The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the application of the presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also highlights the seriousness of corruption in public service and the need for stringent punishment to deter such conduct.

The first accused in C.C. No. 59/1999 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant in Crl.A.No.223/2001 while, the second accused in that case is the appellant in Crl.A.No. 224/2001. Both these accused were charge-sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta in V.C. No. 3/98/PTA under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act' for short).

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that PW4-Shaji was conducting toddy shop No. 10 at Chattankary on the basis of some agreement/sub-contract from one Balakrishnan and another, who were the licencees of the said toddy shop. On 16.2.1998, the excise squad consisting of accused 1 and 2 and others had conducted raid on the said shop alleging that illicit liquor was sold from that shop and by taking an empty can, a case was registered against the worker of that shop by name Sasi -CW24 and he was taken to the office of the first accused. CW24 was produced before the Magistrate Court on the next day. PW4 was told by the first accused that unless Rs.50,000/- was paid, he would also be arrayed as an accused in the excise case. PW4 went to the squad office on 17.2.1998 and after bargaining, the amount was reduced to Rs.30,000/-. As per the direction of the first accused, PW4 paid Rs.5,000/- to the second accused on 17.2.1998 itself and PW4 had undertaken to pay the balance amount on 19.2.1998. Later, it was agreed between them that, out of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.10,000/- would be paid on 19.2.1998 and the balance had to be paid within two days thereafter. Accordingly, on 19.2.1998, after complying with the formalities and filing complaint, PW4 went to the office of accused 1 and 2 and as demanded by them, he paid the amount separately for themselves and the Circle Inspector of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Pathanamthitta as illegal gratification and that was received by them on their behalf and on behalf of the Circle Inspector, which they are not entitled to receive, on the promise of doing some favour to PW4 misusing their official position and thereby they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

3. After investigation, final report was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 59/1999 against the present accused persons alone as Circle Inspector was deleted from the party array as no evidence could be collected against him.

4. When the accused appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, learned Special Judge framed charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act and the same was read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts. P1 to P18 and MOs 1 to 12 and MO9(a) were marked on the side of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to the 'Code’ for short) and they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against them in the prosecution evidence. They have further stated that they have not committed any offence and they are innocent of the same and they have been falsely implicated in the case on account of animosity for PW4 against them as he was accused in several cases of committing excise offences of that office. No defence evidence was adduced on their side. After considering the evidence on record, the Special Judge found the appellants not guilty under section 13 (1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and acquitted them of that charge under section 248(1) of the Code. But both the accused were found guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and they were convicted thereunder an