The central legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the element of demand to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

1. The appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 30 of 2004 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, which has arisen from VC-7/2003 of VACB, Kannur, who stands convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.

2. The appellant was working as a Lineman on contract basis in the Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Vellur, during 2002-03 and thereby, he was a public servant. According to the prosecution, he abused his official position, committed criminal misconduct and by adopting corrupt and illegal means, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.750/- for himself from PW1 at about 6 p.m. on 19.05.2003, at the residence of PW9, who is the grandmother of PW1, for providing a domestic electrical connection to the house of PW9. Further, according to the prosecution, the appellant directed PW1 to meet him with the bribe amount on 20.05.2003 at Karthika Medicals, Mathil.

3. After the alleged demand, PW1 had reported the matter to the VACB. Consequently, a tap was arranged. Phenolphthalein power was applied on the marked currency notes of one number of Rs.50/-. In pursuance of the demand, PW1 went over there, met the appellant and paid the said amount. When the appellant accepted the amount paid by PW1, he was caught red handed by the VACB and consequently, the investigation, prosecution and conviction.

4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined, Exts.P1 to P40(a) were marked and MO1 series to MO4 were identified.

5. The appellant filed a statement in writing just on the completion of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by contending that he had not obtained any illegal gratification or bribe as alleged; whereas, the consumer was informed of the expense of Rs.750/- for engaging three workers for installing an electric post, for drawing the electric line and for giving electrical connection to the house of PW9 by drawing service wire. Three workers were employed. PW9 had agreed to pay the amount on the next day. The amount was sent through PW1. He accepted the amount for handing over it to the Sub Engineer for making payments to the said three workers, who were employed for installing the post and other related works.

6. On the side of the accused, DW1, who was one of the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board and DW2, who is the appellant, were examined. The court below found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that this is a tragic case, wherein, unnecessarily, the appellant was put in hot waters. On account of the case, he lost his employment. Even though he was subsequently selected by the PSC as worker in service, and was appointed as Lineman by the KSEB, thereafter, he was dismissed from service on account of this corruption case against him.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount of Rs.750/- received by the appellant from PW1 was not illegal gratification; whereas, it was legal remuneration and therefore, no offence was made out in the case. It is also argued that the prosecution could not prove the element of demand in order to invite the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the manner in which the amount was paid by PW1 and the amount was accepted by the appellant, clearly denotes demand. It is also argued that the manner in which the amount was accepted will clearly go to prove that it was not accepted as legal remuneration.

10.