JUDGMENT : K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. 1. The appellants are accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the Trial Court in Special Case No. 28/2009 and were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein, the accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with regard to the charge of accepting a sum of Rs. 200/- on 9.5.2008 and further demanding a sum of Rs. 500/- on that day. In default to pay the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of two weeks. A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and in default to pay the fine amount of Rs. 4,000/- by accused nos. 1 and 2, the accused shall undergo imprisonment for four weeks. 2. The brief facts of the case on hand are that: A person by name Sri. Zerom Barboja (complainant) lodged a report as per Ex.P-38 stating that he intended to obtain an Electric Contractor’s licence on 9.5.2008. Therefore, he made an application along with other documents and also along with receipt for having paid fee of Rs. 410/- to the District Treasury and handed over the same to accused No. 1 Srinivasa N.V. It is alleged that Accused No. 1 Srinivasa demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- on that day but complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 200/-. Then, Accused No. 1 demanded the remaining amount, but the complainant was not having that much amount on that day. Therefore, he told that, he would pay the remaining amount on some other day by saying so, he went back. After four days, he again went to the office of the Accused No. 1, he met Accused No. 2, who was present. He told that, his application has to be sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Bengaluru and the same is kept ready. For the purpose of sending the same, the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- to him and another Rs. 500/- to Mr. Srinivasa. Then the complainant told that he has already paid Rs. He told that, his application has to be sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Bengaluru and the same is kept ready. For the purpose of sending the same, the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- to him and another Rs. 500/- to Mr. Srinivasa. Then the complainant told that he has already paid Rs. 200/- and he also accepted to pay another amount of Rs. 200/- to Accused No. 2. But, ultimately, Accused No. 2 told him that he has to pay atleast Rs. 400/- each to A1 and A2. The complainant told that he would come on the coming Saturday or Monday to pay the said amount, by saying so, he came back. It is also stated that the said conversation between the accused and the complainant had been recorded by his sister’s son and also photographs are taken. He produced the same before the Lokayuktha Police while lodging the complaint and also paid an amount of Rs. 800/- to the Lokayuktha Police as he was not willing to pay bribe to the accused persons to get his work done. 3. On the basis of the above complaint, case has been registered in FIR No. 3/2008 by the respondent-Police for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. After receipt of the complainant, a trap was laid. The Investigating Officer has secured two panch witnesses and recorded the entrustment mahazar smearing phenolphthalein powder to the said Rs. 800/- currency notes and also by explaining that, what would be the consequence if any person touches the currency notes and if his hands are washed in Sodium carbonate solution for the confirmation that the said amount was received by that persons. He has also given instructions to the panch witnesses and the complainant to go to the office of the accused and to pay the alleged bribe amount if demanded by the accused persons and thereafter to give the pre-instructed signal to the Lokayuktha Police so that they can go to the office of the accused persons and trap them. 4. He has also given instructions to the panch witnesses and the complainant to go to the office of the accused and to pay the alleged bribe amount if demanded by the accused persons and thereafter to give the pre-instructed signal to the Lokayuktha Police so that they can go to the office of the accused persons and trap them. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that after the said entrustment proceedings, the shadow witness and the complainant went to the office of the accused at about 4.00 p.m. along with a tape recorder and met Accused No. 2, he told that Accused No. 1 would come within ½ an hour. Thereafter, A1 also came to the office, within ½ an hour then the complainant went inside enquired about his work and on demand paid an amount of Rs. 400/- wherein the Accused No. 1 has received the same counted and kept the same in his table drawer. Thereafter, the complainant also went to A2, enquired about his file and on demand, paid an amount of Rs. 400/- to him. He counted and kept the same in his office table drawer. Thereafter, the complainant has given the pre-instructed signal to the Lokayuktha Police and the Lokayuktha Police entered the office of the Accused and conducted the trap proceedings. They washed the hands of A1 and A2 with Sodium Carbonate solution and the resultant solution turned into pink colour and thereafter recovered the bribe amount from A1 and A2 and drew up the mahazar as per Ex.P-20. They also examined the accused who gave their explanation that they have not received any amount as bribe, and after completing the investigation, the police have laid the charge sheet for the above said offences. