IMPORTANT POINT
The demand and acceptance of bribes must be proven to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with evidence being sufficient to uphold the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The sole accused in C.C. No. 29 of 2004 on the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’). He assails the conviction and sentence imposed on him in the above case by judgment dated 19.03.2010.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance/prosecution in detail.

3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as ‘prosecution’and ‘accused’ hereinafter.

4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that, the accused while working as Medical Officer, at Community Health Centre (for short ‘CHC’), Ititty, since 12.06.2003 FN, and as such being a public servant abused his official position, committed criminal misconduct and by adopting corrupt and illegal means demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 250/- from Sri. V.J. George S/o Joseph Vellappally House, Kelakam, on 22.09.2003, accepted Rs. 100/- on 23.09.2003, had further demanded the balance amount of Rs. 150/- on 24.09.2003, re-iterated the same demand on 25.09.2003 and in pursuance of the said demand he accepted Rs. 150/- from the complainant as bribe at 14.45 hours on 25.09.2003 for discharging the complainant from CHC, Iritty and thereby, he had committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. When the nal report was filed, the trial court took cognizance of the matter. Thereafter, upon completion of pre-trial formalities, charge was framed for the said offences, and evidence was recorded.

6. During trial, PWs 1 to 9 were examined, Exts. P1 to P24 and Material Objects MOs series 1 to 5 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Exts. D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the defence during the course of prosecution evidence. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC, and an opportunity was given to him to adduce defence evidence. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

7. On evaluation of evidence, and on hearing both sides, the trial court found that the accused committed offences punishable under section Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Set o is allowed under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. While assailing the conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the accused contended that, in order to establish the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution alleges that when PW1, the de facto complainant, was admitted to CHC, Iritty, the accused demanded bribe of Rs. 250/-. Accordingly, PW1 visited the doctor (the accused) at his residence in the evening on 22.09.2003, where the accused reiterated the demand for Rs. 250/-. As PW1 did not have the full amount at that time—i.e., on 23.09.2003—he went to the residence of the accused and paid Rs. 100/-, which the accused allegedly accepted.

9. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused demanded the balance amount of Rs. 150/-, and this was informed by PW1 to the Vigilance Department. Following this, after starting the pre-trap proceedings, the Vigilance o cials, along with