, automatically was attracted and the same has not been rebutted by the accused, as the explanation/Ex.P5 has not been probabilised by the material on record. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 1797 and (2007) (1) SCC (Cri) 711. g) There being no flaw committed in the matter of conducting of the trap proceedings by PW-10 and the investigation conducted being flawless and credible evidence having been brought on record of the case, the learned Trial Judge is justified in passing the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused. h) There is correct appreciation of the record of the case and the findings in the impugned Judgment are neither perverse nor illegal, warranting any interference. 9. In view of the rival contentions and the record of the case which was perused by me, the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant to rectify the extent of land bearing Sy. No. 133/4 of Bukkapatna Village in the RTC and has committed the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988? 10. PW-1 is the complainant. Ex.P1 is the complaint. No. 133/4 of Bukkapatna Village in the RTC and has committed the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988? 10. PW-1 is the complainant. Ex.P1 is the complaint. PW-10 received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No. 6/1999, under Ss. 7, 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act 1988. PW-1 has said that he wrote complaint/Ex.P1 and lodged the same on 15.3.1999 before the Lokayuktha Police. PW-1 has identified his signature (Ex.P1(a)) on Ex.P1. PW-6 in cross-examination has said that, he wrote the complaint by sitting outside the Lokayuktha Police Office, Tumkur and then PW-1 signed it and himself and PW-1 went to the Police Inspector and lodged the complaint. When the said discrepancy was pointed out, learned trial Judge has held that, who wrote Ex.P1 appears to be minor contradiction and not a material aspect of the case. First contention urged by Sri A.H. Bhagavan (noticed supra), is with reference to the said discrepancy in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6. In my opinion, the discrepancy in the evidence of PW-1 and 6, as to who wrote Ex.P1 is a minor matter. PW-1 is a literate and has stood by the contents of Ex.P1. There is no dispute that Ex.P1 contains the signature of PW-1 and that he has lodged the same before PW-10, who registered the case, laid the trap, completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. The discrepancy in the evidence of PWs.1 and 6, as to in whose hand Ex.P1 is, rather a minor matter. There is no manner of doubt with regard to the lodging of Ex.P1 by PW-1. A discrepancy would be minor, if it does not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. Since, there is no challenge to the lodging of Ex.P1, by PW-1, before PW-10, the main issue is, whether there was demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused - a public servant, for doing an official act. Keeping in view the credible evidence brought on record by the prosecution to establish the charged offences, the said minor discrepancy has rightly been over looked by the learned Trial Judge. The first contention urged for the appellant has no merit. 11. PW-9 was the Tahsildar of Sira Taluk at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the credible evidence brought on record by the prosecution to establish the charged offences, the said minor discrepancy has rightly been over looked by the learned Trial Judge. The first contention urged for the appellant has no merit. 11. PW-9 was the Tahsildar of Sira Taluk at the relevant point of time. He has said that the accused was working under him as a Village Accountant and was in-charge of Bukkapatna circle. PW-8 was the Revenue Inspector of Bukkapatna circle at the relevant point of time and has said that the accused was working as the Village Accountant and that the complainant/PW-1 had given an application seeking change in RTC of the land and the same was forwarded to him for his initial by the Taluk Office and that he has put his initial Ex.D1(a), on the application/ Ex.D1. PW-9 has said that, during 1975-76, the revenue entry in the pahani pertaining to the land in Sy. No. 133/4 of Bukkapatna village was showing the extent as 30 guntas' and the said entry was reduced to 12 guntas' during 1995-96 by the accused, without an order by the superior authority. He has said that the mutation proceedings showed that PW-1 had obtained the land under a partition deed between himself and his brothers and accordingly the mutation was done. PW-1 has said that upon noticing the discrepancy in the extent of the land i.e., 12 guntas instead of 30 guntas', he told the accused that he was allotted 30 guntas as per the partition deed and he was allotted 30 guntas and it was a mistake to show in the revenue record, his extent as 12 guntas'. PW-1 has said that the accused told him, that nothing could be done and, if Rs.20,000/- is paid, he would rectify the same and that, after bargaining, the accused told to pay Rs.10,000/- in the first