Insufficient proof of demand and acceptance of bribe renders conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act unsustainable, emphasizing the need for corroboration of accomplice testimony.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the accused in CC No.2/2015 on the file of Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) III Ernakulam (for short, 'the trial court') challenging the judgment dated 31/5/2016 convicting and sentencing him under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act').

2. The appellant Bharat Raj Meena was working as Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Palakkad. The case of the prosecution in short is that, while the appellant was working as public servant in the above capacity, from April 2005 to July 2005, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/- each from PW8 C.P.Johnny, PW9 I.K.Girish Kumar and PW11 C.Mohana Krishnan through PW6 Anantha Narayanan as illegal gratification for effecting their transfers.

3. The genesis of the case is as follows:

One Sri.P.P.Nandakumar, Clerk in DSC Office, Palakkad preferred a complaint alleging demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant through PW6 Anantha Narayanan, Constable/RPF Coimbatore, for getting complainant's posting in Palakkad area following his medical decategorization from RPF and subsequent absorption in alternative post as clerk in Personnel Branch under DRM Office, Palakkad. Based on the said complaint, the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Kochi registered FIR vide No.RC19(A)/2005/KER/CBI under Sections 7 and 12 of the PC Act against the appellant and PW6 on 4/8/2005 and entrusted the investigation of the case to PW12. Thereafter, one Dy.S.P., CBI/ACB, Kochi, Sri. Nandakumar Nair and his team laid a trap on the same day itself and at the instance of Dy.S.P./Trap Laying Officer aforesaid, tainted money of bribe was handed over by complainant Sri.P.P.Nandakumar to PW6 which together with some alleged bribe money in an envelope and personal cash and diaries were recovered from PW6 who was then arrested by CBI team. Thereafter, PW12, the investigation officer, after the investigation of CBI case RC19(A)/2005/CBI/KER dated 4/8/2005 registered based on the original complaint dated 4/8/2005 of Sri.P.P.Nandakumar filed three separate final reports on 31/7/2006 bearing Nos.04/SK/19/A/05/KER, 05/SK/19/A/05/KER and 06/SK/19/A/05/KER, before the Court of Special Judge-II, CBI, Kochi for prosecution of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d), Section 7 and 13(1)(d) and Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) of the PC Act respectively following tender of pardon of the principal accused PW6 and PW7 Abdul Gafoor from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The final report Nos.04/SK/19/A/05/KER and 05/SK/19/A/05/KER against the appellant were then taken up as CC No.2/2014 and CC No.3/2014 respectively by the trial court. The third final report No.06/SK/19/A/05/KER was quadrifurcated into four cases by the trial court under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. while framing the charges. The said cases after splitting up were then taken up as CC No.4/2014, CC No.2/2015, CC No.3/2015 and CC 4/2015 for trial. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the appellant in all the above six cases on 26/10/2015. The trial in all cases commenced simultaneously.

4. In CC No.2/2015 which is the subject matter of this appeal, PWs 1 to 12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P39 series were marked on the side of the prosecution. DWs1 to 4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D25 were examined on the side of the defence. After trial, the appellant was found guilty and he was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000