Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This criminal appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in C.C.No.12/2014 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents herein are the State of Kerala and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act, 1988’ for short) by the accused. The precise allegation is that the accused, while working as Senior Civil Police Officer (Gr) T 9170 at Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, being a public servant, demanded and accepted ₹1,000/- as illegal gratification from PW1 on 23.11.2012, after making prior demand on 15.11.2012, as a motive for the verification of the passport application of PW1.

4. On filing the final report at the instance of the investigating officer, the Special Judge (Vigilance) took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P27 and MOs.1 to 15 were marked.

5. By enjoying the opportunity given to the accused to adduce defence evidence, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were tendered in evidence.

6. On consideration of the evidence in detail, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as under:

“(a) Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable u/s.7 of P.C. Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

(b) Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable u/s.13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

(c) The substantive sentences u/s.7 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) shall run concurrently.

(d) Accused is entitled to set off u/s.428 Cr.P.c. for the period of detention undergone by him in judicial custody in this case.”

7. While impeaching the veracity of the judgment of the Special Court, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant argued at length for about 3 to 4 hours mainly urging that in this matter, as per Ext.P2 series, alleged to be recovered from the accused, also, it could be gathered that earlier i.e., before 24.10.2012, the verification of passport at the instance of PW1 was entrusted to the accused and he had filed report on 24.10.2012, recommending that passport to be issued to PW1. However, the prosecution allegation as of now is that, again, the accused was assigned the duty of conducting the verification, since it was reported that PW1 was involved in one crime. The specific point argued by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant is that as far as the entrustment of Ext.P2 series documents, though alleged to be recovered from the possession of the accused, there is no convincing evidence. As per Ext.P12, as on 03.11.2012, the duty of tapal was bestowed with one ‘Nahas’, another Civil Police Officer, who was not examined. It is also pointed out that in MOs 5, 6 and 7, the signature of PW1 also seen affixed. However, PW1 and PW3 had given evidence that soon after the trap, PW1 left the place and he did not participate in the post trap proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, without consistent and concrete version regarding the procedure followed in allocation, distribution, despatch and receipt of the verification process of the passport applications; and particulars by the police, and if Manual of Office Procedure (MOP