- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. PRAKASH S. GAVARE S/O SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS II CLASS SURVEYOR OFFICE OF SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BYNDOOR, UDUPI DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.J. ALWA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. NAGARAJ HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE UDUPI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DT.31.03.2012 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS/SPL. JUDGE, UDUPI IN SPL.C.NO.26/2010 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 13(1)(a)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant by name Prakash S.Gavare, suffered conviction under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`the Act') by the Special Judge, Udupi vide judgment dated 31.3.2012 passed in Special Case No.26/2010. 2. The Special Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable Under Section 7 of the Act. In default to pay the said fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one week. Further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(a)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, in default to pay the said fine amount, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. There is a direction to run the sentences concurrently. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 Facts leading upto this appeal: 3. That the complainant-PW1 H.Rama Devadiga was running a shop under the name and style of `Singara Fancy and Gift Centre' at Baindur. According to him, he was granted total 4.49 acres of Darkast land in Sy.No.97 of Baindur village by the Revenue Authorities. In this regard, he had submitted an application with necessary fees requesting the revenue authorities to prepare the sketch of the said landed property and also note down the differences in the month of January 2009. Accordingly, one Sri George, the Assistant of appellant-accused had surveyed the land and to prepare the sketch of the land, there was a demand made by the accused being a public servant to pay Rs.2,000/- as bribe. This demand to pay the bribe was made by the accused on 20.02.2009 for issuing the sketch. Subsequently, on 24.2.2009, as the complainant was not inclined to pay the bribe amount, he went to the office of Lokayukta police and filed a complaint as per Ex.P1 which was registered in Crime No.1/2009. The Lokayukta Police called two official witnesses, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 prepared the entrustment mahazar in their presence and in the presence of complainant. On the said day itself, all the official witnesses, complainant along with police went to the office of accused and there accused demanded Rs.2,000/- being a public servant and complainant paid the same which was accepted by him. The accused was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount. On completion of the investigation, the IO filed the charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences. During the crime stage itself, accused was enlarged on bail. Charges were framed against the accused for the said offences for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Proceedings before the Special Court 4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 10 witnesses (PWs 1 to 10) and got marked 20 documents (Ex.P1 to P20) along with MOs Nos. 1 to 11 and closed its evidence. Thereafter, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 5. The learned Special Court, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of the aforesaid offences and accordingly sentenced him as stated supra. This is how, now the appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment of his conviction and order of sentence. Submissions of Counsel for Appellant 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused Sri M.J.Alva with all vehemence submits that, the learned trial Court has committed serious material irregularities in appreciating the evidence placed on record. He would submit that, though absolutely there is no material on record to show with regard to the entrustment of the work to the accused, but, even then, without appreciating the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 same, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment. Ex.P8 and P58 do not bear the signature of the accused which emphatically shows that, there was no entrustment of the work to the accused by the complainant. He would submit that, in a casual manner, sanction order was passed by the sanctioning authority and IO had obtained the same by misleading the authorities concerned. The learned Special Court ought to have appreciated the evidence, as there are material contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The judgment of the Special Court is based on presumption and surmises so also with conjectures. Ex.P8 was written by one George. This fact was not appreciated by the Special Court. There is evidence that, complainant alone entered the office of the accused and PW.2 shadow witnesses was quite away from the complainant and there is no evidence about demand and acceptance. In view of the material discrepancies, the Special Court ought to have acquitted the accused. By pointing out the contradictions, omissions in the evidence adduced by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 prosecution it is prayed to set-aside the impugned judgment by allowing this appeal. Submission of Counsel for Respondent 7. Per contra, learned Sri B.S.Prasad, Panel Counsel for respondent-Lokayukta would submit that, evidence of PW.1 and 2 clinchingly establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. He would submit that, the evidence of the IO, the panchas to entrustment mahazar, so also recovery of the bribe amount with other legal evidence adduced