The judgment emphasizes that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential elements for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient to prove guilt without evidence of voluntary acceptance of the money as a bribe.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the sole accused in the case C.C.No.26 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur.

2. The appellant shall be hereinafter referred to as the accused. He stands convicted and sentenced by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”).

3. The prosecution case can be briefly stated as follows: The accused was, at the relevant point of time, working as the Superintendent Engineer in the Public Health Circle Office of the Kerala Water Authority in Thrissur. PW2 Jose, the de facto complainant, had submitted an application in the office of the accused to obtain licence to work as a contractor. Though PW2 went to the office of the accused several times, he did not get the licence. Some other contractors told him that he would get licence only if he paid bribe to the accused. On 13.04.2000, at about 10.30 hours, PW2 met the accused at his office and requested him to issue licence to him. The accused then demanded Rs.1000/-from PW2 for granting him the licence. When PW2 told the accused that he had then no money with him, the accused asked him to come next week with the money. On 18.04.2000, at 08.45 hours, PW2 gave Ext.P2 statement to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur regarding the demand for money made by the accused. On the basis of the above statement, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW11) registered Ext.P2(b) F.I.R against the accused under Section 7 of the Act. PW2 produced currency notes worth Rs.1000/-before the Dy.S.P who got them treated with phenolphthalein powder and entrusted the same to PW2 with necessary instructions. The trap team, including independent witnesses, reached near the office of the accused at about 11.10 hours on 18.04.2000. Then PW2 was sent to meet the accused and to give him the bribe amount on demand. At about 11.27 hours, the Dy.S.P (PW11) got signal regarding acceptance of bribe by the accused. He entered the office room of the accused with witnesses and asked the accused whether he had received money from PW2. The accused took the tainted currency notes and placed them on the table. The phenolphthalein test conducted proved positive. The Dy.S.P seized the currency notes and arrested the accused.

4. On completion of investigation, sanction for prosecution was obtained and charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The trial court framed charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Exts.P1 to P15 documents and MO1 to MO6 material objects. DW1 to DW5 were examined and Exts.D1 to D10 documents were marked on the side of the accused.

6. The trial court found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and acquitted him of that offence. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

7. The accused has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction entered against and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court. The State has not filed any appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the evidence on record is deficient to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery of any amount of illegal gratification as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has contended that, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the demand for bribe allegedly made by the accused and therefore, the recovery of money, if