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 12 and got marked Exhibits P-1 to P-44 and P44-A. And for the defence side, defence witnesses are examined as DWs. 1 to 3. During the course of cross examination, Exhibits D-1 to D-8 were also got marked. MOs.1 to 14 are the Material objects marked through the witnesses. The accused were also examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused also entered the defence evidence, examined three witnesses on his side as DWs. 1 to 3 and closed their side. 6. 1 to 3. During the course of cross examination, Exhibits D-1 to D-8 were also got marked. MOs.1 to 14 are the Material objects marked through the witnesses. The accused were also examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused also entered the defence evidence, examined three witnesses on his side as DWs. 1 to 3 and closed their side. 6. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused accordingly as noted supra. 7. The learned counsel for the accused persons strenuously contended before the court that even after examining the entire evidence on record, there was absolutely no demand for any bribe amount by A-1, but it is only the legal remuneration received by the accused i.e. Rs. 400/- has to be paid towards the necessary fee. Perhaps on the guise of demand of Rs. 400/- the complainant has implicated the accused persons as if they have taken the bribe amount. He also contended that the Government Circular dated 30.10.1998 for renewal of the Electric Contractors Licence Rs. 400/- fees has to be paid. There is no explanation by the complainant whether he has paid the amount towards fee or on demand has paid the amount as bribe. The complainant’s evidence is not fully supporting in the cross examination. He has given lot of contradictions and omissions which has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. He further contends that PW-5 shadow witness though supported the case of the prosecution, but there are lot of differences between the evidence of PWs. 5 and 9. He has actually deposed by refreshing his memory of looking into the mahazar. Therefore, such evidence should not have been considered by the Trial Court. He has also contended that the Trial Court has not properly framed charges and sentence is also not distinct and separate. There is no complaint with regard to the demand and acceptance of Rs. 200/- earlier and it is not supported by any material. In spite of that, the Trial Court erroneously convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even for the previous alleged demand and acceptance of Rs. 200/- by A1. There is no complaint with regard to the demand and acceptance of Rs. 200/- earlier and it is not supported by any material. In spite of that, the Trial Court erroneously convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even for the previous alleged demand and acceptance of Rs. 200/- by A1. He has further contended that there was no work pending as there is no explanation as to how the application of the complainant has to be sent to the higher ups whether it was still pending with any of the accused persons. Mere acceptance of any amount bereft of any demand or acceptance of any work, cannot be termed as bribe amount. Therefore, to this extent, there is no corroboration from the evidence of the witnesses. The receipt alleged to have been filed by the applicant along with the complaint is not forthcoming. Therefore, it pre-supposes that he might have paid an amount of Rs.400/- towards the legal fee to be payable. In fact, PW-9 Jerome Barboza, the complainant herein has stated that he went to the office of the accused in respect of the work of some third party. Therefore, he might have paid another sum of Rs. 400/- for the same. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, on merits the judgment of the Trial Court is not tenable and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Arguing with respect to the sanction, the learned counsel contended that so far as accused No. 1 is concerned, for issuance of sanction, approval of the Cabinet is necessary as per “The Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977” of Government of Karnataka. But the same has not been obtained. PW-7 Sujathamma is not the competent person to issue any sanction order. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court which does not even deal with the sanction point is liable to be set aside and accused is entitled to be acquitted. 9. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri. Venkatesh Arabatti has strenuously contended that the sanction point has already covered by the decision of this court reported in Sri. Theerthira N. Appachu vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2018 Kar. 9. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri. Venkatesh Arabatti has strenuously contended that the sanction point has already covered by the decision of this court reported in Sri. Theerthira N. Appachu vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2018 Kar. 4459, that there is no prejudice or failure of justice is pleaded and proved u/s. 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, then mere irregularity with regard to the proof of sanction order is not sufficient to set aside the judgment. Even otherwise according to “The Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977” the Officer or the Under Secretary are only the persons who communicate the order of the concerned authority competent to accord the sanction. Therefore, in this decision it is shown that the matter has not reached the competent authority and as the Cabinet is the authority to sanction the order, this point cannot be usually brushed aside. There is no cross examination so far as these aspects are concerned. Hence, on that ground, the Trial Court has not committed any error. On merits contending that there is lack of explanation by the accused as to why accused No. 1 received Rs. 200/- at the initial stages and Rs. 400/- later and even accepting that the fee payable is Rs. 400/- and for Accused No. 2 has also received an amount of Rs. 400/- is not explained. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, 5 and 9, are all corroborative to each other which discloses that the work of the complainant was pending with the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they demanded and accepted the bribe amount. During the trap time their hands were washed with the Sodium Carbonate Solution, which turned into pink colour and also recovery of bribe amount shows that they have demanded and accepted the money. Once demand and acceptance of tainted currency notes without any legal explanation by accused is proved by the prosecution, Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, raises a presumption that the said amount was received as a reward for the purpose of showing official favour. Therefore, when the prosecution has proved the said aspect beyond reasonable doubt, there is no room to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 10. Therefore, when the prosecution has proved the said aspect beyond reasonable doubt, there is no room to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 10. Though there is some defect in framing of the charges and as well as sentencing by the Trial Court, but that will not go to the root of the case, but it is only an irregularity. Once it is made known to the accused, as to what charges he has to face after understanding the same, the accused persons have gone for trial. There was no prejudice caused so far as these two aspects are concerned. Hence, on any account, the judgment and sentence of the Trial Court, is based on sound reasons, therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. Hence, he pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 11. After having heard the learned counsels, as noted above, the important points that would arise for consideration of this court are: (1) Whether the Trial Court has committed any serious error in holding that there was a valid sanction to prosecute the accused No. 1? (2) Whether the Trial Court has committed any serious legal or factual error in convicting and sentencing the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act? 12. As the above said two points are distinct and separate, I would like to discuss the above said points independently. 13. POINT NO. 1: It is the contention of the learned counsel that accused No. 1 is a Gazetted Officer who was working as Deputy Electric Inspector at Udupi District and Accused No. 2 was working as SDA in the said office. As he contended that he has not questioned the sanction accorded by the competent authority is bad so far as A2 is concerned, therefore, there is no need for this court to go in detail with regard to the sanction accorded so far as A2 is concerned. Ex.P-36 is the sanction order pertaining to A1 and the witness examined by the Court in order to prove this particular aspect is PW-7 Sujathamma, are the material important aspects that has to be looked into by this court. First let me see the sanction order itself passed by the competent authority at Ex.P-36. Ex.P-36 is the sanction order pertaining to A1 and the witness examined by the Court in order to prove this particular aspect is PW-7 Sujathamma, are the material important aspects that has to be looked into by this court. First let me see the sanction order itself passed by the competent authority at Ex.P-36. Ex.P-37 is the document under which the sanction order was granted so far as A2 is concerned. But as stated that A2 was only a Second Division Assistant and there was no attack with regard to the competency and issuance of the sanction order so far as A2 is concerned. Even otherwise, the Chief Electrical Inspector of Government of Karnataka who is the competent authority has issued the sanction order. The sanction order discloses that he has gone through the FIR, entrustment, Trap mahazar and Chemical Examiners report, Spot Mahazar and all the statement of the witnesses and thereafter, explaining the factual matrix of the case, found that the prosecution has established prima-facie the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by A2 for the purpose of doing the official favour, to the complainant. Therefore, after satisfying himself, he issued the sanction order as per Ex.P-37. Therefore, the said sanction order is strictly in compliance with all the legal and factual requirements. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to deviate form the judgment of the Trial Court so far as this aspect is concerned. 14. Sofar as Accused No. 1 is concerned, Ex.P-36 is the sanction order which is issued by the Desk Officer, Department of Energy in the name of Governor of Karnataka. 15. Before adverting to the evidence of PW-7 Sujathamma and on careful perusal of the document, it shows that the Investigating Officer has sent the entire records, seeking for sanction to prosecute accused No. 1. They have sent the complaint lodged by Sri. Zerome Barboja, for registration of the case, entrustment mahazar, trap mahazar, Chemical Examiners report, spot sketch, statements of all the witnesses and documents to show the existence of the official work with A1. The sanctioning authority has discussed how the incident happened with regard to the initial demand and thereafter, the trap and also the demand and acceptance of money etc. Giving its reasons and finding, that the prosecution papers disclose prima-facie materials to prosecute the accused, accordingly, the sanction order has been issued. 16. The sanctioning authority has discussed how the incident happened with regard to the initial demand and thereafter, the trap and also the demand and acceptance of money etc. Giving its reasons and finding, that the prosecution papers disclose prima-facie materials to prosecute the accused, accordingly, the sanction order has been issued. 