The State Of Karnataka vs S Nirupadi S/O. S.V. Rachaiah
2021 Latest Caselaw 3359 Kant

                          -1-



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2541 OF 2012

BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
KOPPAL.
                                              ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

AND
S. NIRUPADI S/O. S.V. RACHAIAH
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: FDA IN THE ACCOUNTS BRANCH OF
ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KOPPAL.
                                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. NEELANDRA D GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 378(1) AND SEC
378(3) OF CR.P.C 1973, SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED
BY THE SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOPPAL ON
17.08.2011 IN SPL.CASE (P.C) 1/2009 IN FAVOUR OF
RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES U/S. 7, 13(1)(d)
R/W SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 BE SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
PASSED BY THE SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOPPAL IN
SPL.CASE (PC) 1/2009 BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL
AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCES OF WHICH HE IS CHARGED BY THE TRIAL
COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
                                 -2-



      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
16.08.2021 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

The State through Lokayukta Police, Koppal has filed

this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal

passed by the learned Sessions and Special Judge, Koppal

in Special Case (P.C.)No.1/2009 dated 17.08.2011

whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the

respondent-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 "the Act").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

referred with the ranks occupied by them before the Trial

Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that the

complainant is running hire car bearing registration No.KA-

35/5875 and as per the order of the Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Koppal, he lent the said vehicle in

the month of May-2008 to Akshara Dasoha, Zilla

Panchayath office, Koppal. It is alleged that an amount of

Rs.15,250/- was required to be paid for each month and

two months' arrears i.e. for June-2008 and July-2008 was

payable by the Zilla Panchayat, Koppal to the complainant.

That the accused was concerned clerk in Zilla Panchayat

office and in order to disburse the cheque, accused

demanded bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- for each month. The

complainant has expressed that he had no amount to

spend for diesel also and he made some loan. He

requested the accused to give a cheque for one month so

that he can pay the amount and get the cheque pertaining

to the second month. With this assurance, he received the

cheque for the month of June-2008 for Rs.15,250/- and on

19.08.2008 he requested for issuing second cheque, but

the accused refused to handover the cheque without

payment of bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-. As the

complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, on

25.08.2008, he approached Lokayukta police, Koppal and

there he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P19. He has also

produced the bribe amount consisting one note of Rs.500/-

denomination and five notes of Rs.100/- denominations.

The Inspector has secured two mahazar witnesses and

drawn entrustment mahazar in Lokayukta office in the

presence of two mahazar witnesses i.e. CW2 and CW3.

CW2 was selected as a shadow pancha and CW3 was

selected as co-pancha. The demonstration was done

regarding entrustment panchanama and then

demonstrated regarding the fact of phenolphthalein, when

it comes into contact with sodium carbonate solution

changes colour to pink. Then Investigating Officer handed

over the amount to the complainant with a direction to

give it to the accused in case of demand.

4. Then a trap was laid and the complainant went

to Koppal District Administrative building and then he

approached the accused in his chambers and there the

accused demanded and accepted the amount and as per

the signal passed by the complainant, the accused was

trapped and apprehended red handedly. Then, the hand

wash of the accused was taken which has shown positive

to phenolphthalein test and same was also seized and the

explanation of the accused was also sought. The accused

has given his written statement stating that he has not

demanded amount, but complainant has forcibly put the

amount in his hands saying that same has to be paid to his

immediate officer i.e. PW2. However, it is to be noted here

that the amount was found in the shirt pocket of the

accused but not in his hand as claimed by him and the

pocket wash of his shirt was also taken, which has also

shown positive to phenolphthalein test. The same was also

seized. The statement of the accused was denied by the

shadow witness as well as the complainant. Then the

investigating officer has followed all other formalities by

drawing a trap mahazar and then he recorded the

statement of material witnesses and obtained chemical

examiners report. Further, he has obtained the sanction

from competent authority and submitted the charge sheet

against the accused.

5. After submission of charge sheet, the learned

Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offence. The

accused was initially remanded to judicial custody but later

on he was enlarged on bail. The charge framed against

him was read over and explained to him but he pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the

accused, the prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses

and got marked 27 documents and 12 material objects.

After conclusion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses,

the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,

was recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating

evidence appearing against him in the case of the

prosecution. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,

the accused has claimed that the amount was put in his

hands by asserting that same is required to be paid to his

officer and before he could react, immediately Lokayukta

police had apprehended him and he had no other

explanation.