by the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused. The main ingredient of demand and acceptance for issuing the sketch was spoken to by PW.1 in material particulars and his evidence is corroborated by evidence of PW.2 shadow evidence. Thus, evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is also corroborated by evidence of other witnesses i.e. another pancha as well as IO. He would submit that, sanctioning authority, on consideration of the materials placed before it and after legally satisfying amount the prima facie evidence collected by the IO to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 prosecute the accused, sanction was issued. There was no casual approach of the sanctioning authority in issuing the sanction to prosecute the accused. Thus, in strict compliance of the provisions of PC Act, the sanction was obtained and accused was rightly prosecuted. The offences so alleged are duly proved in accordance with law by the prosecution. According to his submission, though there are certain contradictions and omissions, they will not shake the basic evidence of prosecution, so as to disbelieve its case against the accused. The learned Panel Counsel also pointed out material evidence placed on record by the prosecution and submits that, there is no merit in this appeal and prays to dismiss the same. 8. In so far as Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i) That he should have been a public servant: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 (ii) That he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abuse his position as such public servant, and, (iii) That he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 9. Thus, the primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is, proof of the demand or a request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage the offence under Section 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be established. 10. Keeping the aforesaid ingredients in mind, let me discuss that whether the prosecution is able to establish and prove the aforesaid ingredients with acceptable evidence or otherwise? - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 11. In view of the rival contention of both the side, the core question that is to be answered in this appeal is: “Whether there is sufficient legal evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 32 of the ……? Position of Law & Analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution: 12. As it is offence alleged under the provisions of PC Act i.e. demand and acceptance of bribe money, it is the obligation of the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act. They are: (i) That the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant; (ii) He should accept the gratification for himself and the gratification should be a motive or a reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 13. PW.1 – H.Rama Devadiga complainant has spoken in line with the contents of his complaint Ex.P1 in his chief-examination. It is his evidence that, he was granted with 4 acres 49 cents of landed property situated at Baindur village. In order to fix the boundaries of the said landed property, he moved an application before the Revenue Authorities for the purpose of preparation of sketch after conducting survey and also requested to make necessary corrections in the sketch after conducting the survey and issue a sketch to that effect. Accused was the Government servant and working as a surveyor in the Survey Department. 14. As per his evidence on 20.02.2009, he went to the office of the accused and requested him to provide a sketch. At that time, accused demanded to pay Rs.2,000/- and take the sketch. The accused also put a condition to pay the said amount within 24.02.2009. As per his evidence, at the time of submitting his application for conducting survey and issuance of the sketch, he had paid - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 the Government fees of Rs.300/-. He further stated that, as he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the accused, therefore, he went to the office of Lokayuktha police, on 24.02.2009 and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. The Lokayukta police inspector called two official panchas by name Vittal and Mulakod. The complainant gave Rs.2,000/- in the hands of the police and the said currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. They were containing Rs.500/- rupees of one note and Rs.100/- rupees of 5 notes and one currency note of Rs.1,000/-. He speaks about the preparation of the entrustment panchanama as per Ex.P3. It was his further evidence that, he went to the office of the Lokayukta at 12 p.m. on that day, went to the accused and had a talk with him. At that time, accused asked the complainant that, whether he had brought the money? Accordingly, the complainant gave tainted currency notes of Rs.2,000/- in the hands of the accused. By taking the same, accused counted the said currency notes and kept the same in his right pant pocket. Thereafter, he went - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 outside and gave signal to the Lokayukta raiding party. The Lokayukta raiding party entered the office of the accused and checked him. They found the money in the pant pocket of the accused. Prepared the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P4 and followed all the procedures of dipping the right palm of the accused in the sodium carbonate solution which turned into a pink colour. PW.2 was accompanying him at that time. He is specific that, thereafter accused and all the police raiding party returned to the office of the Lokayukta and he went to his house. To some extent, he was declared as a hostile witness and Ex.P5, his own statement was confronted to him by the public prosecutor. He admitted