Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.17 of 2018 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram arising out of Crime No.2 of 2013 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram. The prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure 2 final report, Annexure 3 court charge and all consequential proceedings in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records.

3. In a nut shell the case of the prosecution is that Smt. Sasikumari, Mother of complainant M. Nishant Rajan filed five applications Viz., 3376/12, 3377/12, 3378/12, 3379/12, 3380/12 before Venganoor Grama Panchayat authorities on 01-06-2012 for regularizing and assigning building number to the sheds in her property in Sy.No.305/15-2, 305/15-3, 304/10-1 of Venganoor Village. The 1st accused Sri. Sreekumaran Nair (Late), Former Panchayat Secretary, Venganoor Grama Panchayat and the 2nd accused Sri.Sivakumar, Former L.D.Clerk of Venganoor Grama Panchayat, both being public servants, while discharging duties in their official capacity was to process and take appropriate action on the above said applications. Instead, the 2nd accused in connivance with the 1st accused, demanded Rs.2000/- for himself and Rs.10,000/- for the 1st accused from the complainant as illegal gratification, for the discharge of their official duty of assigning building number on 11-01-2013. Subsequently on 17-01-2013 at around 19.30 Hrs. The 1st accused voluntarily accepted Rs.10,000/- and the 2nd accused voluntarily accepted Rs.2,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification at house No.IX/438 owned by the complainant's mother, at Kovalam and thereby both accused committed offences U/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act’ for short) and Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

4. While challenging the final report as well as the charge framed by the Special Court for the above said offences, the point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the prosecution records nothing available to see any demand of bribe by the 2^nd accused, though there is an allegation that the 2^nd accused accepted Rs.10,000/- as bribe for and on behalf of the 1^st accused. Therefore, the entire prosecution would not yield and in such circumstances, the petition is liable to succeed.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in the instant case, going by the statement of the defacto complainant it is emphatically clear that there was demand for bribe by the 1^st accused and the 2^nd accused, and accordingly the same was accepted and in such a case whether the essential ingredients such as demand and acceptance are proved or not, is a matter of evidence. It is also submitted that in this case, in fact, the trial court on perusal of the prosecution records framed charge for the said offences finding that the matter would require trial and in such a case seeking quashment of the final report and court charge could not be considered and thus the petition would require dismissal.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to seek quashment of the final report, court charge and consequential further proceedings is that there was no demand of bribe by the 2^nd accused, a most essential ingredient to find him guilty under Section 7 r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In this connection it is relevant to refer to the FIS given by Nishant Rajan, who lodged a complaint on 15.01.2013 to the 1st respondent, a copy of the same is produced as Annexure 1. According to the