6. After hearing the arguments and after perusing

the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has

acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act

holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the

demand and acceptance and the evidence establishes that

demand was made by some other person in the office.

Being aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, the State

through Lokayukta has filed this appeal.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for

respondent. Perused the records of the Trial Court in

detail.

8. The learned counsel for appellant would

contend that PW5 is the complainant and he has supported

the case of the prosecution in material aspect and the

evidence of the complainant is again supported by the

evidence of shadow witnesses. He would also contend that

though the complainant has turned hostile in respect of

demand by the accused, his evidence discloses that he had

paid the amount to the accused. He would also contend

that the shadow witness, who is examined as PW4 has

supported the case of the prosecution and amount was

recovered from the custody of the accused. He would also

contend that though the shadow witness was outside the

cabin, the height of the cabin is hardly about 5 ft and as

such, the transaction taken place in the cabin of the

accused was visible. He would also contend that the trap

was successful and amount was recovered from the

custody of the accused and though the alleged person,

who is said to have demanded the bribe as per the version

of the accused i.e. PW2, he was not cross-examined on

this point by the defence counsel. He would also contend

that the records also disclose that the cheque was

prepared well in advance and accused was possessing the

cheque and it was already signed by the Accounts Officer

and Executive Officer and it was required to be disbursed.

Hence, he would contend that the observation of the Trial

Court in this regard are erroneous and the Trial Court has

drawn inference on its own, though there is material

evidence regarding demand and acceptance as well as

seizure of the amount from the custody of the accused.

Hence, he would seek for allowing the appeal by setting

aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and prayed for

convicting the accused.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-

accused would contend that though the demand was on

19.08.2008, the complaint was filed on 25.08.2008. There

is a delay and he would also contend that PW5-

complainant has turned hostile regarding demand by the

accused and the accused has given explanation

immediately and he has stuck on to his defence all along.

He would also contend that shadow witness did not enter

into the cabin and his evidence does not establish the

presence of PW3. He would contend that the complainant

himself has not supported regarding demand and

acceptance of bribe from accused. The prosecution theory

based on the evidence of shadow witness is not

trustworthy and hence, he would contend that the Court

below is justified in acquitting the accused by analyzing the

evidence in detail. Hence, he would contend that the

interference with the said judgment of acquittal does not

warrant and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

10. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, now the following point would arise for my

consideration:

"Whether the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused and the judgment of the Trial Court calls for any interference by this Court"

11. Admittedly, the accused has been prosecuted

for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read

with Section 13(2) of the Act. There is no dispute of the

fact that the complainant has lent his vehicle to Zilla

panchayat Office, Koppal and he was required to receive

the bill for the month of June and July 2008. It is also an

undisputed fact that the complainant has received bill for

an amount of Rs.15,250/- for the month of June-2008.

According to the prosecution, the accused has demanded

Rs.500/- for issuing the cheque pertaining to each months

bill and demand was for Rs.1,000/-. According to the

prosecution, on 19.08.2008, when the complainant

approached for issuance of second cheque, there was

again demand for Rs.1,000/- and hence, it is alleged that

he has lodged complaint on 25.08.2008. It is alleged that

there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, but

considering the nature of the offence, delay is not relevant

factor.

12. It is also not in serious dispute that on the

basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant as per

Ex.P19, trap was laid down after drawing entrustment

mahazar in Lokayukta office and the accused was trapped.

Accused has not denied the fact of receiving the amount of

Rs.1,000/- from the complainant. Further, it is also evident

that his hand wash and shirt pocket wash have shown

positive to phenolphthalein test. The defence of the

accused is that the complainant has paid this amount to be

paid to one Ratna Nayak, who is working as an Accountant

and examined as PW2. His statement given immediately

after the trap and his statement recorded under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. is also on the same line. Hence, recovery of

the amount from the custody of the accused is undisputed

and the only question now arises is whether the

explanation offered by the accused is plausible explanation

or not?

      13.   PW1     is   the        second     pancha       and    he   has

supported    the    case       of     the     prosecution         regarding

entrustment mahazar and trap mahazar.

14. PW2 is the chief Accountant Officer in Zilla

Panchayat by name Ratna Nayak and his evidence

discloses that he signed on the cheque pertaining to July-

2008 of the complainant on 22.08.2008 and it was in

possession of the accused.

