The judgment establishes the importance of consistent and satisfactory evidence in proving corruption charges and considers the duration of prosecution in determining the appropriate sentence.

The appellant herein faced prosecution before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C No.34/2003, on the allegation that on 30.10.2001, he, as a lineman of the Pathanapuram Electrical Major Section, accepted an amount of Rs.300/- from the complainant Haneefa Rawther as illegal gratification for straightening an electric post which slanted towards the complainant's house due to some natural causes. An application for the said purposes was made by the complainant before the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electrical Major Section, and on 27.10.2001 the complainant met the accused as directed by the Assistant Executive Engineer. It is alleged that on 27.10.2001 when the complainant met the lineman, he demanded an amount of Rs.300/- and also a bottle of arrack for straightening the electric post. On 30.10.2001 the complainant made a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, and as instructed, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.300/- to the accused. Within no time the amount of Rs.300/- was seized by the Dy.S.P vigilance from the possession of the accused at the house compound of the complainant, and the accused was arrested on the spot. Accordingly, a crime was registered against him, and after investigation the vigilance (VACB) submitted final report in the trial court.

2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the court below under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution examined five witnesses in the trial court and also marked Exts.P1 to P15 documents and MO1 to MO7 properties including the currency of Rs.300/- seized from the possession of the accused. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances, and maintained a definite defence that the amount was in fact put in his pocket without demand, by the complainant, as the labour charges required for the manual works. No oral evidence was adduced by the accused in defence, but Ext.D1 was marked during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On conviction thereunder he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by judgment dated 27.11.2006. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up in appeal.

3. The points for decision in the appeal are:

(i) Whether the appellant herein had accepted on demand, an amount of Rs.300/- from PW1 as a reward or illegal gratification, for straightening the electric post which slanted towards his house, as alleged by the prosecution.

ii) Whether the sentence imposed by the court below requires interference in case the conviction is confirmed in appeal.

4. Point No.1: That the appellant herein was on duty in Electrical Major Section, Pathanapuram as lineman stands proved by the evidence of PW4, the Assistant Engineer of the section and also Exts.P7 and P8 documents. Ext.P7 will show the date on which the appellant joined duty in the Electrical Major Section as lineman, and Ext.P8 attendance register will show his duty on 30.10.2001. Of course the accused has no dispute regarding this fact that on 30.10.2001, he was a lineman attached to the Pathanapuram Major Section, and he was on duty on the said date.

5. PW1, the complainant, and PW2 the other witness to the trap have given evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. PW3 is the Chief Engineer, KSEB examined to prove Ext.P10 prosecution sanction and PW5 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who detected the offence and investi