16. Therefore, looking to the above said sanction order itself, on plain reading of the same even without there being any evidence, it complies with the factual requirements to be considered by the sanctioning authority. It is well known recognized principle of law that the sanction to prosecute can be proved either by producing the sanction order itself which contains all the legal and factual requirements if the court is satisfied that it contains all the factual requirements, then the court can accept such sanction order. 17. But, here, in this case the competency of the sanctioning authority is the question raised has to be legally examined by the court. Therefore, it is just and necessary to examine the evidence of PW-7 in this regard. Of course, the document Ex.P-36 discloses that the said order was issued in the name of the Governor that it goes without saying that it is the sanction order issued by the Government of Karnataka. Though the order passed by the competent authority of the State Government the order will be issued in the name of the Governor, whether the matter has been reached to the competent authority has to be looked into by the court. 18. In this background, the evidence of PW-7 and relevant legal aspects have to be considered. PW-7 Sujathamma has deposed before the court that she was working as a Desk Officer in Energy department in the year 2007-08. She has stated that on 23.12.2008, she received a letter from the Investigating Officer along with FIR, entrustment panchnama, trap panchnama and FSL report, statement of the witnesses and all the relevant records and she has examined the same, sent the file to higher officers and all the higher officers have also examined the same and thereafter, the sanction was given by the Government as per Ex.P-36. She has stated that she has no power to remove the Accused No. 1 from his post, but it is the power vested with the Government and she has issued the said order on the orders passed by the Government. She has stated that she has no power to remove the Accused No. 1 from his post, but it is the power vested with the Government and she has issued the said order on the orders passed by the Government. In the course of cross examination, nothing so far as the above said procedure is concerned, is subjected to cross examination except asking that there was no work pending with the accused persons pertaining to the complainant as on that particular date. Therefore, it is the Government which has issued the Sanction Order on the presentation of the papers by PW-7 is not seriously disputed. 19. Though the learned counsel has argued before this court that the said papers have not been sent to the cabinet and the cabinet has not accord the sanction and the file has not been gone to the Governor etc. all these things have not been questioned to this witness. If those questions would have been put, what answer the witness would have been given cannot be imagined by the court. Therefore, the fact that the procedure followed by PW-7 in putting up the file to the Government and after receiving the orders from the competent authority, has nominally in the name of the Governor issued the Sanction Order has not been subjected to cross examination and not even denied. Therefore, on facts, the said procedure has not been questioned by the accused. 20. Be that as it may, it is worth to mention here a decision of this court reported in Sri. Theerthira N. Appachu vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2018 Kar. 4459, wherein, it has held: “While examining the competency of an authority to accord sanction, especially in the case of a Government servant, it is enough if the sanction conforms to Section 19(1)(b) of the Act. Further, examination in the light of Business Rules of the Government is not necessary. It is an internal arrangement within the Government to decide whether the sanction should be accorded by the concerned Department Minister or the Cabinet of the Government in accordance with the Business Rules and the prosecution agency has nothing to do with it. If procedure prescribed under the Business Rules are not followed within the Governmental set up, it is only an irregularity for which the prosecution agency is not responsible. If procedure prescribed under the Business Rules are not followed within the Governmental set up, it is only an irregularity for which the prosecution agency is not responsible. Therefore, if the sanction order does not conform to the Business Rules, the accused cannot take advantage of it.” Therefore, it is clear from the above said decision that it is the internal arrangement within the Government to decide whether the sanction should be accorded by the departmental concerned Minister or Cabinet in accordance with Business Rules. Therefore, the prosecution agency and the accused have nothing to do with it. Therefore, even if the procedure prescribed by the Business Rules, are not followed within the governmental set up, it only becomes irregularity and it is not an illegality. 