15. PW3 Bogesh Achar is the FDA working in Zilla

Panchayat office. PW4 Madhavarao Kulkarni is a shadow

pancha.

16. PW5-Abdul Samad is the complainant and

though he has supported the case of the prosecution

regarding handing over the amount, he turned hostile

regarding demand by the accused asserting that amount

was demanded by Ratna Nayak and he has retracted from

complaint allegations in this regard.

17. PW6-Ningappa is the Assistant Engineer who

has drawn sketch. PW7 is the sanctioning authority. PW8 is

the constable who accompanied the raiding party while

PW9 to PW11 are the investigating officers.

18. Ex.P.1 is the entrustment mahazar while Ex.P2

to Ex.P8 are the photographs taken during the

entrustment mahazar. Ex.P9 is the seizure mahazar.

Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 are the photographs taken at the time of

seizure mahazar. Ex.P14 is the explanation offered by the

accused. Ex.P15 is the file sent for having taken vehicle on

rent. Ex.P16 is the cheque register. Ex.P17 is the

acquaintance register. Ex.P19 is the complaint. Ex.P20 is

the FIR. Ex.P22 is the sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P23 is the prosecution sanction order and Ex.P24 is the

forensic report.

19. The allegations of the prosecution is that the

accused demanded Rs.1,000/- for handing over the cheque

pertaining to the complainant. The records of the

prosecution itself establish that the amount was recovered

from the custody of the accused. The Trial Court has also

observed that the amount was recovered from the custody

of the accused. The accused in the cross examination of

shadow witness-PW4, has denied the recovery itself.

However, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 coupled with the

evidence of PW11-investigating officer clearly establish

that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was recovered from the

custody of the accused. Hand wash of the accused was

also taken which has shown positive to phenolphthalein

test. Hence, it is undisputed fact that the tainted money

was recovered from the custody of the accused. Further,

PW4, who is shadow witness has specifically deposed that

when he along with complainant went to the office of the

accused, the accused was in his cabin and he demanded

and accepted the amount of Rs.1,000/-. He deposed that

the complainant had paid the amount and the accused

counted the amount and then kept it in his shirt pocket.

The evidence of PW5 also supports this version regarding

payment of the amount. He has also specifically deposed

that he paid the amount to accused and obtained cheque.

It is an undisputed fact that the cheque was to be signed

by the Accounts Officer and Executive Officer. The records

also establish that the cheque was signed and ready for

disbursement on 22.08.2008 itself. There is no explanation

from accused why he did keep the cheque without

disbursement till 25.08.2008.

20. The evidence of PW5 discloses that he has

received the cheque and he paid the amount. No doubt, he

denied the demand by the accused. However, his evidence

discloses that amount was paid to the accused but it was

demanded by PW2-Ratna Nayak, who was an accountant.

But the evidence of PW2 itself discloses that he had signed

the cheque on 22.08.2008 itself and trap was on

25.08.2008. The complainant and accused have taken a

defence that the amount was demanded by PW2-Ratna

Nayak. The complainant has also claimed that he paid the

amount to accused in order to pay it to Ratna Nayak. The

accused during the course of cross-examination of PW4

has denied the very seizure of the amount itself. But quite

contrary, the evidence of PW5 regarding he paying

Rs.1,000/- to him is not challenged by him. Further, his

statement discloses that when the complainant offered him

the payment, he did not accept and it was thrusted in his

hands and immediately Lokayukta police raided the spot.

However, it is to be noted here that the amount found in

his shirt pocket which has also shown positive to

phenolphthalein test. If at all the accused was refusing the

amount handed over by PW5, there was no need for him to

keep it in his shirt pocket.

21. Further, all along it is argued that the shadow

witness-PW4 did not enter into cabin of the accused and

there was no possibility of hearing the demand and

acceptance. No doubt in the cross-examination, PW4 did

admit that he was standing outside the cabin and

complainant went inside the cabin of the accused. His

examination-in-chief also clearly establishes that in the

cabin, complainant has paid the amount of Rs.1,000/- to

accused as per the demand and accused counted it and

kept it in his shirt pocket. This statement was not denied in

the cross-examination by the defence. The sketch of the

scene of offence is at Ex.P22. The distance between spot,

wherein the shadow pancha was standing, is at a distance

of 2.6 meters. It is further evident that the cabin is having

aluminum partition of 1.5 meter height only. When the

cabin of the accused is of 1.5 meter height i.e., hardly 5

feet, then quite naturally pancha, who was standing

outside the cabin would see what is happening inside the

cabin, as the distance between the place wherein he stood

is of 2.6 meters from the spot wherein the accused was

sitting. Hence, the observation of the Trial Court that

shadow witness, who was standing outside the cabin would

not be in a position to hear and see the conversation of

demand and acceptance holds no water.

