JUDGMENT : M.G. UMA, J. 1. The appellant being the accused in Spl.C.No.214/2007, on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumkur, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2012, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'PC Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that, the accused who was working as First Division Assistant in the office of DDPI, Tumkur demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 to show the official favour. Thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act. The Trial Court took cognizance for the above said offences and summoned the accused. Accused has appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6, got marked Ex.P1 to P11 and MOs.1 to 12 in support of its contention. The accused has not led any evidence nor stepped into the witness box to depose regarding his defence. He got marked Ex.D1 to D4 - the portions of the statements of PW1 and the draft sanction order. 3. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, passed the impugned order convicting the accused for the above said offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 4. Heard Sri. K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Lethif.B, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? My answer to the above point is in 'Partly Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the contention of the complainant that he was working as Assistant Teacher at the Government Lower Primary School, Mannanapalya of Kunigal Taluk. There was a complaint registered against him in Crime No.28/2006. Since criminal case was registered against him, he was suspended from service. Later, criminal case in C.C.No.176/2006 was decided on 23.12.2006 and the complainant was acquitted in the said case. But his order of suspension was not recalled by passing necessary order in the office of DDPI, Tumkur. Therefore, the complainant had filed an application with DDPI, Tumkur on 27.12.2006 requesting to revoke the order of suspension. Since his application was not attended by the accused, who was working as First Division Assistant in the office of DDPI, Tumkur, the complainant met him on 28.02.2007. The accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- to show the official favour and insisted for the payment of the same. 7. It is further contended that, the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe. He lodged the complaint on 01.03.2007 with Lokayuktha police. On the same day, pre-trap panchanama was drawn and tainted amount smeared with phenolphthalein powder was entrusted to the complainant. The complainant was accompanied by PW2 - the shadow witness to meet the accused. The accused asked the complainant to come near the Inspection Bungalow. But when the complainant and the shadow witness went there, for some reason, the accused asked them to come near Sri.Nanjundeshwara hotel. Accordingly, all of them went to the hotel. After having coffee, the accused came out, sat on his motor cycle, asked the complainant to come to his office. At this point of time, the complainant informed that he is having other work. Therefore, asked him to receive the bribe amount there itself. Accordingly, all of them went to the hotel. After having coffee, the accused came out, sat on his motor cycle, asked the complainant to come to his office. At this point of time, the complainant informed that he is having other work. Therefore, asked him to receive the bribe amount there itself. When the complainant tendered the tainted amount, the accused asked whether he has brought the correct amount, received it with his right hand, transferred it to the left hand and kept it in his left pant pocket. Thereafter, he was trapped by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the complainant, shadow witness and the pancha witness. 8. It is stated that both left and right hand wash of the accused tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder as per FSL report. When the accused was asked regarding the amount he has received, he stated that it is in his left pocket. PW-3 - pancha witness was asked to remove the said amount and accordingly, he took out the tainted amount from his left pant pocket and produced before the Investigating Officer. The accused was asked to explain regarding his defence and the reason as to how the tainted amount was found in his possession. The accused gave his explanation as per Ex.P8 stating that, the complainant kept the amount in his pant pocket without his knowledge and deliberately got trapped him. Thus, it is the contention of the prosecution that the accused who is a pubic servant demanded and accepted the illegal gratification to show the official favour i.e, to attend the case pertaining to the complainant seeking revocation of his suspension order. 9. PW1 has supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that after having coffee in Nanjundeshwara hotel, he came out with the shadow witness and the accused. The accused was about to go on his motor cycle and sat on it, asking the complainant to come to his office. The complainant insisted to take the amount there itself as he was to go to lawyers office, and then he tendered the tainted amount and the accused accepted it and kept it in his left pant pocket. 10. PW1 during cross examination states that he gave the tainted amount and the accused received it in his left hand and kept in his left pant pocket. 10. PW1 during cross examination states that he gave the tainted amount and the accused received it in his left hand and kept in his left pant pocket. But as per FSL report, both hand wash tested positive for phenolphthalein powder. 11. PW2 - shadow witness, in chief examination states that the accused asked the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount while they were inside the hotel, while taking coffee. PW1 tendered the tainted amount, the accused received it in his right hand, transferred it to his left hand and kept it in his left pant pocket. 12. During cross examination, PW2 states that after coming out of the hotel, the accused sat on his motor cycle and asked whether he had brought the amount. The complainant tendered the tainted amount, the accused received it in his right hand and since he was having his bike key in his right hand, he transferred the amount to left hand and kept it in his left pant pocket. 