JUDGMENT : M G Uma, J. The accused in Spl.Case.No.63/2009, on the file of the learned Principal Session Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, is impugning the Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 01.07.2013, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act'), and sentenced him to undergo simple 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 simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that, the complainant had filed an application for change of khatha of his property situated at Sathanur village. The accused was working as a Bill Collector in Revenue Department at Hunasamaranahalli Grama Panchayat. To do the official favour, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.7,000/-, out of which, he received Rs.2,500/-. He again demanded the balance amount of Rs.4,500/- on 24.03.2008. Since the complainant was not interested in paying the illegal gratification, he filed the first information with Lokayuktha Police. Lokayuktha Police conducted pre-trap panchanama, entrusted the amount of Rs.4,500/- to the complainant and asked him to go and meet the accused along with the shadow witness- PW2. Accordingly, the complainant and the shadow witness went and met the accused and asked for change of khatha. The accused again demanded the illegal gratification, and received Rs.4,500/- tendered by the complainant. The accused being the public servant demanded and accepted the illegal gratification to show the official favour and thus, committed misconduct punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act. The Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused. 3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the above said offences and summoned the accused. Accused has appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5, got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and identified MOs.1 to 10 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5, got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and identified MOs.1 to 10 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. However, Exs.D1 to D2 got marked during cross examination of PW1. 4. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these 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. 5. Heard Smt. Rajeshwari. M, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 6. 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 7. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused was working as a Bill Collector in Revenue Department at Hunasamaranahalli Grama Panchayat. This fact is not in dispute. It is the further contention of the prosecution that the complainant had submitted an application for change of khatha on 14.03.2008. This fact is also not in dispute. It is the further contention of the prosecution that the accused has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.7,000/-, and as a part payment, he had received Rs/.2,500/-. Balance amount of Rs.4,500/- was demanded by him on 24.03.2008. When the amount was tendered by the complainant while being accompanied by the shadow witness, the accused had accepted the amount. 8. To prove its contention, prosecution examined PW1 - the complainant himself. Balance amount of Rs.4,500/- was demanded by him on 24.03.2008. When the amount was tendered by the complainant while being accompanied by the shadow witness, the accused had accepted the amount. 8. To prove its contention, prosecution examined PW1 - the complainant himself. This witness deposed in detail about filing of the application for change of khatha, approaching the accused requesting to effect change of khatha, demand made by the accused, payment of Rs.2,500/- and the demand by the accused for balance amount of Rs.4,500/- on 24.03.2008, about filing of the first information, drawing of pre-trap panchanama, entrustment of Rs.4,500/- by the Investigating Officer, meeting the accused along with the shadow witness, again demand by the accused and acceptance of the illegal gratification. Witness also spoke about the procedure followed by the Investigating Officer while drawing the pre-trap and trap panchanamas, including the recovery of tainted amount from the accused. Even though this witness was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. 9. It is pertinent to note that during cross examination the witness was tendered with Exs.D1 and 2. Ex.D1 is the application dated 14.03.2008 submitted by the complainant, and it was received in the Taluk panchayath on 15.03.2008. Ex.D2 is the explanation by the accused said to have been given to the Investigating Officer on 15.05.2008 stating that the application for change of khatha was received in the office on 15.03.2008, and the public notice was published on 16.03.2008 calling upon the objections from the general public and since no objection was received, khatha was changed as per order dated 24.03.2008. 10. It is pertinent to note that, the complaint Ex.P1 is dated 24.03.2008 and the FIR came to be registered at 10.30 am. This explanation as per Ex.D2 was never given by the accused before the Investigating Officer. On the other hand the explanation submitted by the accused before the Investigating Officer is Ex.P6, where it is never mentioned that the order for change of khatha was effected on that day i.e., on 24.03.2008. Therefore, it can easily be held that Ex.D2 as an after thought said to have been submitted to the Investigating Officer about two months after the incident. Therefore, it can easily be held that Ex.D2 as an after thought said to have been submitted to the Investigating Officer about two months after the incident. Even if such defence is to be accepted, since the FIR was registered at 10.30 am, it is to be held that only after the trap of the accused, the khatha must have been changed. But no such materials are placed before the Court to accept the said defence or to probabalize his contention regarding change of khatha. Even otherwise, if Ex.D2 is to be taken into consideration, the application for change of khatha was received on 15.03.2008 and the objections from the general public was called for. Without waiting for the objections, it cannot be accepted that on24.03.2008, the khatha was changed i.e., within a week. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ex.D1 contains copy of the general receipt dated 23.03.2008 for Rs.4,500. According to that, this is the receipt passed by the accused for having deposited the amount towards arrears of tax. First of all, it is never the contention of the accused that there was arrears of tax. Even if such a receipt was issued, it should have been produced before the Investigating Officer at the time of drawing the trap mahazar. Even as per Ex.P6, the accused did not say that he had given the receipt as per Ex.D1 to the complainant. Therefore, these documents were sheer after thought and produced during cross examination of PW1. No reliance could be placed on the same. 12. PWs1 and 2 being the informant and the shadow witness consistently stated regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. They have also stated regarding recovery of the tainted amount from the possession of the accused. The pancha witnesses - PW4 and PW5 the Investigating Officer have also corroborated the evidence of PWs1 and 2. Thereby, the prosecution is successful in proving the pendency of the official work with the accused, who was working as a Bill Collector in Revenue Department at Hunasamaranahalli Grama Panchayat and demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. Once the prosecution is successful in proving these facts, the presumption under Section 20 of PC Act would operate and the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the same. Once the prosecution is successful in proving these facts, the presumption under Section 20 of PC Act would operate and the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the same. Even though all the prosecution witnesses are cross examined at length and Exs.D1 and 2 are marked through PW1, the defence taken by the accused is not probabalized. Under such circumstances, it is to be held that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)of PC Act beyond reasonable doubt. 13. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the validity of the sanction order-Ex.P11. PW3 is the Secretary of Hunsmaranahalli Gram Panchayath and he accorded sanction to prosecute the accused as per Ex.P11. In Ex.P11 itself, PW3 states that as per Rule 113(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, he is authorized to remove the accused from his employment. Therefore, he is the competent authority to accord sanction. Copy of the said Rule is also annexed to Ex.P11. PW3- the Secretary while deposing before the Trial Court categorically stated in his chief examination itself that when he issued the sanction, election code of conduct was in force. Therefore, he accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. There is absolutely no cross examination to PW3 on this point. It is not even denied that the election code of conduct was in force as on the date of Ex.P11. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, PW3 should have placed his proposal to accord sanction before the Village Panchayath cannot be accepted. Rule 113(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 does not prescribe such procedure. It authorizes the Secretary of Gram Panchayath for removal of an employee of the Gram Panchayath. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.P11 is not a valid sanction, cannot be accepted. 14. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is 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 and the accused is liable for conviction. 15. 14. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is 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 and the accused is liable for conviction. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is having aged parents and family to support and therefore, prays for showing leniency in sentencing the accused. 16. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Trial Court has appreciated the materials on record arrived at right conclusion and convicted the accused. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 17. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for additional three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for additional three months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act. 18. The minimum sentence that could be awarded for the offence punishable under Section 7 as on the date of incident was 6 months with fine and for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act is one year with fine. I do not find any reason to impose maximum sentence on 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 01.07.2013 passed in Spl.C.No.63/2009, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby confirmed. (ii) The judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2013 passed in Spl.C.No.63/2009, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is modified as under: The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 2 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.10,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Ac. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and needful action i.e., to secure the presence of the accused to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued.