1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA CRL.A.NO.566/2012 BETWEEN SHRI NARASIMHAIAH REVENUE INSPECTOR, BBMP, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1. SMT.PADMAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH 2. SMT.GAYATHRI.N AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O SADANANDA 3. SMT.KOMALA.N AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O SHIVARAM 4. SMT.SHASHIKALA.N AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O SRI SURESHA 5. SMT.JAYASHEELA.N AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS W/O SRI SUNIL 6. NARAHARI.N AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 2 S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH 7. SRI YOGESH.N AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.143, 4TH MAIN, BCC LAYOUT NEAR CHANDRA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL AND SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR LOKAYUKTHA CASES, BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, SPL.PP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DT.30.04.2012 PASSED BY THE SPL. JUDGE, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.16/2006- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(d) P/U/S 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA 3 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard the arguments of Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the dependants of appellant and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused in Special C.C.No.16/2006 who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act by judgment dated 30.04.2012, passed by the Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru (CCH-24) is the appellant. Appellant died during the pendency of appeal and his dependants are brought on record to pursue the appeal further. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: Complainant having purchased a house measuring 18.3 feet X 25 feet approached the accused who was a bill collector, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter 4 referred to as ‘BBMP’), Malleswaram for change of khatha in his name. At that juncture, accused said to have demanded sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Complainant expressed his inability to pay the said bribe amount and on negotiation, bribe amount was reduced to Rs.1,000/-. 4. Complainant being not willing to pay the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-, approached the Lokayuktha Police and gave a complaint. Lokayuktha police after registering the case in Cr.No.10/2005 for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (‘P.C. Act’ for short), formed a raid team comprising of Inspector of Lokayuktha, Sub staff, two pancha witnesses who were secured by the head of the raid party. 5. Contents of the complaint were read over to the pancha witnesses and thereafter they were appraised of the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with Sodium Carbonate solution. Intended bribe amount in a sum of Rs.1,000/- comprising of Rs.100/- denomination 5 ten currency notes were received from the hands of the complainant and its serial numbers were noted, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those notes and entrustment mahazar was recorded. Complainant was directed to hand over the bribe amount only on demand by the accused on the day of trap and shadow witness was directed to accompany the complainant and directed to observe the demand of the bribe amount and handing over of the bribe amount. Complainant was directed to furnish a pre designated signal to the Lokayuktha police after the tainted currency is handed over to the accused on demand. 6. Thereafter, the raid party left to the office of the appellant. When they reached the office, appellant was spotted by the complainant in the varanda and complainant showed the accused to shadow witness. Complainant and shadow witness then greeted the accused. Thereafter accused took him to his office room. Appellant demanded the bribe money. Complainant at 6 that juncture, handed over the tainted currency to the accused and shadow witness was standing by the side of the complainant. Accused took the currency notes in his both hands and transferred it to his right hand. As directed by the head of the raid party, complainant came out of the office and gave pre-designated signal by combing his hairs. Immediately all the members of the raid party came to the office of the accused and enquired him as to tainted currency. His hands were washed in separate bowls consisting of colourless solution and colourless solution found in both the bowls turned into pink colour. They were transferred onto two bottles and sealed and seized. Thereafter the tainted currency which was kept on his table was seized. Same was examined and tallied with the serial numbers in the entrusted mahazar and the same was also seized. The tainted currency consisted of ten notes of Rs.100/- denomination each. 7. Assistant Revenue Officer was present in the office was told by the head of the raid party to furnish the 7 attendance register and the same was also verified by the head of the raid party and photocopy of the relevant page was seized and attested by Assistant Revenue Officer. 8. Accused/appellant was given an opportunity to offer his explanation and appellant offered an explanation in writing stating that 2% of the stamp duty on the value is being received by him which would amount to sum of Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- and he had not demanded any bribe money. Therefore, accused was arrested and he has produced before the Special Judge and remanded to custody. 9. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Officer. Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant and secured his presence and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore, trial was held. 8 10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined five witnesses comprising of shadow witness being P.W.1 and complainant as P.W.2, P.W.3 being the sanctioning authority and P.W.4 co-pancha, Investigating Officer as P.W.5. 11. Prosecution placed reliance on 23 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.23, comprising of note sheet containing the tainted currency serial numbers, entrustment mahazar, attendance register extract, relevant file pertaining to the work pending in the office of the appellant. Letter of accused to Investigating Officer, imprint scene, photographs, trap mahazar, photographs depicting the trap, Forensic Science Laboratory report, First Information Report and seizure particulars. 12. Prosecution also placed on record fourteen material documents, comprising of sample solutions, hand wash of co-pancha, sample solution before the trap being 9 laid, samples of right hand wash and left hand wash of the accused, hand wash of C.W.1, currency notes, sealed cover of currency notes, micro cassette, sealed cover, metal seal. 13. On behalf of the defence, portion of Ex.P.13 (a) was marked as Ex.D.1 and portion of statement of Mukthar Ahamad as Ex.D.2. 14. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory materials. He did not offer any explanation nor furnished any written submissions placing his version on record. He also did not examine any witness on his behalf. 15. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the 10 accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as under: “It is ordered that the Accused Narasimhaiah, is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay fine of Rs,500/- (Rupees five hundred) in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for 15 days and the accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for offence defined under section 13(1)(d) which is punishable under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for 15 days. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The period in which the accused was in judicial custody is given set off. MO.10 Currency notes Rs.100X10 Rs.1,000/- shall be confiscated to the State Government and Mos.1 to 9 and 11 to 13 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period and M.O.14 metal shall be returned to the Lokayukta after appeal period is over. 11 Furnish free copy of the Judgment to accused forthwith.” 16. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court on challenging the validity of the said judgment on the following grounds:  That the judgment of the Lower Court is manifestly perverse, singularly untenable and totally incorrect.  That the Trial Court did not consider that the charge framed against the Accused / Appellant is contrary and not proved either by oral evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and Pw-5 or documentary evidence with the facts of the case, which shows that there is erroneous consideration by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence on record.  That the Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that as per the evidence of PW- 2 there was a demand and acceptance of bribe. But it is pertinent to mention that PW-2 never states about the demand of bribe by the Appellant at any point of time 12 rather he speaks about the Government fees to be paid to effect the change of Katha.  That the Trial Court erred in coming to conclusion that the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated with the evidence of shadow witness PW-1.  That the Trial Court erred in not appreciating the evidence of PW-2 that he met Appellant / Accused as per the say of his (PW-2)'s wife on 3/4/2005 and initially there was a demand by the Appellant/Accused in his Office. It is pertinent to mention that it is excited that 3/4/2005 is a Sunday and no Government Offices usually work on Sunday. This aspect was never discussed by the Trial Court to come to a particular conclusion that whether there was any prior demand as deposed by pw-2 as it never finds any place in entire Prosecution records.  That the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-2 admitting that he has to pay Property Tax or Stamp Duty fees of Rs.800/- to Rs.900/- as told by the 13 Accused Appellant as per Ex.P-5 the written explanation and Ex.P-4 File.  That the Trial Court failed to appreciate further admissions of Complainant that the same was reiterated in Written explanation given by the Appellant/ Accused for possession of tainted money as per Ex. P-5, Hence it is discernible that the work on file of the Complainant is yet to be started till he pays the Government fees and is very well known to the Complainant and thereby the Complainant is vague but this aspect is thrown out by the Trial Court.  That the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidence of PW- 1 is of tutored in nature as such he himself admitted that he never heard about any conversation with regard to pendency of work nor he heard any demand from the Appellant / Accused.  That the Trial Court erred in appreciating the fact as admitted by PW.1, PW-2 and PW-5 that the Appellant was having the tainted currency notes in his either hand 14 at either time of taking the hand washes of the Accused / Appellant which creates doubt to the entire story of the Prosecution.  That the Trial Court erred that the Appellant/Accused had pendency of work with him as on the date of Trap and erred in misconstruing the same even though the file of PW-2 was not yet started since he has to pay some Government Fees as per the marked documents at Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2.  That the Trial Court erred in considering only the evidence of PW-2 which never corroborates with PW-1 on material aspects and the evidence of PW-1 is as like as the evidence of a tutored witness.  That the Trial Court manifestly erred while considering the fact that the documentary evidence dilutes the Prosecution case with the substantive oral evidence of Prosecution witnesses and Defence exhibits. 15  That the Learned Special Judge failed to appreciate that the Appellant did not demand and much less accepted illegal gratification on 7/4/2005 near his Office when the trap Party went to organize the trap but it was the amount which was to be paid by the Complainant to the Government to effect the change of Katha. The Trial Court failed to notice that mere recovery of currency notes and positive result of phenolphthalein test would not establish the case of the Prosecution unless demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt.  That the Learned Special Judge failed to notice that there is no motive to demand illegal gratification by the Appellant and no necessary for the Complainant PW-2 to Pay bribe as he was incomplete in furnishing his entire remuneration to the Government i.e., Property tax/Stamp duty fees to effect katha change / transfer or to start the work of the Complainant by the Accused / Appellant. 16  It is submitted that the statement or written explanation given by the Appellant during the investigation is inadmissible as it is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. but if it favours the Appellant, he can rely upon that Explanation. Even this fact also is not appreciated by the Lower Court while rendering the Judgment against Accused / Appellant.  That the Learned Special Judge grossly erred in ignoring the contention of the Appellant that in the absence of corroboration, and without pendency of work which is required as a motive for demand, the evidence of bribe giver cannot be accepted and further the Learned Special Judge failed to appreciate that PW-1 and PW-2 did not support the Prosecution case.  That the Learned Judge grossly erred in ignoring the Apex Court decisions and our Hon'ble High Court decisions on this issue though cited at the time of arguments. 17 17. Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe money in the case on hand by placing the cogent evidence on record which is sine qua non for recording an order of conviction for the aforesaid offences and sought for allowing the appeal. 18. He further pointed out that the explanation offered by the accused marked at Ex.P.5 would clearly go to show that there was about Rs.700/- to Rs.800/-, which was payable by the complainant as the stamp fee charges, which has been asked by the appellant and the same has been misunderstood by the complainant as bribe amount. Therefore, filed a false complaint and a motivated trap has been laid and the amount that has been received by the appellant is only towards the stamp duty charges and therefore, no offence as is alleged against the appellant has taken place, which has not been appreciated by the 18 learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal. 19. He pointed out that that the discrepancy in the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal. 20. He also pointed out that the sanction order is invalid inasmuch as the sanctioning authority in the cross- examination has admitted that there was a draft sanction order prepared and he has issued the sanction order based on the draft sanction order which shows that there is no proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority to prosecute the appellant resulting in vitiating the entire trial and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 21. Per contra, Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Advocate representing Lokayuktha supports the impugned judgment. 19 22. He would further contend that the material on record is rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while passing the order of conviction. He pointed out that the tainted currency had been handled by the appellant in both the hands and therefore, colour test stood positive. The explanation offered is not supported by any material on record and if the stamp charges are to be collected necessary receipts should have been passed. There must be a specific request in a official manner as to what exactly the stamp duty. Even as per Ex.P.5, the appellant is estimating the stamp duty of 2% which may amounting to Rs.700/- to Rs.800/-, if it is so, why did he demand Rs.1000/- from the complainant is not forthcoming on record. 23. Therefore, the explanation is an afterthought which has been rightly ignored by the learned Trial Judge while appreciating the material evidence on record and convicting the appellant which requires no interference by this Court and as such sought for dismissal of the appeal. 20 24. In view of the rival contentions of the parties the following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether the material on record is sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge in Spl.C.C.No.16/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act? ii. Whether the dependents of establish that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus, calls for interference? iii. If the answer to the above points are in affirmative and negative, whether the sentence needs relook? iv. What order? 25. Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: P.W.1 in the case is the shadow witness. He deposed about the information received by his official supervisor and he was deputed to act as pancha for the intended raid. 26. He further deposed about co-pancha being present along with the complainant in the office of the 21 Lokayuktha, head of the raid party reading out the contents of the complaint, demonstrated chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution, taking out ten currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each from the custody of complainant, smearing the phenolphthalein powder after noting down the serial numbers by the co-pancha, directing the complainant to hand over the tainted currency in the hands of the accused only after his demand, directing P.W.1 to accompany complainant and observe the proceedings that would takes place in the office of the appellant, drafting of entrustment mahazar. Thereafter entire raid team leaving the office of Lokayuktha around 3.30 p.m., and reaching the place of appellant at about 4.00 p.m. Thereafter complainant and P.W.1 when proceeding in the office, they spotted accused in varanda and they greeted the appellant, appellant took them to his office room. 27. He further deposed about the complainant enquiring the work pending in his office namely, change of 22 khatha to his property and he also told him that he had brought the necessary money. 28. He further deposed that appellant asked the bribe money and complainant gave the tainted currency notes to the accused and he was standing next to him when all these proceedings went on in the chambers of the accused. 29. Accused took the tainted currency in both hands and then put it in the right hand. Complainant immediately came out of the chambers of accused and gave pre-designated signal by combing his hairs. 30. P.W.1 further deposed about the raid party immediately rushing to the chambers of the accused and enquiring the accused and accused replying that he is working as revenue Inspector in the said office. Immediately Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared in two separate bowls and fingers of right hand of the accused were washed which turned into pink colour and 23 left hand fingers were also washed which also turned into pink colour and they were seized and sealed by the head of the raid party. 31. P.W.1 further deposed that subsequently, head of the raid party told the appellant to produce the tainted currency. Accused took out the currency which was kept on the table and the serial numbers were tallied with the entrustment mahazar by himself and co-pancha Saraswathi. After which, they got tallied with the serial numbers in the entrustment mahazar, tainted currency were seized. Thereafter, attendance register of the appellant was secured through Assistant Revenue Officer wherein appellant identified his signature and photocopy of the said page in the attendance register was also seized by the head of the raid party. Thereafter head of the raid party asked the accused to produce the file pertaining to the complainant. At that juncture, accused went out and took out file from his scooter box and produced it. The same was also seized. Thereafter accused was arrested. 24 Tape recorder and cassette were also taken out from the complainant. However, it was not audible. P.W.1 further deposed that all these proceedings were reduced into writing in the form of draft trap mahazar. 32. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he has answered that entrustment mahazar proceedings took place in the office of Lokayuktha between 2.00 pm., to 3.00 p.m., and he has read over the contents of mahazar. He has further answered that himself and complainant had been to the chambers of the appellant. He denied the suggestion that on the way to the chambers of the appellant there was raining. He has further answered that when they met the appellant in varanda and when they actual demand was made for the tainted currency in the chambers of appellant, he was present by the side of the complainant and he has witnessed what transpired in the chambers of the appellant. 33. He has further answered that the trap mahazar was prepared in between the time 4.30 p.m., to 6.00 p.m. 25 He has further answered about the conducting the colour test and he has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely to help the Lokayuktha. 34. Complainant is examined as P.W.2. He deposed about purchasing of the property located at Ganganagar on 09.03.2005. He further deposed about contacting the appellant in the office of the appellant for change of khatha of the property and accused initially demanded Rs.3,000/- and on negotiation, the bribe amount was settled at Rs.1,000/-. 35. He further deposed that since he was not willing to pay the bribe amount, intimated the same by way of complaint to Lokayuktha police. Further he deposed about, securing of pancha witnesses by Lokayuktha police, forming raid team, conduct of entrustment mahazar, instructions being obtained from head of the raid party to hand over the tainted currency to the hands of appellant only on demand. P.W.1 was directed to accompany him and himself and P.W.1 was 26 proceeding to the office of the accused wherein they spotted the accused in varanda. Later on, accused taking them to his chambers wherein he enquired about the pending work and appellant demanding sum of Rs.1,000/- and he handed over the same to the accused, which was taken by accused in both the hands and kept in right hand and thereafter he came out and gave the pre designated signal by combing his hairs, raid party entering the chambers of appellant. 36. He further deposed about the colour test being conducted of both the hands of the appellant separately which turning into pink and seizure of the same, head of the raid party enquiring about the tainted currency for which the appellant took out the same which was kept in his table and later on the notes being tallied by P.W.1 and co-pancha Saraswathi, seizure of the attendance register, arresting the accused, drafting of trap mahazar. 37. In his cross-examination the suggestions made that he has deposed falsely and the trap is a motivated 27 trap is denied by him. No doubt, a categorical suggestion was made in the cross-examination that 2% of the sale value of the property is to be collected as stamp duty and said Rs.1000/- denoted the same. But, P.W.1 has specifically denied that the demand was towards the stamp duty, but he reiterated that the demand was illegal gratification (bribe). 38. P.W.3 is the person who issued sanction order vide Ex.P.20. In his cross-examination he admits that Lokayuktha had sent a model draft sanction order. He has denied the suggestion that sanction order is issued mechanically. 39. P.W.4 is the co-pancha. She deposed about deputing her to the office of the Lokayuktha by her official superior for acting as pancha at the request of Lokayuktha. 40. She further deposed about the presence of co- pancha – P.W.1, complainant and other sub-staff of the Lokayuktha. She deposed in the line with the 28 examination-in-chief of P.W.1 insofar as entrustment mahazar is concerned. 41. She further deposed about waiting with other members of the raid team for pre-designated signal from P.W.1 and P.W.2 and soon such signal was given by P.W.2, the raid party rushed to the chambers of the appellant. She also deposed that colour test was conducted by asking the appellant to wash his right hand fingers and left hand fingers separately in separate bowls containing sodium carbonate solution which turning into pink colour, seizure of the same thereafter head of the raid party demanding the tainted currency from accused. 42. She further deposed about the appellant handing over tainted currency kept in his table to head of the raid party which was in turn given to her for tallying the serial numbers noting in the entrustment mahazar. She verified the same, the serial numbers in the tainted currency were tallying with the serial numbers noted in the 29 entrustment mahazar and thereafter tainted currency were seized. 43. She also deposed about the collection of attendance register extract, file where the application of P.W.2 was pending, arrest of appellant and she signing the trap mahazar after the same was read over. She identified the articles seized by the head of the raid party during entrustment mahazar and trap mahazar, tainted currency notes, micro cassettes, sealed cover which were marked at M.Os.1 to 13. 44. In her cross-examination she has answered that by the time she went to the office of Lokayuktha already complaint was lodged with Lokayuktha vide Ex.P.14. 45. She has further answered that P.W.2 did not furnish any other documents along with the complaint. She has answered that she does not remember where the tainted currency was kept on the table of the accused. 30 She admits that photographs of the appellant were taken after holding the wrist of the accused when they went inside the office of the accused. She admits that the tainted currency was lying on the table and the same is visible in photographs - Exs.P.8 to P.12. She admits having signed the explanation given by the accused vide Ex.P.5. She admits that accused had told that he had kept the case file in the scooter box. 46. P.W.5 Sri D.S. Rajendra was the Inspector of Lokayuktha and head of the raid party. He deposed about receipt of complaint, registering criminal case, securing pancha witnesses, explaining the contents of the complaint to pancha witnesses after they were secured, drafting of entrustment mahazar after demonstrating the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein power with sodium carbonate solution. 47. He also deposed that all of them left to the office of the accused situated at queens road, at about 4.00 p.m. At about 4.15 p.m., himself and other members 31 of the raid party including the co-pancha received the pre- designated signal from the complainant and they immediately went into the inside of the office of accused and after disclosing his identity, colourless solutions were prepared in two separate bowls and hands of the accused were asked to be dipped into the solution. When the fingers were washed in the said solution, it turned into pink colour and he collected in bottles and seized the same. Later on, tainted currency handed over by the complainant to the accused was demanded which was kept on the table was taken out by him. On verification, it tallied with the serial numbers mentioned in entrustment mahazar. They were also seized. Thereafter version of the complainant and shadow witness, mahazar details were recorded in a mahazar. Accused was arrested and he seized the file, wherein the application of the complainant was kept and then which was taken out by the accused from his scooter box and later on completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 32 48. He admits that along with the complaint, necessary document supporting the allegation of the complainant that work was pending with the accused was not enclosed. He denied other suggestions stating that based on the false complaint lodged by the complaint, accused has been trapped with ulterior motives. 49. The above evidence on record is sought to be re-appreciated on behalf of the dependents of the appellant. 