instance and after the pahani was rectified, pay the balance Rs.10,000/-. Unwilling to pay the demanded amount, PW-1 lodged the complaint Ex.P1. PW-10 has said about the registration of the case, pre-trap proceedings, the trap conducted and about the investigation done. A suggestion put to PW-1, that the Tahsildar had issued instruction to the accused to do the work, if Rs.20,000/- is paid was denied. In cross-examination, PW-6 has said that the accused told PW-1, that the Tahsildar was asking for higher amount. A suggestion put to PW-1, that the Tahsildar had issued instruction to the accused to do the work, if Rs.20,000/- is paid was denied. In cross-examination, PW-6 has said that the accused told PW-1, that the Tahsildar was asking for higher amount. In the cross-examination of the Tahsildar/PW-9, a suggestion put to the effect that, he had told PW-1 that the entire process involves expenditure and therefore PW-1 should give Rs.20,000/- to the accused, was denied. The further suggestion put to PW-9, that as per his instruction, PW-1 had tried to pay Rs.10,000/- towards expenses to the accused and that the accused did not accept the same, was denied. From the evidence, it is clear that the accused was attending to the work of rectification of the extent of land of the complainant, in the Revenue records of Sy. No. 133/4 of Bukkapatna village, i.e., from 12 guntas to 30 guntas'. 12. Ex.P1 shows the demand for payment of gratification by the accused. PW-1 in his testimony has said about the demand made by the accused, the pre-trap proceedings and the acceptance of bribe amount/tainted currency notes by the accused i.e., in the house of PW-6. He has also said about the trap proceedings, the recovery of tainted money from the accused, the explanation as per Ex.P5 offered by the accused and the mahazars drawn. PW-1 has stood by the allegation made by him in Ex.P1. 13. PW-2 is the shadow witness and has said about the pre-trap proceedings, the mahazar drawn, he accompanying PW-1 to the office of the accused, the talk which took place therein, the arrival of the accused in the house of CW-4/PW-6 and the say of the accused to PW-1 about 'he having done his work' and as to whether 'PW-1 had brought what was asked by him'. PW-2 has said about PW-1 handing over the marked currency notes and the accused having kept the said money in the secret pocket of his pant. PW-2 has said about the demand for payment of bribe and its acceptance by the accused PW-2, an independent witness, has supported the prosecution case, in all the material aspects relating to the demand of gratification from PW-1 and the acceptance by the accused. 14. PW-2 has said about the demand for payment of bribe and its acceptance by the accused PW-2, an independent witness, has supported the prosecution case, in all the material aspects relating to the demand of gratification from PW-1 and the acceptance by the accused. 14. PW-6 has said about the lodging of the complaint/Ex.P1, the pre-trap proceeding held at the office of PW-10, the trap party reaching the office of the accused and the talk that took place in the office of the accused and later, the arrival of the accused in his house and about the accused making demand for payment of Rs.10,000/, the handing over of the marked currency notes by PW-1 and the accused upon acceptance, keeping the said money in his pant pocket and the arrival of PW-10, the recovery of the tainted money from the accused, the explanation offered by the accused and regarding the drawing of the trap proceedings. Though it was sought to be made out that PW-6 is ill disposed, nothing material has been elicited to doubt the testimony. If there was any ill will, as alleged, the accused would not have gone to the house of PW-6 and that too during the working hours. The presence of PW-6 at the time of the trap is not in dispute. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW-6, who has supported the prosecution case in all respects. 15. PW-3, panch witness has said about the pre-trap proceedings, the trap conducted in the house of PW-6, the recovery of the tainted money from the accused, the mahazars drawn and also about the explanation offered by the accused. Presence of PW-3 has not been disputed. PW-3 has supported the prosecution case. 16. The evidence brought on record of the case by the prosecution makes it clear, that the accused was caught red-handed by PW-10, with the tainted currency notes found in the pant pocket of the accused. There is no dispute with regard to the tainted money being found in possession of the accused and the recovery by PW-10. 17. The trap proceedings conducted by PW-10 as per Exs.P2 and P3 and the recovery of the marked currency notes from the accused having virtually gone unchallenged, Sri A.H. Bhagavan, rightly did not raise any objection with regard to the trap proceedings recorded in Exs.P2 and P3. 