IMPORTANT POINT
In a bribe case when it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of money, there is no further burden cast on prosecution to prove by direct evidence the demand or motive.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.

2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act)

3. The Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable as aforesaid, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation in respect of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The prosecution case against the appellant was that while the appellant was working as Health Inspector Grade-II, at Thirnmala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.100/- from PW-1 on 27.11.1997 and a further amount of Rs.100/- on 6.1.1998 as illegal gratification and thereby committed the above offences. Earlier the officials of the Municipal Corporation including the accused removed the push cart belonging to PW-1 along with the articles to the office of the Corporation and for release of the articles and for sending the report to the Corporation, the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.200/- from PW-1. For the release of the push cart, the accused demanded a further sum of Rs.200/- from PW-1 on 29.1.1998 besides the fine imposed by the Health Officer and PW-1 then went to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB Unit PW-9, and gave Ext.P1 first information statement on the basis of which Crime No.VC.2/98 was registered and a trap was arranged. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and produced Exts.P1 to P13 and MOS.1 to 6. DW1 was examined on the side of the defence, to prove innocence of accused, as pleaded by him. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) and he denied the charge levelled against him. He also filed a detailed statement in which he stated that he never received any amount from PW-1 and that PW-1 came to his office and forcibly put the money into his pocket. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Trial Court mainly placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 to hold the accused guilty. It is to be noted that PW-3 did not support the prosecution version. The trial Court found that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is credible and cogent and, therefore, the prosecution has brought out the accusations made against the appellant. Before the High Court the trial Courts judgment was primarily attacked on the ground that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 should not have been accepted as they were interested witnesses, more particularly when PW-3 did not support the prosecution version. The High Court did not find any substance in the submissions and as noted above confirmed the conviction and sentence.