The requirement for proof of demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was satisfied, confirming the conviction of the public servant involved.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Sole accused in C.C.No.35/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, has preferred this appeal, challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 28.1.2010. Respondent herein is the State of Kerala.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge along with the records of the Special Court.

3. In a nutshell, the prosecution allegation is that, on 18.4.2005, the accused, who was working as Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board Section Office, Mavelikkara, demanded Rs.5,000/- from Sri.B.Vijayakumar, the complainant, as illegal gratification as a motive for sanctioning bill for the works executed by him in relation to Karunamattom Devaswom under the Mavelikkara group of Devaswom Board. The further case is that, pursuant to the said demand, at 11.40 a.m. on 20.04.2005, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.5,000/-. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) by the accused.

4. In this matter, the Special Court framed charge for the said offences and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13, Exts.X1 to X5 as well as MO1 to MO6 series were marked on the side of prosecution. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and opportunity was provided to him, to adduce defence evidence. Accordingly, DW1 to DW4 were examined.

5. On appraisal of the evidence, the Special Court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly, he was convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under:

“In the result, the accused is convicted under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and fine Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months and convicted under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months. The sentences shall run concurrently. The accused is entitled to get set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. from 20/04/2005 to 23/04/2005. M.O.1 series shall be given to PW1 and M.O.6 series to the accused. M.O.2 to 5 shall be destroyed.”

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused argued to substantiate the fact that the very genesis of the prosecution case is not believable. According to him, the prosecution case is that, the accused demanded bribe from PW1, Sri.B.Vijayakumar, for passing bill for the work he had done, but, as per the measurement book, produced as Ext.X2, it is discernible that the work was completed only on 14.7.2006. Secondly, it is argued by the learned senior counsel that the accused never demanded or accepted Rs.5,000/-, as alleged by the prosecution. It is true that the money found in the drawer of the table used by the accused was recovered, but the same was neither demanded nor accepted by the accused. But the complainant placed the same there in the absence of the accused while he was at the toilet.

7. According to the learned counsel for the accused, while the accused was at the toilet, PW1 reached the office, put the money in the drawer of his table without there being any demand and without the knowledge of the accused, with a view to trap him in this case. Then the complainant on seeing the accused back from the toilet, caught hold of his left hand and requested his help. That is the reason why when phenolphthalein test was carried out by using sodium carbonate solution by dippi