21. Applying the above said principles to this case, when it is not questioned whether the matter went to the Cabinet or concerned Minister or the Governor, the court has to presume that the file has gone to the competent authority and the competent authority has issued the Sanction Order, unless, the contrary is established by the accused. Even otherwise, there is no cross examination to any of the witnesses even including the Investigating Officer, in this regard, it is also not shown to this court how and what prejudice that has been caused to the accused so far as the Sanction Order is concerned. In this context, it is worth to mention here two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in: (1) State of M.P. vs. Shri Ram Singh, AIR 2000 SC 870 (2) State of Bihar vs. Rajmangal Ram, AIR 2014 SC 1674 Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principle that: “Even assuming that the law department was not competent, it was still necessary for the High Court to reach the conclusion that a failure of justice has been occasioned. Therefore, it is necessary to plead and prove that there is failure of justice due to the error or irregularity in grant of sanction.” Therefore, looking to the above said principles if applied to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Sanction Order itself, in the absence of any pleading and proof by the accused that there was failure of justice due to the error or irregularity in granting sanction, such Sanction Order cannot be declared as invalid. Therefore, the accused No. 1 has not even by preponderance of probabilities, established that the Sanction Order issued by the Government to prosecute him is invalid or against to any law or facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the accused is not successful in establishing this aspect. 22. Now, coming to the merits of the case, as I have already narrated to some extent, accused has taken up the plea that it is the legal fee that was payable by the complainant in order to recommend his case for issuance of a contract licence. Apart from that the court has to examine whether the prosecution has proved its case with regard to the demand and acceptance of any illegal gratification by the accused so that to throw the burden on the accused to establish his defence by means of preponderance of probabilities. Of course, it is just and necessary to note here that if the prosecution is able to establish that there was demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused, then the court would raise the presumption u/s. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Then the onus shifts on to the accused to establish the non existence of any work with him as on the date of the alleged offence. In this context, the court has to examine the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses. 23. PW-9 is the important witness and he is the complainant. He has stated that on 9.5.2008 he had been to the office of the accused and given his application along with the receipt for having paid Rs. 410/- and the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 500/-. He has further stated that he voluntarily gave Rs. 200/- but the accused demanded further more amount, and demanded an amount of Rs. 500/-. Again, 3-4 days after, he went to the office and met the accused No. 1 he told that he has kept the entire file ready and also demanded Rs. 400/- bribe. Therefore, he did not want to pay that amount. Hence, he lodged the complaint and on 19.5.2008 also, the accused present demanded the money. Therefore, a trap was laid. In the Lokayuktha office, the police have secured the panch witnesses and conducted entrustment mahazar those things are not much in dispute. 400/- bribe. Therefore, he did not want to pay that amount. Hence, he lodged the complaint and on 19.5.2008 also, the accused present demanded the money. Therefore, a trap was laid. In the Lokayuktha office, the police have secured the panch witnesses and conducted entrustment mahazar those things are not much in dispute. It is stated that, on that particular day, the trap party particularly the complainant and the shadow witness PW-5 went inside the office at about 4.10 p.m. A2 was present and he told that A1 was not there, he would come within ½ and hour. Again after ½ an hour, A1 also came to the office. Then he paid the amount of Rs. 400/- to A1 and he received the said amount kept in his table drawer and thereafter he met A2, then, he requested him to send his file to the higher up then he demanded the money and as such the complainant paid Rs. 400/- to A2, he also received the same and kept the same in his office table drawer. Immediately, he gave the pre-instructed signal to the police and the police came inside the office. They washed the hands of A1 and A2 separately with Sodium carbonate solution, which turned the resultant solution into pink colour confirming the touching of the tainted currency notes by the accused persons. Thereafter the Accused No. 1 and A2 were asked by the Investigating Officer and the said amounts were also seized form the office of the accused which were kept in the drawer of A1 and A2. All those things were recorded in the mahazar and the articles seized were marked as MOs.7, 8 and 9 and amounts were sealed in a cover which are marked at Ex.P14 and the amount seized from the A1 marked at MO7. 24. During the course of cross examination, much has been concentrated with regard to the existence of work with him. Some contradictions are elicited that at the time when the incident happened, other contractors were also present in the said office. He has argued that those persons were not examined. It is suggested that the panch witness was standing away from the said spot. Therefore, he could not have seen or heard the conversation between the accused and PW-9. The accused have told that they have not received any bribe amount when enquired by the Investigating Officer. He has argued that those persons were not examined. It is suggested that the panch witness was standing away from the said spot. Therefore, he could not have seen or heard the conversation between the accused and PW-9. The accused have told that they have not received any bribe amount when enquired by the Investigating Officer. There is some discrepancy with regard to who actually removed the amount from the drawer of the accused either Bhaskar or Srinivas is doubtfully stated by PW-9. It is suggested that the accused have