IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of a bribe can be proven through circumstantial evidence and that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be invoked unless the contrary is proved. It also clarifies the requirements for sanction to prosecute a public servant.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been preferred by the accused in CC No.2/2014 on the file of Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) III Ernakulam (for short, 'the trial court') challenging the judgment dated 31/5/2016 convicting and sentencing him under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act').

2. The appellant Bharat Raj Meena was working as Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Palakkad in 2005. One Sri.P.P.Nandakumar (PW6), Clerk in DSC Office, Palakkad preferred a complaint alleging demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/-by the appellant through PW2 Anantha Narayanan, Constable/RPF Coimbatore, for getting complainant's posting in Palakkad area following his medical decategorization from RPF and subsequent absorption in alternative post as clerk in Personnel Branch under DRM Office, Palakkad. Based on the said complaint, the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Kochi registered FIR vide No.RC19(A)/2005/KER/CBI under Sections 7 and 12 of the PC Act against the appellant and PW2 on 4/8/2005 and entrusted the investigation of the case to PW8. PW7 Nandakumaran Nair, Dy.S.P., CBI/ACB, Kochi, and his team laid a trap on the same day itself and at the instance of Dy.S.P./Trap Laying Officer aforesaid, tainted money of bribe was handed over by PW6 to PW2 which together with some other alleged bribe money in an envelope and personal cash and diaries were recovered from PW2 who was then arrested by CBI team. Thereafter, PW8, the investigation officer, after the investigation of CBI case RC19(A)/2005/CBI/KER dated 4/8/2005 registered based on the original complaint dated 4/8/2005 of PW6, filed three separate final reports on 31/7/2006 bearing Nos.04/SK/19/A/05/KER, 05/SK/19/A/05/KER and 06/SK/19/ A/05/KER, before the Court of Special Judge-II, CBI, Kochi for the prosecution of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), Section 7 and 13(1)(d) and Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) of the PC Act respectively following tender of pardon of the principal accused PW2 and one Abdul Gafoor from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The final report Nos.04/SK/19/A/05/KER and 05/SK/19/A/05/KER against the appellant were then taken up as CC No.2/2014 and CC No.3/2014 respectively by the trial court. The third final report No.06/SK/19/A/05/KER was quadrifurcated into four cases by the trial court under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. while framing the charges. The said cases after splitting up were then taken up as CC No.4/2014, CC No.2/2015, CC No.3/2015 and CC 4/2015 for trial. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the appellant in all the above six cases on 26/10/2015. The trial in all cases commenced simultaneously.

3. In CC No.2/2014 which is the subject matter of this appeal, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 series were marked and MOs1 to 9 were identified on the side of the prosecution. DWs1 to 4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D25 were examined on the side of the defence. Exts.X1 to X1(b1) were marked as court exhibits. After trial, the appellant was found guilty, and he was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal.

4. I have heard Dr.Abraham P.Meachinkara, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Sreelal N.Warrier, the learned standing counsel for the CBI.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant impeached the finding of the trial court on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that there is absolutely no legal evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant from PW6 to constitut