13. As per the trap panchanama - Ex.P2, all of them had coffee in the hotel, and the brother of the complainant paid the bill. Thereafter, they came out of the hotel, and the accused asked the complainant as to who is the shadow witness. The complainant introduced him as his friend. The accused stated that he is having urgent work and asked to pay the money. The complainant took out the tainted money and gave it to the accused. He received it with his right hand while he was holding the bike key and transferred the amount to his left hand and kept it in his left pant pocket and asked the complainant as to whether he has paid the correct amount. The complainant answered in the affirmative. During cross examination of PWs.1 and 2, the accused had never stated anything about his defence. The line of cross examination do not disclose any defence on his part. 14. It is interesting to note that accused does not dispute that, on the date of incident, he had met the complainant when he was accompanied by the shadow witness-PW2. He is also not disputing that they had met near IB, Tumkur, and thereafter, went to Nanjundeshwara hotel and had conversation with them. 14. It is interesting to note that accused does not dispute that, on the date of incident, he had met the complainant when he was accompanied by the shadow witness-PW2. He is also not disputing that they had met near IB, Tumkur, and thereafter, went to Nanjundeshwara hotel and had conversation with them. The defence taken by the accused as per Ex.P8 which is in his own hand writing is that, the complainant had kept the tainted amount in his pant pocket without his knowledge. But there is absolutely no cross examination in this regard. Even though PW1 has deviated a little from his earlier statement, the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution. PW2 consistently stated that after coming out of the hotel, the accused asked whether he has brought the amount. Immediately, the complainant took out the entrusted amount and tendered it to the accused. The accused received it in his right hand and since he was having his motor cycle key in the right hand, he transferred it to his left hand and kept it in his left pant pocket. This version of PW2 remains unshaken even after his cross examination. 15. PW3, the pancha witness deposes regarding entrustment panchanama and pre-trap panchanama drawn in his presence and corroborates the version of PW2. The Investigating Officer has also deposed before the Court about the registration of the FIR till recovery of the tainted amount from the left pant pocket of the accused. Nothing has been elicited from this witness to disbelieve their version. 16. From the materials on record it is clear that the accused is not disputing that he was working as clerk in DDPI, Tumkur at the relevant point of time. He also does not dispute that the official work pertaining to the complainant was pending in his office and he was required to attend the same. He never disputes that on the date of the incident, he had met the accused and the shadow witness and they were near Nanjundeshwara hotel. He does not dispute recovery of the tainted amount and giving the explanation as per Ex.P8. By no stretch of imagination the explanation given by the accused that the complainant kept the tainted amount in his left pant pocket without his knowledge, can be accepted. He does not dispute recovery of the tainted amount and giving the explanation as per Ex.P8. By no stretch of imagination the explanation given by the accused that the complainant kept the tainted amount in his left pant pocket without his knowledge, can be accepted. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW1 and evidence of shadow witness-PW2 with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification cannot be disbelieved. Even the FSL report produced as per Ex.P9 supports the contention of the prosecution. Even though PW6-the sanctioning authority is cross examined at length, the sanction order Ex.P10 and the evidence of PW6 discloses that there is application of mind while according sanction to prosecute the accused. 17. When the prosecution is successful in proving that the accused being the public servant has demanded and accepted the illegal gratification, the presumption under Section 20 of PC Act comes into operation and the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption by proving the contrary. Even though the accused had taken the specific defence as per Ex.P8, he has not probabalized the same. Under such circumstances, it is to be held that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is liable for conviction. 18. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence against the accused and believed the version of the shadow witness-PW2 who is an official witness. It has also appreciated the evidence of other prosecution witnesses including PW1 and proceeded to convict the accused. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court to interfere with the judgment of conviction. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant alternatively sought for showing leniency in favour of the accused. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is considered. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act, with default sentences. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act, with default sentences. PC Act as stood at the time of commission of offence calls for minimum imprisonment for the period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and minimum sentence of one year for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act. I do not have any reason to impose maximum sentence to the accused. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court could be modified to impose the minimum sentence. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : (i) Criminal appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 30.10.2012 passed in Spl.C.No.214/2007, on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumkur, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is set aside. (iv) Consequently, the accused - appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default to pay fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default to pay fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Ac. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment to the Trial Court for information and needful action i.e., to secure the presence of the accused to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued. In view of disposal of main matter, pending IA No.1 of 2013 stands disposed off.