not demanded and accepted the money. Except the above facts nothing worth has been elicited in the course of cross examination. Therefore, the acceptance of tainted currency notes by A1 has specifically spoken to by PW-9 and it is not disturbed during the course of cross examination. Of course, there is some discrepancy with regard to the demand by A1, which has not been stated by PW-9. But nevertheless, it goes without saying A1 being a public servant without any explanation how he can say that he has received the amount from PW-9 without there being any work pending with him without any explanation being given by a public servant how he can receive any amount from the public while discharging his duty as a public servant. Therefore, by surrounding circumstances, the court can infer by the conduct of the parties that A1 has received the amount on demand from PW-9 for to do some work. In this context let me examine the evidence of the shadow witness and what he says when he went along with complainant on that day. 25. PW-5 K. Bhaskar, has deposed that he was working as FDA in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi on 19.5.2008. He was secured by Lokayuktha Police as panch witness to the Lokayuktha Office and he came to know about the demand of bribe amount by the accused persons from the complainant and thereafter, the entrustment proceedings were drawn in the Lokayuktha Office. At about 3.00 p.m. they left the Lokayuktha Office and went to the office of the accused persons. He was instructed by the police that, he has to accompany the complainant and heard the conversation between accused and the complainant and what transpires between the accused and the complainant and thereafter inform the same to the Investigating Officer. At about 3.00 p.m. they left the Lokayuktha Office and went to the office of the accused persons. He was instructed by the police that, he has to accompany the complainant and heard the conversation between accused and the complainant and what transpires between the accused and the complainant and thereafter inform the same to the Investigating Officer. He further deposed that the complainant was also instructed by the Investigating Officer that he has to hand over the tainted currency notes only on demand by the accused persons and if the accused persons received the said amount, then only he should give pre-instructed signal to the police. 26. Accordingly, it is stated that both the complainant and this witness went inside the office of the accused. A2 Sridhar was in the middle portion of the said office and the complainant enquired whether A1 was there in the office or not? Then, A2 Sridhar told them to come after ½ an hour. Thereafter, they went out and came after 1½ hour with A1 Srinivas. It is stated that this witness was standing at a distance of 10 feet, from where the accused and complainant were talking to each other. He has specifically stated that, the said place was visible and audible to him. The accused and complainant talk to each other and thereafter, the complainant has handed over the amount to Accused No. 1. He in fact counted and kept them in the table drawer. Thereafter also the complainant went towards A2 Sridhar and talk to him with reference to his file and thereafter, Sridhar asked him whether he has brought money and then the complainant gave the amount to Sridhar. He also counted them and kept the same into the drawer. Therefore, from the above said evidence, it is clear that demand and acceptance as pleaded by the prosecution has been fully corroborated by the evidence of the shadow witness also. 27. He has further deposed that after the complainant gave the pre-instructed signal, the Investigating Officer and other panch witnesses went inside the office and after the complainant and this witness informed the Investigating Officer that the accused have received the bribe amount, then the Investigating Officer got washed the hands of both the accused separately through sodium carbonate solution. 27. He has further deposed that after the complainant gave the pre-instructed signal, the Investigating Officer and other panch witnesses went inside the office and after the complainant and this witness informed the Investigating Officer that the accused have received the bribe amount, then the Investigating Officer got washed the hands of both the accused separately through sodium carbonate solution. The resultant solution have turned to pink in colour confirming the receipt of the tainted currency notes by the accused. He has also stated that the amount was recovered from the accused persons from the respective drawers of the tables of the Accused and the police have seized the said amount and sealed them in a cover. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the above said evidence that the receipt of the money and recovery of the said amount from the accused persons has been established. This witness has also identified the said currency notes at the time of the seizure of the same. He has been very lengthily cross examined, but in the course of cross examination, some discrepancy has been elicited with regard to the going to the Lokayuktha Office. This witness has stated that, complainant and himself went on the motor cycle and again, he has stated that first time they went on motor cycle and second time they went in the police vehicle, but the core fact remains that going to the office of the accused is not disturbed in the course of cross examination. It is explained by the witness that for the first time when they went there, A1 was not there when the second time they went there both the accused were there. It is also deposed by him that apart from the witnesses and the accused, other persons were also there. In this regard, the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 examined by the accused also play an important role. 28. DW-1 one Mr. Gopalakrishna Bhat and DW-2 Vijayakumar, both of them were Electrical Contractors. They have stated that they were also present on the date of the trap in the office of the accused and it is stated that accused persons were taken out by the Lokayuktha Police at about 5.00 p.m. from their office. 