JUDGMENT : M G Uma, J. The accused in Spl.CC.No. 41 of 2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2012, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1½ years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, the accused was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Richmond Town Sub Division, BBMP, Bengaluru and he was demanding the informant - PW1 for bribe of Rs.7,00,000/-, as he had constructed a commercial complex and threatening that he will issue a notice suggesting violation of the sanction plan and drag him to the Court, if his demand is not met. After bargaining, the accused scaled down his demand to Rs.6,00,000/- and insisted for payment atleast in installments. The accused stated that he will meet the complainant on 30.04.2008 at 5.15 p.m. near Levi's showroom situated between Brigade road and Church road junction, Bengaluru. The informant was not willing to pay the illegal gratification, hence, filed the first information as per Ex.P1 with Lokayukta Police. After registering FIR, Lokayukta Police drawn pre-trap panchanama in the presence of PW2 - the shadow witness and PW3 - the second pancha as per Ex.P3, entrusted the tainted money and asked the complainant to go and meet the accused along with the shadow witness. Accordingly, the complainant and the shadow witness went near Levi's showroom on the date and time fixed by the accused. The accused came to the spot and asked whether he has brought the amount. The complainant handed over the packet containing the currency notes entrusted to him. The complainant informed that it contains Rs.1,50,000/-. The accused accepted the same and kept it in his pant pocket. Immediately, the complainant gave signal to Lokayukta Police by wiping his face with a kerchief. The complainant handed over the packet containing the currency notes entrusted to him. The complainant informed that it contains Rs.1,50,000/-. The accused accepted the same and kept it in his pant pocket. Immediately, the complainant gave signal to Lokayukta Police by wiping his face with a kerchief. Immediately, PW5 - the Investigating Officer came to the spot along with PW3 - the second pancha. The hands of the accused were washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned into pink colour. The samples were collected. The accused was asked by PW5 to produce the bribe amount received by him. The accused produced the bundle containing the currency notes. Since it was a public place and it was raining, the police have taken the accused to nearby office of the complainant. The accused was asked to give explanation which he had given as per Ex.P11. Trap panchanama was drawn. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. 3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5, got marked Exs.P1 to 25 and identified MOs.1 to 14 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, but has not stepped into the witness box nor examined any witnesses. However, he got marked for Exs.D1 to D5 during cross examination of the material witnesses. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act. Accordingly, it has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. No representation. The order sheet discloses that the learned counsel for the appellant was not ready to address the arguments on merits, but was insisting for adjournment on one ground or the other. Even fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed as per order dated 22.03.2025 and the matter was adjourned. Even after depositing fine of Rs.10,000/-, learned counsel for the appellant was not ready to address his arguments. Even fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed as per order dated 22.03.2025 and the matter was adjourned. Even after depositing fine of Rs.10,000/-, learned counsel for the appellant was not ready to address his arguments. When he sought for time again, the matter was again adjourned on payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- as per order dated 22.04.2025. Till date, the cost is not paid. Neither the appellant or his counsel are present to address the arguments even when the matter was passed over twice and finally taken up for hearing at 4.00 p.m. Hence, his argument is taken as NIL. 5. Heard Sri H D Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the materials on record in the light of the grounds made out in the memorandum of appeal, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit him for the charged leveled against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 7. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in BBMP. PW1 - the informant had recently constructed a commercial building. The accused used to demand illegal gratification, which was paid by him on several occasions. Even after completion of the building, the accused used to demand illegal gratification of Rs.7,00,000/-, threatening that he will issue a notice to the complainant that there is deviation in construction of the building from approved plan. When the complainant bargained, the accused agreed to receive Rs.6,00,000/- as illegal gratification and asked the complainant to bring atleast Rs.1,50,000/- on 30.04.2008 at 05.15 p.m. near Levi's showroom, Brigade road and Church road junction, Bengaluru. 8. The complainant who was not interested in paying the illegal gratification, lodged the first information as per Ex.P1. After registering the FIR, the entrustment panchanama was drawn as per Ex.P3 in the presence of shadow witness -PW2 and the second pancha - PW3. The complainant as per the instructions of Investigating Officer went near Levi's showroom along with the shadow witness. After registering the FIR, the entrustment panchanama was drawn as per Ex.P3 in the presence of shadow witness -PW2 and the second pancha - PW3. The complainant as per the instructions of Investigating Officer went near Levi's showroom along with the shadow witness. Even though it was raining, the accused came to the spot and asked whether the complainant has brought the amount. When the accused tendered the packet containing the tainted amount smeared with phenolphthalein powder, the accused asked how much it contain. The complainant replied that it contains Rs.1,50,000/-. Immediately, the accused received the same and kept it in his pant pocket. The complainant wiped his face with a kerchief, giving signal to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer rushed to the spot along with the second pancha - PW3. It is stated that the hand wash of the accused was taken by dipping his hand in the sodium carbonate solution prepared at the spot, which turned into pink colour and the samples were collected. On asking, the accused took out the packet containing the tainted amount and produced it before the Police. Since it was raining and it was a public place, where there was vehicular movement, the accused was taken to the office of the complainant, which was situated nearby and the trap mahazar as per Ex.P16 was drawn and all the procedures were completed. The accused has given his explanation regarding the tainted amount, which was in his custody as per Ex.P11 stating that casually he was standing near Levi's showroom and the complainant came and kept a bundle in his pocket. Immediately, Lokayukta police came and trapped him with ulterior motive. 