There must be credible evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, irrespective of the witness's credibility.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short hereafter) challenging the judgment in C.C.No.20 of 2008 dated 31.12.2009 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (`PC Act’ for short hereafter). The respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Alappuzha, represented by the Public Prosecutor.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the accused/appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution side.

3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as ‘prosecution’ and ‘accused’ hereafter for easy reference.

4. Perused the trial court records and the judgment under challenge.

5. The prosecution case in brief: The specific allegation of the prosecution is that the accused, who was working as Junior Accountant in Sub Treasury, Mavelikkara, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from one Valsala on 27.06.2003 when she met him at the Treasury office for clearing her pension commutation bill. Accordingly, at about 11.45 a.m on 30.06.2003 he demanded and accepted the said money and hence the prosecution would allege that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section13(2) of the PC Act.

6. When final report alleging commission of the above offences was filed, the Special Court, Kottayam, under the PC Act, took cognizance of the matter and on completing the pre-trial formalities, charge for the said offences was framed and the learned Special Judge recorded evidence. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P14 and M.O1 to M.O7 were marked.

7. When opportunity was provided to the accused to adduce defense evidence, DW1 and DW2 were examined from his side. On evaluation of evidence, after addressing the rival contentions raised, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act.

Accordingly, the accused was sentenced as under:

“the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 (two) years and fine Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) in default to undergo simple imprisonment 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 Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) in default to undergo simple imprisonment 3(three) months. The sentences shall run concurrently. The accused is entitled to setoff under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. from 30/06/2003 to 04/07/2003. M.O.1 series shall be given to PW1 and M.O.6 & 7 shall be given to the accused. M.O.2 to 5 bottles will be given back to Dy.S.P., V.A.C.B., Alappuzha, after destroying the contents in it.”

8. The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that PW1, the complainant, as well as PW2, the official witness, turned hostile to the prosecution and PW1 failed to identify the accused at the dock. Further the evidence of PW3 is contrary to the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The other contention raised is that other employees of the Treasury also dealt with the pension commutation bill of PW1 and, therefore, the scope for demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused is an impossibility. It is pointed out that in view of the said evidence, non identification of the accused at the dock by PW1 also shadows doubt in the prosecution case. It is submitted further that the evidence of DW1 and DW2 also should have been taken not