Public servants committing corruption through bribery are liable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, where sufficient evidence proves demands and acceptance of illegal gratification.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The 1st accused in C.C.No.23 of 2002 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC.’), challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the said case dated 30.12.2008. The respondent is the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the 1st accused/appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the records of the special court as well as the decisions placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail.

3. The prosecution case is that the 1st and 2nd accused while working as Secretary and Head Clerk respectively of Alanellur Grama Panchayat and as such being public servants abused their official position and as a sequel thereof and at 11 a.m on 12-12-2000, at the office of the Alanellur Grama Panchayat, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.250/- respectively, for themselves, to give advance payment of Rs.25,000/- from the whole estimate amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant, the Convener, who was elected as per Peoples' Planning Programme for the improvement of Alungal – Kombamkallu road work, using funds from the Government's Peoples' Planning Programme. Then they reiterated the same demand on 15-12-2000 at the time of issuing the cheque for Rs.25,000/- and in pursuance of the said demand they received an amount of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.250/- respectively at 12.15 P.M on 22-12-2000 from the Complainant at the Alanellur Grama Panchayat Office as a reward and illegal gratification for doing the official act mentioned above and thereby, both of them have committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short hereafter).

4. When Final Report filed before the special court alleging commission of the above-said offences, the special court proceeded with trial after finishing the pre-trial formalities. During trial, PWs 1 to 6 were examined, Exts.P1 to P18, and MOs1 to 18 were marked from the side of the prosecution. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC, and an opportunity was given to him to adduce defence evidence. DW1 was examined from the side of defence. On appraisal of the evidence, the special court found that accused Nos. 1 and 2, committed the said offences and accordingly, they were sentenced as under:-

“The 1st accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months, under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. The 1st accused is further convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months, under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Set off is allowed under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The 2nd accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, under Section 7 of the PC Act. The 2nd accused is further convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, under Se