1. Appellant is aggrieved by the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) and the sentences imposed thereunder by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, conducting trials under the said Act.

2. Case against the appellant is thus:

While working as Sub Registrar, Peerumedu, the appellant demanded illegal gratification from PW2 to a tune of Rs.3,500/- for registering seven documents. Subsequently she reduced the bribe amount to Rs.3,000/-. On 08.11.1999 at about 11.30 a.m. she accepted Rs.2,000/- towards part payment of the illegal gratification from PW2 and registered only five documents and refused to register the remaining two documents as the entire amount demanded by her was not paid by PW2. It is the prosecution case that the appellant reiterated her illegal demand for Rs.1,000/-on 20.11.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. also. On 23.11.1999 at about 2.20 p.m. she accepted Rs.1,000/-from PW2 from her office and thereby committed the above said offences.

3. Prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked 17 documents. Two witnesses were examined on the defence side and 13 documents were marked by the defence. MOs 1 to 9 series are the material objects exhibited by the prosecution.

4. Heard Sri. Babu Karukappadath, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. V.H. Jasmine, the learned Public Prosecutor. I have carefully perused the evidence in the records.

5. The appellant was a public servant defined under Section 2(c) of the Act at the material time is not a disputed point. Likewise, there is no dispute raised against Ext.P1, the order of sanction for prosecution issued by PW1, the then Registration Inspector General, Kerala. So the question coming up for resolution is whether the appellant demanded bribe from PW2 as alleged and whether she received the amount as stated by the prosecution.

6. Prosecution case unfolded through evidence is thus: PW2 is an agriculturist residing near Peerumedu. He wanted to sell out 40 cents of land to seven persons. Apart from his land, those belonging to his aunt and brother were also proposed to be sold. His sister, Smt. Sulfath was the holder of a scribe licence. She prepared 13 sale deeds. When these sale deeds were presented for registration, the appellant, then Sub Registrar at Peerumedu, rejected all these deeds for one flimsy reason or another. PW2 got seven sale deeds prepared through another licensed scribe. When the documents were presented for registration, about three days prior to the trap, the appellant demanded bribe at the rate of Rs.500/-for each document. PW2 informed the appellant that it was difficult to pay bribe since the purchasers were members belonging to Scheduled Caste and financially they were in lower strata. The appellant took an adamant stand that she would not register the documents unless the bribe was paid. Finally, PW2 agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the appellant and after further deliberations, the appellant reduced the rate of bribe to Rs.3,000/-. Then PW2 gave Rs.2,000/- to the appellant as bribe and Rs.1,525/- towards the registration fees for five sale deeds, at the rate of Rs.305/-per document. After two days, PW2 went to the appellant for getting the remaining two sale deeds registered. At that point of time also, the appellant demanded the balance bribe money of Rs.1,000/-and registration fees of Rs.610/-. As PW2 was not inclined to pay any further bribe, he preferred a complaint to PW7, then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Idukki. Thereafter, PW7 recorded the statement of PW2, which is marked as Ext.P2. PW7 registered the case. He arranged for the presence of two independent witnesses namely, CW2 and PW3. On 23.11.1999, at about 8.45 p.m. Ext.P2 FIS was prepared and all the formalities for accomplishing a trap were made by PW7. As instructed by PW7, PW2 produced trap money consisting of two currency notes of Rs.500/- denominati