The appellant herein was a Sub Engineer in the Electrical Major Section, Mannuthy, in November, 1998. He, along with one Giji Thomas, Line Man Grade-II of the said Electrical Major Section, faced prosecution before the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur in C.C.No.9/2001, on the allegation that they accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- from one Santhosh for giving agricultural electricity connection to the property of Sreedharan, father of Santhosh, on an application made by him in August, 1995. Money was received by the two accused, according to the prosecution, on 13.11.1998 from Santhosh, but crime was registered by the Inspector of Police, VACB, Thrissur on 18.08.1999, on the basis of some report of enquiry conducted by the Vigilance on some complaint filed by the said Santhosh or his father Sreedharan, in December, 1998. The illegal gratification accepted on 13.11.1998 was returned, according to the prosecution, to Santhosh, by the 1st accused, on 17.11.1998, when some friends of Santhosh including some politicians intervened in the matter. However, investigation proceeded despite the fact that the money received was returned by the accused, and the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau (VACB) submitted final report on 15.03.2001 under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

2. The two accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, and also under Sections 409, 468, 420, 477A and 120B IPC. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents in the trial court. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegation of acceptance of illegal gratification, and maintained a definite defence that the amount was in fact received as the cost roughly estimated for an additional post required for electricity connection. Thus the accused maintained a definite defence that no illegal gratification was accepted by them. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence in defence, but Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on their side during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the 2nd accused (Lineman) not guilty, but found the 1st accused (Sub Engineer) guilty under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and under Section 417 IPC. He was, however, found not guilty under Sections 120B, 409, 468 and 477A IPC. On conviction the 1st accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 7 of the PC Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and another term of rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 417 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2005, the 1st accused has come up in appeal.

3. The points for decision in this appeal are;

1) Whether the appellant herein had accepted an amount of Rs.1,500/- as illegal gratification, on demand, from PW3 on 13.11.1998, as alleged by the prosecution.

2) Whether the conviction in this case is sustainable, or whether the sentence imposed by the court requires interference, in case the conviction is confirmed.

4. Of the fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW3 is the main witness, on whose evidence the prosecution relies to prove the guilt of the accused. PW1 is the Chief Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, 'the KSEB'), examined to prove Ext.P1 prosecution sanction granted under Section 19 of the PC Act. On this aspect there is no dispute. PW2 is Sreedharan, who had made application in 1995 for agricultural electricity connection to his property, PW3 is his son, who, according to the prosecution, gave Rs.1500/- to the appellant on demand as illegal gratification, PW4 to PW8 are the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged acceptance of illegal gratification, and the subsequent