22. Apart from that all along during the course of

cross-examination, the accused has denied the recovery as

well as trap. But PW5 has specifically deposed regarding

payment of the amount and that portion of evidence is not

challenged. However, PW5 has come up with explanation

that the demand was by PW2-Ratna Nayak. But when PW2

himself was examined, no suggestion was made to him by

the accused that PW2 himself has demanded or the

complainant has paid the amount in order to pay him,

which suggestion was made to other witnesses. Nothing

prevented the defence from making a similar suggestion to

PW2 when he was examined and cross-examined. But that

was not done and the records disclose that PW2 had

signed the cheque on 22.08.2008 itself while the trap was

held on 25.08.2008. Hence, it is evident that now the

accused in order to save his skin has come up with a new

version. The complainant all along asserted that the

demand was made by Ratna Nayak/PW2. There is no

explanation then as to why he lodged the complaint

against the accused and not against PW2. Further, the

cheque was found in the possession of the accused and

accused has disbursed the cheque as admitted by

complainant-PW5 itself. Hence, prima facie it is evident

that the complainant has been won over by the accused

and to that extent the complainant turned hostile in order

to deny the demand and acceptance.

23. The Trial Court did not appreciate any of these

aspects. Further, the evidence of PW4-shadow witness is

supported by the evidence of PW1/Co-Pancha and

investigating officer-PW11. Further, the statement of the

complainant is marked as Ex.P21 when he turned hostile,

but no suggestion is made to investigating officer in this

regard regarding further statement. Further, the contents

of Ex.P19-complaint are not at all denied. Further,

according to the accused, the complainant has thrusted the

amount but complainant who was examined as PW5 did

not say so. The seizure mahazar-Ex.P9 is proved by the

prosecution and even the evidence of PW5 and the other

evidence including the explanation by the accused

establish that the amount was recovered from the custody

of the accused. The accused was required to give plausible

explanation. But no such evidence is forthcoming.

24. Learned counsel for respondent has placed

reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal

appeal No.100-101/2021 arising out of SLP (Crl)

Nos.4729-4730 of 2020) and argued that mere recovery is

not sufficient and there should be demand and voluntary

acceptance. In the instant case, the evidence itself

establishes that the accused has demanded and accepted

the amount and this is corroborated by the evidence of

PW4. The amount is also recovered from his custody and

the evidence of complainant, who partially turned hostile,

is inconsistent and now they wanted to implicate PW2. But

similar suggestions were not put to PW2 during his cross.

Hence, the principles enunciated in the above cited

decision does not come to the aid of the accused in any

way and they would not be applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case in hand.

25. The learned counsel has further placed reliance

on unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal

No.2691/2012 dated 18.02.2021. But the facts and

circumstances of the said case are entirely different and

cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. He has

also placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Dist.

Inspector of Police and another reported in AIR 2015

SC 3549 but in the said case, there was no sufficient

evidence to prove demand of illegal gratification. But in the

instant case, the material evidence establishes that there

was demand of illegal gratification. Hence, the principles

enunciated in the above cited decision does not come to

the aid of the accused in any way.

26. He has further placed reliance on decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishan Chander v.

State of Delhi, reported in AIR 2016 SC 298 wherein it

is held that demand and acceptance is sine qua non for

constituting offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the

Act. But again in the said case, the factum of demand was

not proved and conviction was set aside. In the instant

case, the evidence of PW4 clearly establish that there was

a demand and though the complainant has partially turned

hostile, the amount was recovered from the custody of the

accused and they wanted to implicate PW2 by putting

blame on PW2 without suggesting the same regarding his

demand when he was examined. Hence, with due regards

to their Lordships, the principles enunciated in the above

cited decisions cannot be made applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case in hand.