9. Prosecution examined PW1 - Anil Kapoor, the complainant who deposed regarding demand by the accused, filing of first information, drawing of pre-trap panchanama in the presence of PWs.2 and PW3, he meeting the accused near Levi's showroom, accused again demanding the amount, he handing over the bundle entrusted to him and paying the same to the accused, the accused accepting the same and keeping it in his pant pocket, the procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer, he drawing the trap panchanama, production of the tainted amount by the accused before the Investigating Officer, explanation given by the accused as per Ex.P11. Thus, the complainant - PW1 has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the complainant - PW1 has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Even though this witness was subjected to cross examination, nothing has been elicited from him. No motive or ill-will is alleged against the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. It is suggested to PW1 that he had forcibly threshed the bundle with tainted amount in the pocket of the accused. It is pertinent to note that the tainted amount is Rs.1,50,000/- consisting currency notes of Rs.1,000 each. The complainant threshing the bundle containing 150 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- into the pant pocket of the accused is highly improbable and cannot be accepted even for a moment. There is absolutely no explanation by the accused in this regard. 10. PW2 - Ramachandrappa is the shadow witness, who is also a public servant. He fully supported the case of the prosecution regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification by the accused on the date of incident. This witness was also subjected to lengthy cross examination. But except suggesting the case of the accused and getting denial, nothing has been elicited by him to disbelieve his version. No motive is alleged against PW2 to discard his version. 11. PW3 - Venkatesh, the second pancha is also a public servant. He has fully supported the case regarding pre- trap and trap panchanama and the procedure adopted therein.Nothing has been elicited from him during cross examination and no motive is alleged against him. 12. PW4 - G Siddagangaiah, the Under Secretary to Public Works Department, Government of Karnataka, is the sanctioning authority who accorded sanction as per Ex.P18. Witness categorically stated regarding according of sanction after being satisfied with the materials on record for having committed the offences by the accused. 13. PW5 - Prasanna V Raju, is the Investigating Officer, who deposed in-detail regarding the procedure adopted by him and the investigation undertaken. Particularly, witness stated regarding recovery of tainted amount from the accused, getting explanation from him as per Ex.P11. Even though this witness was cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from him. No ill-will or motive is alleged against the Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the accused. 14. Particularly, witness stated regarding recovery of tainted amount from the accused, getting explanation from him as per Ex.P11. Even though this witness was cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from him. No ill-will or motive is alleged against the Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the accused. 14. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and stated that he will examine a politician and a former Railway Board Member as his witness, but no such witnesses are examined by the accused, nor he has stepped into the witness box to depose about his defence. Even though Exs.D1 to D5 were marked through prosecution witnesses, none of these documents would assist the Court to discard the case of the prosecution. 15. From the materials on record, it is clear that the accused was a public servant. He demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant, kept it in his pant pocket, which was recovered by the Investigating Officer while drawing trap panchanama. 16. Section 20 of the PC Act refers to the presumption regarding the public servant accepting the undue advantage. The law prescribes that when the prosecution is successful in proving that the accused being the public servant has accepted or obtained any undue advantage, who is alleged to have committed for the punishable under Section 7 or under Section 11 of the Act, it is to be presumed that such acceptance was an undue advantage or motive or reward under Section 7 for performing public duty or to show official favour unless contrary is proved. 17. In the present case, the prosecution is successful in proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused who is admittedly a public servant. Therefore, the presumption under Section 20 also applies against the accused. Therefore, the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption and to prove the contrary. The accused except taking defence as per Ex.P11 that even though he never demanded anything from the complainant, he came and threshed the bundle in his pocket, cannot be accepted on any count. As already noted, it is not one or two currency notes threshed into the pant pocket. The accused except taking defence as per Ex.P11 that even though he never demanded anything from the complainant, he came and threshed the bundle in his pocket, cannot be accepted on any count. As already noted, it is not one or two currency notes threshed into the pant pocket. It is the bundle of 150 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- in an envelope marked as MO5 which was found in the pant pocket of the accused. Under such circumstances, the explanation offered by the accused cannot be accepted. It is liable to be rejected and the accused is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act. 18. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has taken into consideration all the materials on record in a proper perspective and arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment to secure the presence of the accused and to issue conviction warrant, if not issued earlier. In view of the disposal of main appeal, IA.1 of 2012 filed for suspension of sentence and bail does not survive for consideration, hence, the same is disposed off.