28. DW-1 one Mr. Gopalakrishna Bhat and DW-2 Vijayakumar, both of them were Electrical Contractors. They have stated that they were also present on the date of the trap in the office of the accused and it is stated that accused persons were taken out by the Lokayuktha Police at about 5.00 p.m. from their office. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses also corroborate the evidence of the shadow witness as well as the complainant that the raiding party going to the office of the accused and taking the accused person from the office. Though it is elicited that they were taken at 5.00 p.m. but the timings may be different, but the fact remains that the raiding party visiting the office of the accused and taking accused away from the office. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant so far as these aspects are concerned is fully corroborated. There is no strong reason elicited as to why the complainant, other Panch witnesses and Investigating Officer have to be disbelieved. 29. Another witness PW-6 K. Shankar Nayak is a panch witness, who went inside the office of the accused along with the Investigating Officer, he has also deposed in consonance with the evidence of PW-9. The complainant and the PW-5, the shadow witness. He has deposed with regard to the complainant giving pre-instructed signal and thereafter they all went to the office of the accused. He also deposed with regard to the complainant and the shadow witness informing the Investigating Officer that the accused persons have taken the money. In fact this witness after entering into the office saw the Investigating Officer washing the hands of the accused with sodium carbonate solution, the resultant solution turned into pink colour and also recovery of tainted currency notes at the instance of the accused and he in fact, taken out the said notes and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused. Again, in the course of cross examination nothing much has been elicited with reference to some difference in timings. No much cross examination with regard to recovery of the tainted currency notes virtually, the same is not disturbed during the course of cross examination of this witnesses. 30. Even from re-evaluating the entire evidence of PWs. Again, in the course of cross examination nothing much has been elicited with reference to some difference in timings. No much cross examination with regard to recovery of the tainted currency notes virtually, the same is not disturbed during the course of cross examination of this witnesses. 30. Even from re-evaluating the entire evidence of PWs. 9, 5 and 8, the prosecution in fact has specifically established the demand and acceptance of the currency notes by the accused 1 and 2 as well as the recovery of the said currency notes at the instance of the accused. Therefore, when demand and acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes are accepted, Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would come into play. According to this provision, once demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification is established by the prosecution, the court has to presume that the said illegal gratification was received by the accused persons as a reward for the purpose of showing some official favour while discharging their duty as public servant in favour of the complainant. When the presumption is raised, it becomes the duty of the accused to establish that the said amount was not received by them as illegal gratification, but it is towards legally payable fee. 31. In this context, it is to be looked into that all the witnesses including the Investigating Officer have deposed that at the time of drawing up of the panchnama, as per Ex.P-20, it is categorically stated that some of the documents were seized from the custody of the accused i.e. the attendance register pertaining to the accused persons and secondly, another file pertaining to the complainant which contained 1 to 11 pages, the same was produced before the court by the investigating agency. The said documents are marked at Exhibits P-15 and P-16. These documents discloses that the file pertaining to the complainant was with the accused persons with reference to the Electrical Contractor Licence of the complainant. 32. Apart from the above, the Investigating Officer, PW-10 Sri. Prabhudeva B. Mane has stated that the Accused No. 1 was enquired by the Investigating Officer with regard to the file pertaining to the complainant. He told that the file is with Accused No. 2. Then, he seized the said file which is marked at Ex.P-16. 