IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe, leading to the acquittal of both accused.

JUDGMENT :

C. Jayachandran, J.

A trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau missed the target as against A1, the public servant. Recovery - allegedly on behalf of A1 - could be effected only from A2, a document writer. The trustworthiness of the prosecution case and adequacy of proof in accordance with law are under challenge in these appeals.

2. These appeals impugn the judgment of the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in C.C.No.37/2009, which convicted both the accused persons for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ('P.C. Act' for short), read with Section 120 B of the Penal Code. The accused persons were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months each; and a fine of Rs.40,000/-for offences under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, read with Section 120 B of the Penal Code. A similar term of sentence and fine was imposed on both the accused for offence under Section 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, read with Section 120 B of the Penal Code. Besides, R.I. was ordered for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 120 B of the Penal Code. Criminal Appeal first above referred is carried by the 1st accused and the second, by the 2nd accused.

3. THE PROSECUTION CASE:

The 1st accused, while officiating as the Village Officer of Manamboor village, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- from PW1/Rajila on 04.08.2008 as a reward for enabling payment of land tax in respect of 17 cents of land [which stood in the joint names of the said Rajila/PW1 and her husband], after having hatched a criminal conspiracy with the 2nd accused, a document writer. Upon a complaint made by PW1 Rajila to the Vigilance, a crime was registered and a trap was laid in compliance with all legal formalities. When the amount was paid to the 2nd accused, as instructed by the 1st accused, on 06.08.2008 at 2:20 p.m., the 2nd accused was caught red handed from the village office concerned. Recovery of the tainted currency notes was effected from A2, in the presence of A1. The accused persons have thus committed offences enumerated above, according to the prosecution.

4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.P1 to P24, supported by the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 9, on behalf of the prosecution. On the defense side, the 1st accused offered himself as a witness and examined as DW1. Ext.P25 was marked through him. The material objects, M.O.1 to M.O.8(b) were also marked. It appears that there is some confusion regarding the marking of Ext.P25. When DW1 was re-examined, this document is seen marked on behalf of both sides, as Ext.P25. However, Ext.P25 is not seen marked through any prosecution witness. If that be so, the said document ought to have been marked as Ext.D1. Be that as it may.

5. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the trial court found both the accused guilty of the offences enumerated above and punished them as indicated in paragraph no.2 above.

6. Heard Sri.N.Satheesh, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1170/2016 and Sri.Sasthamangalam S.Ajith Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Dhanush Subhodan, on behalf of the appellant in Crl.A.No.1186/2016. Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) and Smt.Rekha S., Senior Public Prosecutor were heard on behalf of the respondent/State.

7. The first aspect highlighted by Sri.N.Satheesh, learned counsel for the appellant/A1 in Crl.A.No.1170/2016 is about the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), inasmuch as offence under Section 120 B of the Penal Code is also canvassed. As regards sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, the allegations levelled are two fold. Firstly, PW7 who gave sanction was only holding charge of the Land Revenue Commissioner and hence not competent to issue sanction. Secondly, it was urged that, PW7 (the sanctioning authority),