about the giving statement as per Ex.P5 (a) to P5 (q). This PW.1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. The suggestions so directed to this PW.1 shows about receipt of the money by the accused from the complainant. The only defence of the accused is that, forcibly the complainant thrushed said Rs.2000/- in his hands. Sofar as, filing an application by him, so also preparation of the sketch after conducting survey is not - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 disputed by the defence. Though searching and intensive cross-examination was directed to this PW.1, but throughout his cross-examination PW.1 was consistent about demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the accused as stated in his complaint. Certain other suggestions were directed to this PW.1 by the defence, which have not shaken the basic evidence of PW.1 with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused. 15. PW.2 – B. Vittala was a shadow witness and he corroborated the evidence of PW.1 in material particulars. It was his evidence that, on 24.02.2009 as per the directions of his superior officers, himself and PW.3 went to the office of Lokayukta at 10.45 p.m. There he found the presence of the complainant and police staff. In his presence and in the presence of PW.3, complainant narrated about the demand of Rs.2,000/- as a bribe money for the purpose of issuing the sketch. Accordingly, PW.1 gave Rs.2,000/- to the hands of the police. At the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 spot itself, the police prepared the entrustment mahazar by smearing the phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes given by the complainant. The hands of the complainant, as well as the PW.3 were dipped into the sodium carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour. To that effect, the panchanama was prepared in the presence of the panchas for which this PW.2 and PW.3 were the signatories. Thereafter, as directed by the police, all went to the office of the accused. Initially complainant and PW.2 went inside the office of the accused. Complainant and accused had a talk with each other and at that time, accused demanded to pay Rs.2,000/- and complainant gave the same. Thereafter complainant went outside and gave a signal to the Lokayukta police. The raiding party of the Lokayukta entered the office of the accused and caught red-handed the accused and searched the person of the accused. They found possession of Rs.2,000/- in the right pant pocket of the accused and it was seized. He identified the currency notes seized from the possession of the accused. To that effect, a - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 panchanama was prepared as per Ex.P3. Thus, this PW.2 is specific about identification of all these material objects, so marked in this case, so also demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- by the accused. He stated that, when the accused demanded bribe money, he was just 5 to 6 feet away from the complainant. That means, he had witnessed the said receipt of the money from the complainant on demand. He identified all the currency notes, as well as the panchanama, with there specific denomination numbers. This PW.2 was also cross- examined by the defence at length. He was consistent with the evidence of PW.1 in material particulars. He stated that, when they entered the office of the accused, number of people gathered. The people used to go and come to the office of the accused. But he cannot say that, who were very present there. He denied all other suggestions. 16. From the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, it is very much clear that, accused is a public servant as defined - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 under the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as under the provisions of Section 21 of the IPC. For the purpose of issuing the sketch, there was a illegal demand to pay the bribe money by the accused being a public servant. On demand, he had received the bribe money from the complainant. 17. PW.3 another pancha to entrustment mahazar speaks in line with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 with regard to his presence in the office of the Lokayuktha on 24.02.2009 at 10.45 p.m. In his presence, complainant gave Rs.2,000/- in the hands of the Lokayuktha police. Police counted the same and smeared the phenophthalein powder to the said currency notes. They prepared the Sodium carbonate solution. Panchanama was prepared as per Ex.P6. He identified the bottle containing sodium carbonate MO No.1, so also MO No.2 - cover containing the currency notes. Photographs were also taken by the photographer. He specifically stated with regard to the preparation of entrustment mahazar, accompanying - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 Lokayuktha police along with a complainant to the office of the accused. He being a witness to the entrustment panchanama, he had spoken all the procedure followed by the IO with regard to the preparation of the panchanama as well seizure panchanama. He identified all the MO's so marked in this case. 18. This PW.3 was also intensively cross-examined by the defence, but, he had withstood the test of cross- examination. Nothing worth was elicited from the mouth of this witness so as to disbelieve his version given in the examination-in-chief. Thus, from the evidence of PW.3, it is very much clear that, he acted as a pancha to the entrustment panchanama and he accompanied the complainant and Lokayukta police at the time of conducting the raid. PW.2 was a shadow witness and PW.3 was the pancha to the panchanama. All these witnesses were severely cross-examined. The ingredients with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused have been specifically stated by all these - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 witnesses. To disbelieve the evidence of these 3 witnesses, except the bald suggestions so directed to these witnesses of denial, nothing worth is elicited. 