The necessity of properly proving the prosecution sanction and the requirement of independent corroboration for evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes.

The first appellant herein was the Village Officer of the Ichilamcode Village in Kasaragod District, and the 2nd appellant herein was the Village Assistant there. On the allegation that the 1st accused received an amount of Rs. 300/- and the second accused received an amount of Rs. 200/- from one Mohammed Kunhi on 26.11.1998, as a reward for issuing possession certificate and village sketch, as requested by the mother of the said Mohammed Kunhi, the two accused faced trial before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode in C.C. 53 of 2000. They appeared before the learned trial Judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “the P.C Act”).

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered the crime in this case against the two appellants on the complaint of Mohammed Kunhi dated 26.11.1998. The Dy.S.P arranged a trap on the same day, received the amount of Rs.500/- brought by Mohammed Kunhi as per mahazar, demonstrated the required phenolphthalein test to the complainant and the others, and instructed the complainant to approach the accused, and make payment, if they made demand again. Accordingly, it is alleged, the complainant approached the two accused at their office in the afternoon of 26.11.1998, received the required possession certificate from the 1st accused and the required sketch from the second accused, and made payment of the tainted money of Rs.300/- to the 1st accused and Rs.200/- to the 2nd accused. Within no time, on getting signal, the vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P. reached the village office, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency from the possession of the two accused, and arrested them on the spot. After investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the learned trial Judge.

3. The prosecution examined six witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P20 documents. MO1 to MO7 properties were also identified and marked, including MO1 series tainted money. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the two accused stated that the trap in this case was viciously arranged at the instigation of one Abdul Majeed who is the cousin of the complainant. Their explanation is that the said Abdul Majeed had once made an application through his wife for legal heir ship certificate, claiming some benefits on the death of his brother Kasim Rahiman, who in fact died without wife and children, and on an enquiry made by the Village Officer, it was found that the said application was in fact false. There was some revenue recovery proceeding against the said Abdul Majeed at that time. Under the pretext of making payment in the said proceeding, the complainant made payment on behalf of the said Abdul Majeed, and the accused received the amount under the bona fide belief that it was the amount paid on behalf of Abdul Majeed towards the debt. To substantiate the defence case, the accused examined DW1 to DW3 and marked Ext.D1. Exts.X1 to X4(a) were also marked during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found both the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 7 of the P.C Act and to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C Act by judgment dated 25.6.2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the two accused have come up in appeal.

4. When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution case is really doubtful, that the complainant is not consistent regarding the date of demand and the date of complaint, that a vicious trap was in fact arranged against them at the instance of one Abdul Majeed, who is the first co