27. The learned counsel has further placed reliance

on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal

Appeal No.2052/2010 dated 12.08.2013. Again in the said

decision, it is held that demand of illegal gratification is

sine qua non for constituting offence, but as observed in

the instant case, the evidence establishes that there was a

demand. Further, when the amount was found in the

custody of the accused, it was for him to give plausible

explanation but his explanation is not acceptable as though

he claimed that it was paid in order to hand over to PW2,

but when PW2 was examined no such suggestion was

made to him. Hence, the principles enunciated in the

above cited decision does not come to the aid of the

accused in any way.

28. The learned counsel for the respondent

accused has further placed reliance on a decision of this

Court in the case of Hanumanthappa v. State of

Karnataka reported in Laws (Kar) 2012-3-28. But

again the facts and circumstances are entirely different

and there the demand was not established and evidence

was inconsistent. But in the instant case, the complainant

partially supported the case of the prosecution. The

payment of amount to the accused is supported by the

complainant but he put forward a new story of demand by

PW2 and accordingly, accused has also put forward the

same theory. But PW2 when examined, no such cross

examination was made suggesting that he has demanded

the amount. Similar observation is made in the case of C.

Sukumaran v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2015 SC

Supplementary 771. As observed above, there is

material evidence regarding demand and acceptance.

29. Further, in the case of V. D. Jhingan v. State

of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1966 SC 1762 the

Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that when it is shown

that the accused has received certain sum of money, which

is not his legal remuneration, the condition prescribed is

satisfied and presumption must be raised. It is further

observed that the onus of discharging presumption is on

the accused on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

But in the instant case, though the recovery is there and

presumption becomes mandatory and that has not been

rebutted by the accused.

30. Further, in the case of Dhaneshwari Narain

Saxena v. The Delhi Administration, reported in AIR

1962 SC 195, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held

that misconduct by a public servant need not be in

connection with his own official duty. Further, the

constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case

of C. I. Emden v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1960

SC 548 has clearly held that the gratification cannot be

confined only to demand of money and the prosecution is

required to prove before asking the Court to draw the

presumption as against the accused that the accused

person has received gratification other than legal

remuneration. In the instant case, admittedly, the amount

received by the accused is not his legal remuneration.

31. Further, in the case of Dhanavantrai

Balawantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra reported in

AIR 1964 SC 575 the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court

has observed that once it is shown that accused shown to

have accepted the money, which is not a legal

remuneration, presumption can be raised and rebuttal

must be by explanation, which must be true and not mere

plausible. The said principles are directly applicable to the

facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Under these

circumstances in view of the Constitutional Bench decisions

of the Hon'ble Apex Court coupled with the evidence of

demand and acceptance, it is evident that accused has not

given proper explanation and his explanation cannot be

mere plausible explanation, but it must be established on

the basis of preponderance of probabilities and that is

missing in the instant case. The Trial Court has failed to

consider all these aspects and has carried away with the

fact that the complainant has turned hostile stating that

demand was by PW2 but ignored the fact that no such

suggestion was made to PW2 in this regard by the

defence. The Trial Court has also ignored the evidence of

PW4, who is a shadow witness and under these

circumstances, the judgment of acquittal passed by the

Trial Court is erroneous, illegal and arbitrary. Hence, it

calls for interference. Therefore, looking to all these

aspects, I of the considered view that the prosecution has

successfully proved the fact that the accused has

demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the

complainant for payment of cheque on 25.08.2008 and

thereby committed offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)

read with Section 13(2) of the Act. In view of the above, I

am constrained to answer the point under consideration in

the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions and Special Judge, Koppal dated 17.08.2011 in Spl.Case(P.C)1/2009 is hereby set aside and the accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly he is convicted.

Call again for hearing on sentence.

Sd/-

JUDGE Yan

ORDER ON SENTENCE

Heard on sentence.

The offence is committed on 25.08.2008. It is prior to the

Amendment of the Act and as on that relevant dated, the

offence is punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less

than one year but may extend to seven years and also with fine.

The accused is a public servant and he has demanded and

accepted the bribe in order to issue the cheques to the

complainant in respect of renting his vehicle. Corruption is now

spreading like cancer and it is required to be dealt with iron

hands. Looking to the facts and circumstances, in my considered

opinion, it is just and proper to impose sentence of

imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-

to the accused, which will serve the purpose. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The accused-respondent is convicted for the offence punishable under section 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount,

he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of respondent-accused for serving the sentence.

Sd/-

JUDGE yan