The court established that reliable evidence is necessary to prove demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the need for prosecution to substantiably validate claims.

JUDGMENT :

The 1^st accused in C.C.No.117/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, who is aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.11.2009, has preferred this appeal. Respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the accused/appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution side.

3. Perused the trial court records and the judgment under challenge.

4. In a nut shell the prosecution allegation is that the first accused had worked as a Veterinary Surgeon and the 2^nd accused worked as a Livestock Inspector in Government Veterinary dispensary, Rajakkadu during 2002. While so, the first accused, being a public servant, at 6.00 P.M on 29/04/02 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1500/- from one Prasanth, who is the brother's son of one Vijayan, as a motive for issuing postmortem certificate and other details of the cow of Vijayan, for claiming insurance amount. The first accused accepted Rs 200/-from Prasanth and repeated the demand for the balance amount. Thus at 5:30 P.M on 01.05.2002, the first accused obtained Rs.500/- from Vijayan and he made demand for the balance amount. On 25/09/02 at 12.00 noon first accused demanded Rs.800/- after issuing the papers, from Vijayan and when he expressed inability to pay the amount first accused took back that papers. On 28/09/02 first accused demanded a minimum of Rs.500/- from said Vijayan. Then he informed the Dy S.P. Vigilance and trap proceedings were initiated against the first accused. Thereafter at 12:30 PM on 01/10/2002 in the office room of the first accused, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.500/- from Vijavan. The further allegation is that the first accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with 2^nd accused and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the 2^nd accused aided the 1^st accused to conceal the received bribe amount from Vijayan and to screen the 1^st accused and to cause disappearance of evidence. On the said premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (`PC Act’ for short) and Sections 201 , 109 and 341 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (`IPC’ for short), by the 1^st and 2^nd accused.

5. In this matter the Special Court took cognizance of the offences and recorded evidence. PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 and M.O1 to M.O13 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though opportunity was provided to the accused to adduce defense evidence, after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, no defense evidence adduced.

6. Thereafter, the trial court found that the 1^st accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, while acquitting him for the other offences and the 2^nd accused was acquitted for all the offences. Accordingly, the 1^st accused is sentenced as under:

“sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months and convicted under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months. The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The accused is entitled for set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C from 01.10.2002 to 08.10.2002 M.O.1 series shall be confiscated. M.O.2 to 9 and M.O.11 shall be returned to Dy.S.P, V.A.C.B, Iddukki. M.O.10 shall be destroyed. M.O.12 series and 13 shall be returned to the first accused.”

7. While assailing the verdict of the trial court