The requirement of valid sanction for prosecuting public servants does not negate proceedings unless a failure of justice is demonstrated; demand and acceptance of bribes must be proven to establish corruption.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The sole accused in C.C. No.44/2004 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred as ‘ Cr.P.C .’ for short], challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the Special Judge as per the judgment dated 14.02.2008. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge, records of the trial court and the decisions placed by both sides.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, on 27.10.2001, when the complainant went to the Kunnumma Village Office and met the accused, who was the then Village Officer for the purpose of getting possession certificates in respect of the properties of his father, mother and grand mother, for renewing the agricultural loan availed from State Bank of Travancore, Mankomb Branch, the accused then told the complainant that applications and tax receipts were necessary for giving possession certificates and directed him to come with the same on 29.10.2001. Accordingly, the complainant went to the Kunnumma Village Office with the tax receipts and applications of his father, mother and grand mother and gave the same to the accused. Then the accused said that the title deed of the wet lands also was necessary and on this premise, he returned the applications and tax receipts to the complainant. On 30.10.2001, the complainant again went to the Village Office with the title deed and met the accused and then the accused told him that, since the properties were not owned by the complainant, the owners of the properties should come for getting the possession certificates. The complainant informed the accused that his father, who was a daily labourer, had gone for work. Then the accused demanded Rs. 250/- to give the possession certificates and told him that if that sum was given, the possession certificates would be issued. As the complainant was not willing to pay such sum, he went to the VACB Alappuzha Unit on 31.10.2001 and gave Ext.P1 statement at about 11.30 a.m. Soon, the then Dy.S.P. of Alappuzha Vigilance Unit recorded Ext.P1 statement given by PW1 and registered a case vide crime No.11/2001 and Ext.P2 is the FIR. Thereafter, on completion of pre-trap proceedings, the Vigilance party along with the official witnesses and the complainant reached the Village Office. Then, the accused demanded Rs.250/- as bribe and accepted the same. The said notes were recovered from him. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short], by the accused.

5. After, framing charge for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, the Special court recorded evidence and tried the matter. PWs 1 to 10 were examined, Exts.P1 to 19, Exts.X1 to X3 and MOs 1 to 5 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C , DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the accused.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under S