19. PW.4 - Venkatesh M., was the Junior Engineer, PWD, Kundapura. At the request of the police, he had prepared the sketch of the scene of offence as per Ex.P12. The contents of this document is not denied by the defence. Except the denial nothing worth was elicited from the mouth of this PW.4. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.4, contents of Ex.P12, the scene of offence sketch is duly proved in accordance with law by the prosecution. 20. PW.5 - Ravi Kumar M, was the Tahasildar, deposed about he knowing accused who was working as a Second Grade Surveyor in his office. He had issued Ex.P13 to show that, on the date of conducting raid, this accused was very much present in the office. He had furnished service particulars of accused as per Ex.P13. Except the denial nothing is elicited from the mouth of this - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 witness to disbelieve the contents of his chief-examination. Therefore, evidence of PW.5 is to be accepted to the extent of he issuing Ex.P13, which he identified with his signature. 21. PW.6 - Manju Devadiga was another First Division Assistant working in Revenue Department in Kundapura. As per his evidence, accused was working as a Second Grade Surveyor in the office of the Bynduru Survey Department. According to his evidence, on 24.02.2009 as per the instructions of the Lokayuktha, he went to the office of the accused and introduced himself to the Lokayuktha officials. At that time, it was told by the Lokayuktha police that, they are going to arrest the accused. He identified Ex.P14, the information regarding the arrest of the accused. He also identified Ex.P4 - the panchanama and other documents. To the extent of his presence at the time of arresting the accused, his evidence is to be accepted. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 22. PW.7 - Ramachandra Bhat was the Head Constable at the relevant time in the Lokayuktha police station. He stated that, on 24.02.2009 at 10 a.m., complainant came to his office and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1, as there was demand to pay Rs.2,000/- as a bribe by the accused. At that time, the said Rs.2,000/- was taken by him and phenolphthalein powder was smeared to the currency notes and he prepared Sodium Carbonate solution. According to him, on 25.02.2009, the IO enquired him and he gave his statement. He had prepared, the remand report at the instruction of the Lokayuktha police. According to him, he sent the sodium carbonate solution to the FSL for the purpose of chemical examination. Except the denial, nothing worth was elicited in the cross-examination. Thus, the evidence of this PW.7 can be accepted to the extent of preparation of the sodium carbonate solution. 23. PW.8 - B.P. Dinesh Kumar, the police inspector, had supervised the investigation and filed charge sheet - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 against he accused. He had collected the documents and thereafter filed the charge sheet. Except the denial nothing worth was elicited from his mouth. 24. PW.9 - G.Kalpana is the sanctioning authority, had issued sanction to prosecute the accused. According to her, as per Ex.P13, on going through the first information report, complaint, entrustment mahazar, trap mahazar, FSL report, sketch of the scene of offence, statements of PW.1 to PW.14, so also further statements of the complainant, application filed by the complainant and voluntary statement of the accused, after satisfaction, she had issued sanction to prosecute the accused. She identified the operative portion of the said sanction order as per Ex.P13. It is the defence of the accused that, in a casual manner, this PW.9 had issued the sanction. But on going through her evidence, it is very much clear that, after due consideration of the facts and prima facie case made out by the investigating agency, she issued sanction - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 as per Ex.P17. Except denial nothing worth was elicited from the mouth of this PW.9. 25. PW.10 - K.U.Belliyappa was the investigating officer. On scrupulous reading of this evidence of this PW.10, it is very much clear in his chief-examination as well as cross-examination that, right from the receipt of the complaint from the complainant on 24.02.2009, till completion of the investigation and handing over the investigating to the PW.8, he had stated about the role played by him. He actually participated in the investigation. Initially, on receipt of the complaint prepared the entrustment panchanama. Thereafter, he directed the raiding party to visit the office of the accused. He requested the complainant to enter the office of the accused along with the shadow witness. There was a demand made by the accused to pay the bribe amount. The complainant had given the said amount on demand. Thereafter, he gave a signal. Then the raiding party entered the office of the accused and seized the said bribe - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 money from the possession of the accused and prepared the trap panchanama. Though this PW.10 was cross- examined at length by the defence, but he was consistent about the investigation so done by him. 26. Sofar as documentary evidence is concerned, Exs.P1 to P38 was not seriously disputed by the defence. With regard to the submission of application by the complainant, the document was produced by the prosecution to show that, this complainant has submitted a request to survey his land and make necessary corrections in the landed property and prepare the sketch and issue the same. He had paid Rs.300/- towards the said Government charges. The other documents so produced from Exs.P1 to P38 stated supra do reflect about the role of the police officer, in preparation of the entrust panchanama, as well as trap panchanama in the presence of the witnesses. Even file containing the surveying of the landed property of the complainant is also recovered by the police. It contains the sketch also. Thus, from the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 documentary evidence so produced by the prosecution, as well as oral evidence spoken by the witnesses do establish about the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the accused. 