32. Apart from the above, the Investigating Officer, PW-10 Sri. Prabhudeva B. Mane has stated that the Accused No. 1 was enquired by the Investigating Officer with regard to the file pertaining to the complainant. He told that the file is with Accused No. 2. Then, he seized the said file which is marked at Ex.P-16. In the file it is found that there was a recommendation with regard to granting of licence to the complainant. The accused persons have also given statement that they have not received any amount as bribe. But they have not explained as to why they have received the amount from the accused. Exs.P17 and 18 are the statements given by the accused. Exs.P17 and 18 are admitted by the accused persons. They have stated that when they were discharging duty as a public servant, a person came and thursted Rs. 400/- into their hand and immediately went away. If such being the case, this statement should have been supported by the shadow witness. On the other hand, if some body has thursted the amount of Rs. 400/- why they have to keep that amount in their table drawer or how that amount came to the drawer of the accused is not explained by them. Therefore, this also creates a serious doubt that, whether the accused persons have received the said amount for the purpose of discharging their duty to show some official favour. The documents seized by the police which are marked at Ex.P-16 disclosed the application filed by the complainant and also the check list attached to it. There it is specifically mentioned about receipt of Rs. 410/- in S. No. 5 Licence and also (right) tick mark has been put to the said check list. The challen for having remitted the amount is also available in the said Ex.P-16 document along with the application of the complainant. Therefore, this also clears the doubt with respect to the factum of having paid Rs. 410/- and the same was produced by the complainant along with his application. Therefore, the further demand of Rs. 400/- by both the accused cannot in any manner be said that it was towards legally payable amount by the complainant. Therefore, this also clears the doubt with respect to the factum of having paid Rs. 410/- and the same was produced by the complainant along with his application. Therefore, the further demand of Rs. 400/- by both the accused cannot in any manner be said that it was towards legally payable amount by the complainant. Therefore, not only the presumption raised u/s. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been dislodged by the accused, but on the other hand, the prosecution has also independently established that the existence of work with the accused persons pertaining to the complainant. 33. In this context, the accused has relied upon the evidence of DW-3. But the evidence of DW-3 in my opinion is of no help to the accused. DW-3 who was working as Deputy Electrical Inspector, Bengaluru, has deposed that, on 4.6.2008 and 6.6.2008 they have received a file pertaining to the complainant and thereafter on 30.07.2008 and on 28.07.2008, some meetings were held and as per Exs.D3, D4, D6 and D8, they show that the meetings held and communication has been made to the complainant. In the course of cross examination, it is categorically admitted that the said statement was given by the witness in order to save the accused from the punishment if possible. It is also admitted that he came to know on 20.05.2008 that the accused were caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount on 19.05.2008. It is also admitted that the application of the complainant and all the documents were scrutinized only after the arrest of the accused and it is also admitted that all the proceedings were drawn by the department only after the trap of the accused persons. Therefore, the evidence of DW-3 is of no avail to the accused because they are all subsequent documents produced before the court. But DW-3 also fortifies that A1 and A2 were the persons who are responsible for forwarding the application and file of the complainant for issuance of the licence. The issuance of licence was rejected subsequently by the Board. The other witnesses examined before the court are not so relevant for the purpose of considering this case and for reevaluation of the entire materials on record. 34. The issuance of licence was rejected subsequently by the Board. The other witnesses examined before the court are not so relevant for the purpose of considering this case and for reevaluation of the entire materials on record. 34. Last but not least, if the sentence passed by the trial Court is seen, of course, the trial Court has mistakenly narrated that the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with regard to the charge of accepting a sum of Rs. 200/- on 9.5.2008 and further demanding a sum of Rs. 500/- on that day. Instead of stating that the accused have received an amount of Rs. 400/- on demand and explaining the same as illegal gratification, other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do any official act by way of favour or disfavour to any person in the discharge of his official duties, and then convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as the court found that the accused persons have acted in corrupt and illegal means obtained for themselves the pecuniary advantage abusing their position as public servant while holding the office of public servant. Therefore, though the sentence is not happily and distinctly worded, but it goes to show that the judgment has decided to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, imposing punishment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and also u/s.13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-. Though the sentence is not happily worded, but the total sum and substance of the entire case clearly reveals that the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act independently. 35. 4,000/-. Though the sentence is not happily worded, but the total sum and substance of the entire case clearly reveals that the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act independently. 35. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, even after re-evaluation of the entire materials on record, there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused have not proved their defence even on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, there is no room for this court to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. 36. Under the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 37. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.