Demand and acceptance of bribery must be proven for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which can be established through circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The sole accused in C.C.No.15 of 2005 on the files of the Special Judge, CBI–I, Ernakulam, has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, for short hereafter) challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him, in the said case as per judgment dated 31.07.2006. Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI is the respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the accused/appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI in detail. Perused the prosecution records and also the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

3. The prosecution case is that, while the accused was functioning as a public servant in the capacity of Telecom Mechanic at the Irumpupalım Telephone Exchange, he demanded Rs.500/- from PW1 Smt.Subaida Aliyar on 15.6.2005 as illegal gratification as a reward for giving telephone connection No.272485 to her residence under the OYT Scheme and he had accepted Rs.200/- from her on the same day. Thereafter, the accused continued repeated demand for the balance illegal gratification of Rs.300/-. As she was being repeatedly contacted by the accused, PW1 finally agreed to pay the balance illegal gratification as and when she would receive money from her husband, who had been working in Gulf. Then the accused gave PW1 two telephone numbers, one that of his residence and the other that of his telephone booth, to PW1 by directing her to contact him as and when she would receive the money. Then, as instructed by one Mr.Aliyar, the husband of her sister, she had informed this matter to the CBI over the phone on 30.6.2005, and consequently, the CBI initiated trap proceedings after initial verification. The accused repeated his demand for the balance illegal gratification of Rs.300/- and on1.7.2005, he agreed to accept Rs.200/- from PWI at her residence at 2 p.m. on 1.7.2005. Pursuant to that, on the same day the accused reached the residence of PW1 and demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.200/- at 02.00 p.m., on 1.7.2005. Then the accused was caught red-handed by the CBI. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges that the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. In this matter, when the Final Report filed alleging commission of the above-said offences, the trial court proceeded with trial after completing the pre-trial formalities. During trial, PWs 1 to 11 were examined, Exts.P1 to P27, and MOs1 to 10 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. Ext.D1 was marked from the side of the defence. On appraisal of the evidence, trial court found that the accused had committed offences and accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six more months under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

5. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant argued that this is an illegal trap without registering an FIR before trap. That apart, Ext.P2 complaint given by PW1 also was obtained just before trap as instructed by the CBI, as deposed by PW1. According to the learned counsel for the accused/appellant, proceeding to trap an accused without completing the registration of FIR would show that the same is illegal and the intention of PW