The absence of direct evidence due to the complainant's hostility fails to meet the burden of proof required to establish demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The sole accused in C.C.No.8/2006 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, has filed this appeal challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 30.09.2009. The State of Kerala representing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, is the respondent.

2. In this matter, the learned counsel who filed this appeal submitted on 30.6.2025 that despite having repeated correspondence, no response was received from the appellant, and accordingly, the vakalath of the appellant was relinquished. In view of the above, Adv.Sri.Adithya Narayanan K.G. is appointed as State Brief to argue the matter on merits.

3. Heard Adv.Sri.Adithya Narayanan K.G., the learned State Brief appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment impugned and the relevant documents.

4. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as 'prosecution' and 'accused' for easy reference hereinafter.

5. The prosecution case herein is that, the accused, while working as Secretary of Alagappanagar Grama Panchayath, being a public servant, while on duty, demanded and accepted Rs.250/- from the complainant, who was examined as PW2, at about 1.00 p.m. on 18.08.2004. Accordingly, he was arrested red handedly. On this premise, the prosecution alleges that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988' hereinafter).

6. Acting on the final report filed before the learned Special Judge, the learned Special Judge took cognizance for the said offences and tried the matter. During trial, PW1 to PW8 were examined, Exts.P1 to P17 and M.O1 to M.O6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.X1 and X2 were marked on the side of the defence.

7. While assailing the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, the learned State Brief argued that in this case, in order to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused at 1.00 p.m. on 18.08.2004, PW2, the complainant was examined. But, he turned hostile to the prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance. According to the learned State Brief, even though the Gazetted Officers who accompanied the trap team were examined as PW3 and PW4, their evidence in no way supported the demand of bribe by the accused. Thus it is argued by the learned State Brief that in the instant case the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court, finding the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 would not sustain and is liable to be reversed.

8. Disspelling this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that even though PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution, the evidence of PW3 and PW4 coupled with the evidence of PW5, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who arranged the trap, demand of bribe of Rs.250/- by the accused from the complainant to be inferred. Thus from the circumstantial evidence the demand is proved as dealt in[2022 (7) KHC 647 : 2023 (1) KLD 1 : 2022 KHC OnLine 7280 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 : AIR OnLine 2022 SC 1160 : 2023(1) KLT SN 28 : 2022 (6) KLT OnLine 1047 : AIR 2023 SC 330], Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi).

9. In view of the rival submissions the points to be decided are:

(i) Whether the Special Court went wrong in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988?

(ii) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988?

(iii) Whether it is necessary to interfere with the verdict under challenge?

(iv) The order to be passed? Points (i) to (iv)

10. In this case the prosecution allegation is that the accused while working as Secretary of Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat, being a public servant, while on duty, demanded and a