27. The Special Judge has considered all these aspects and culled out all the relevant evidence placed on record by the prosecution in its judgment to show that, accused being a public servant had received the bribe money. No doubt, the counsel for the accused-appellant submits that, the presumption which is available under Section 20 of the Act is rebutted, but in view of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, it is established that, accused had really demanded a bribe money for issuing the sketch. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe money, he lodged a complaint. After following all the procedure under the provisions of the P.C Act, raid was conducted. PW.1 and PW.2 being the complainant and shadow witness have spoken in their respective evidence about the demand and acceptance made by the accused. Thus, - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 there is direct evidence available on record both oral and documentary that, there was a demand and acceptance. Even there is a circumstantial evidence also to show that, there was a demand and acceptance. In a case of present nature when it is proved on facts that, there was an illegal demand of gratification by the accused and the motive is very much clear from the evidence of this PW.1 and PW.2, then the presumption which is available in favour of the accused goes away. Because in this regard, Section 7 speaks with regard to the proof of the facts in issue. Section 20 mandates that, the Court to raise the presumption that, the illegal gratification was for the purpose of motive or reward and this presumption has to be raised by the Court as the legal presumption or a presumption of law. This presumption as held by the Apex Court in various judgments, that, it is a rebuttable presumption. In this regard, a judgment of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2023 Livelaw SC 211, categorically held that “every demand made for a payment of money is - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 not a demand for gratification. It has to be something more than demand for money”. Conclusion 28. As there is primary evidence available on record, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant- accused cannot be accepted. The direct evidence spoken by witnesses do establish about the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In a case of present nature, as there is a demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the accused, in my view, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Now the accused cannot say that, presumption is in his favour. The learned Trial Court by appreciating the evidence spoken by the witnesses had come to a definite conclusion that, accused is guilty of the aforesaid offences. I do not find any factual or legal error committed by the Special Court in convicting and sentencing the accused. Therefore, the point raised supra has to be answered - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 against the appellant-accused and in favour of the prosecution. 29. Sofaras sentence is concerned, as stated supra, accused was sentenced for the offences so alleged against him. As held in the judgment of Neeraj Dutta supra corruption is corroding. In this case for the purpose of issuing a sketch, accused demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe amount. It was his official duty to issue the sketch. For issuing the same, he made the complainant to pay Rs.2,000/- and on demand accused received the said amount. Thereby, the efficiency in public service is damaged by the accused. When the public are expecting honest service by the public servant, there should not be any corruption by the public servant. It is difficult to accept the prayer of the appellant-accused that, a lenient view has to be taken in this case. Now-a-days, the corruption by public servant/s has become a gigantic problem. Therefore, as this corruption is like a cancer, no lenient view has to be taken in imposing the sentence. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 The learned Special Court is right in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. I do not find any error committed by the Special Court in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Therefore, no lenient view is to be taken in imposing the sentence. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and appeal is liable to be dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment. 30. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment dated 31.03.2012 passed in Special Case No.26/2010 by the District and Special Judge, Udupi is hereby confirmed. (iii) Bail bond of accused, if any, stands cancelled. (iv) The accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court within 15 days from today. The Special Court shall - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:17217 CRL.A No. 418 of 2012 secure the presence of the accused in accordance with law and commit him to prison. (v) Send back the Trial Court Records along with copy of this judgment forthwith. (vi) Communicate the operative portion of this judgment to the Special Court by e-mail for compliance. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1