17. The trap proceedings conducted by PW-10 as per Exs.P2 and P3 and the recovery of the marked currency notes from the accused having virtually gone unchallenged, Sri A.H. Bhagavan, rightly did not raise any objection with regard to the trap proceedings recorded in Exs.P2 and P3. Even otherwise, perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 10 shows that the trap was successful and that the bribe amount was recovered from the possession of the accused. 18. It is trite that, mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to record a conviction, unless there is evidence that the gratification had been demanded and accepted by the accused. In view of the recovery of the marked currency notes from the accused, since the presumption under Section 20 is attracted, in view of the explanation offered by the accused vide Ex.P5 and the statement made when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the point to be determined is, whether the demand and acceptance of gratification, which is sine qua non for constituting the charged offence has been proved. 19. In Ex.P5, the accused has stated that, for his son's education he asked for a loan and he did not make any demand with the complainant for payment of bribe and that PWs.1 and 6 have falsely implicated him in the case. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., except denying the incriminating evidence which was put to him, he has not made any material statement. He has only said that, he has no power to effect the change and the Tahsildar has not passed any order and hence, he did not do anything. There is no defence evidence placed on record. The accused has not placed any evidence to probabilise his defence that he had sought loan and that the amount paid by PW-1 was towards loan. In view of explanation (d) to S. 7 of the Act, the issue whether the accused could or could not deliver the result, becomes irrelevant, in view of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 6. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6 and also Exs.P1 to P3 make it clear that there was demand of bribe by the accused and also the acceptance. The presence of PWs.2 and 3 at the time of trap is not disputed. PWs.2 and 3 are independent witnesses and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6 and also Exs.P1 to P3 make it clear that there was demand of bribe by the accused and also the acceptance. The presence of PWs.2 and 3 at the time of trap is not disputed. PWs.2 and 3 are independent witnesses and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. 20. The Trial Judge while passing the Judgment has noticed in great detail the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, the exhibited documents on both sides and there is correct appreciation of material evidence. Minor discrepancies in the evidence has to be ignored, since the evidence was recorded in the Court after a long time gap from the date the trap was successfully conducted. The discrepancies are trivial in nature and does not affect the prosecution case. The evidence brought on record clinchingly proves that the accused has demanded the bribe and accepted the same, to do the official act i.e., to correct the extent of the land of the complainant, from 12 guntas to 30 guntas'. 21. In view of credible evidence brought on record of the case by the prosecution, there is enough evidence to hold that the accused has committed the charged offences. In view of abundant evidence available on record, with regard to the guilt of the accused, the learned Trial Judge is justified in finding the accused guilty of the charged offences. The Judgment of conviction passed against the appellant is well founded. 22. Except putting suggestions to PWs. 1, 6, 8 and 9, that the bribe money was meant for the Tahsildar/PW-9, no evidence has been brought on record showing that the main culprit was the Tahsildar/PW-9 and in the absence of the prosecution of PW-9, the prosecution of accused alone is illegal. There is no evidence showing the demand of bribe by the Tahsildar/PW-9 or he having instructed the accused to collect gratification on his behalf and do the official work of effecting the change in the revenue records relating to the complainant's property. 23. In view of the record of the case, noticed supra, it is unnecessary to make any reference to the decisions on which reliance was placed by the learned advocates, on both sides. The settled principles of law were duly kept in mind, while examining the record of the case, to appreciate the rival contention urged by the learned advocates. 23. In view of the record of the case, noticed supra, it is unnecessary to make any reference to the decisions on which reliance was placed by the learned advocates, on both sides. The settled principles of law were duly kept in mind, while examining the record of the case, to appreciate the rival contention urged by the learned advocates. In view of the record of the case, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned Judgment of conviction. The sentence imposed does not warrant interference in view of the ratio of decision in the case of A.V. Bhaskara Rao Vs. CBI, (2011) 10 SCC 259 . In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed and the bail bonds executed are cancelled.