50. In the light of the appeal grounds, this Court bestowed its best attention to the material evidence on record and re-appreciated the same. 51. Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant wanted to appreciate the fact that about Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- was the necessary fee towards the 2% stamp duty on the value of the property purchased by the complainant and the complainant has handed over Rs.1000/- towards the said fee and not as a bribe. 33 52. In order to appreciate the said argument of the counsel for the appellant, it is necessary for this Court to cull out Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the P.O. Act which reads as under: “7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.— Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanations.—(a) “Expecting to be a public servant”. Explanations.—(a) “Expecting to be a public servant”. If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. (b) “Gratification”. The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. 34 (c) “Legal remuneration”. The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept. (d) “A motive or reward for doing”. A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression. (e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section. 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. — (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, — xxxx (d) if he, — (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or” 35 53. On careful reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is crystal clear that handling of the tainted currency by the accused having been established by the prosecution, accused is required to prove that he received tainted currency towards the stamp duty. In that regard there is no defence evidence. 54. Admittedly, no defence evidence has been placed on record nor any explanation is offered by the appellant while recording the accused statement. Except denying the incriminatory circumstances, appellant did not place on record necessary documents to show that he had processed the file and there was a demand raised with regard to 2% stamp duty to be collected by the appellant as per the Government order/circular and intimated the same to the complainant in writing. 55. In Ex.P.4, which is the photo copy of the file where the application filed by the complainant is found which was taken out from the scooter box contains a note sheet. The note sheet contains that the property standing 36 in the name of Hafeeza and annual tax for the property is Rs.900/-. File also contains the copy of the sale deed which depicts that the complainant has purchased the property from Hafeeza and thereafter applied for change of khatha. The application filed by the complainant with copy of the khatha in the name of Hafeeza are all part of such file. Two National Savings Certificates in a sum of Rs.200/- is also forthcoming in the said file. 56. If the arguments on behalf of the appellant is to be accepted that 2% stamp duty to the tune of Rs.700/- or Rs.800/- is what has been received by the appellant is to be appreciated as per Ex.P.5, such a note should have been made in the note sheet for processing further. No such note is forthcoming in Ex.P.4. 57. Shadow witness and complainant have specifically deposed about the handing over the tainted currency to the accused. Therefore, prosecution is successful in establishing the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe. 37 58. Admittedly, shadow witness did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity and is a total stranger to the appellant. Why would he depose falsely is a question that remains unanswered on behalf of the appellant. 59. Further, colour test having turned positive and the same has been established by the prosecution, handling of tainted currency has been proved by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record. Admittedly, the work of the complainant being pending as on the date of trap, the learned Trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused and sentencing him as referred to supra. 60. Explanation offered by the appellant having been no significance in the absence of placing at least plausible evidence placed on record, this Court, even after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record is unable to accept that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjunctures and thus to be termed as perverse. 38 61. On the contrary the impugned judgment is based on sound and logical reasons on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative and negative respectively. 62. Regarding point No.3: learned Trial Judge has sentenced the appellant to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 63. Needless to emphasise that since the appellant is no more and his legal representatives are only pursuing the matter, jail sentence would get extinguished on account of death of appellant and fine amount if not already paid needs to be paid by the legal representatives 39 of the appellant. As such, sentence needs no modification. Hence, point No.3 is answered in Negative. 64. Regarding Point No.4: In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following order is passed: ORDER (i) Appeal grounds are meritless. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. (ii) Time is granted till 28.02.2025 to pay the fine amount, if not already paid, failing which, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. (iii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with copy of this order. Sd/- (V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR