Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without establishing demand cannot sustain a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The sole accused in C.C.No.40/2010 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, has filed this appeal challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 28.02.2018. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor is the respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records of the Special Court and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as Taluk Supply Officer, Kottayam, during the period from 25.06.2008 to 20.07.2009, demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant Sri Shynavas on 13.07.2009 and thereafter he demanded and accepted the same at 1.45 p.m on 20.07.2009. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988' hereinafter), by the accused.

4. The Special Court took cognizance of the matter on getting final report filed, and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW17 were examined, Exts.P1 to P25 and M.O1 to M.O8 series were marked on the side of the prosecution. During prosecution evidence, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked as that of PW11, but no defence evidence adduced independently.

5. The learned Special Judge evaluated the evidence and finally found that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly he was sentenced as under:

“The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default of payment of fine the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . Accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default of payment of fine the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C is allowed.”

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused zealously argued that, in this case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 Shynavas to prove the demand of bribe by the accused on 13.07.2009 as well as on 20.07.2009 and its acceptance on 20.07.2009. But PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution. However, when he was questioned by the learned legal advisor for the prosecution, he had given some evidence supporting the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, even on meticulous scrutiny of the evidence in toto as that of PW1, there is no evidence to prove the demand of bribe by the accused in a convincing manner. According to the learned counsel for the accused, even otherwise, PW1 who spoke about the occurrence in derogation of the prosecution evidence, is a witness under the category “neither wholly reliable not wholly unreliable”. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that it is the well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not quantity of evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into 3 categories, namely : (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It is pointed out that in the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way, it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to