The demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe were proven beyond doubt, and the presumption under S.4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was applicable. The prosecution evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt.

S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. Accused in C. C. 8/81 before the Special Judge, Trichur, is the appellant. He was charge sheeted for having committed offences punishable under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S.161 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Judge found him guilty under both the counts. For the offence under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo a further period of rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the offence under S.161 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence awarded was rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the terms B of substantive imprisonment were directed to be undergone concurrently.

2. The appellant is an Assistant Engineer, who was on deputation to the N. E. S. Block Office, Nenmara. The prosecution case is as follows. The wife of PW 1 applied for a loan of Rs. 5,000/- to the N. E. S. Block, Nenmara, for the construction of a residential building. Ext. P1 is the file relating to it and Ext. P1(a) is the loan application dated 6-11-1979. The loan was sanctioned. First instalment of Rs. 1,000/- was ordered to be paid, The case of PW 1 is that on behalf of his wife, he had to pay Rs. 50/- as bribe to the Overseer attached to the same office for getting the amount. Subsequently, second instalment fell due. As a condition precedent to getting the 2nd instalment the wife of PW I had to produce a certificate of utilisation of the 1st instalment received by her. Ext. P1(b) is the utilisation certificate issued by the appellant in this connection. The version of PW 1 is that the appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 100/- as bribe and actually Rs. 90/- was given for procuring Ext. P1(b). Then early in 1980, the last instalment of Rs. 1,500/- fell due. For getting the last instalment the applicant had to produce another certificate of utilisation showing that the 2nd instalment was utilised for the construction. Ext. P1(c) is the notice received by the applicant in this connection from the N. E. S. Block Office. Ext. D1 is the postal envelope in which Ext. P1(c) was received. In Ext. P1(c), the applicant was informed that she should collect the last instalment after production of the utilisation certificate.

3. The case of PW 1 was that when he approached the appellant for getting the utilisation certificate, he demanded Rs 60/- as bribe. Therefore, on 20-2-1980 PW 1 went to the office of PW 7 (Dy. S. P. Vigilance, Palghat) and lodged Ext. P2. After recording Ext. P2 first information statement from PW 1. PW 7 drew up Ext. P3 mahazar in relation to six ten rupee notes (MO 1 series) produced by PW 1. PW 7 arranged a trap. The notes given by PW 1 were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and after noting the details in Ext. P3, they were given back to PW 1. with instructions to give the B amount to the appellant in case of further demand. Ext. P3 mahazar was prepared in the presence of witnesses including PW 3. Preparation of Ext. P3 was at 1. p. m. on 20-2-1980. At about 3.30 p. m. on the same day, the police party led by PW 7 consisting of PWs 1, 2 and 5 and others proceeded to the N. E S Block Office. The vehicle was stopped at a distance and PWs 1 and 5 were directed to go ahead. PWs 1 and 5 (PW 5 is a police constable) were given instructions to give information by signals The instruction given to PW 1 was that as soon as the bribe is offered and accepted he should give signal to PW 5. by snuffing. The further instruction to PW 5 was that on getting signal from PW 1 he should give a further signal to PW 7 by removing his spectacle. PW 1 paid MO 1 series to the appellant inside the room and gave the signal to PW 5. PW 5 in turn gave the signal to PW 7 and the police party entered the room of the appellant. The Overseer was also inside the room. PW 7 asked the appellant whether he received the amount. Meanwhile. PW 1 t