Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; trivial amounts may not negate liability if corrupt intent is established.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

These are appeals filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively, in C.C.No.31/2007 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging conviction and sentence imposed against them as on 15.10.2010. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala, represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, through the Special Public Prosecutor.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the decisions placed by both sides.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the 1^st accused, while working as Special Village Officer and the 2^nd accused, while working as Village Officer, respectively, in Mundakkal Village, being public servants, demanded Rs.100/- each from PW1 for issuing possession certificate, sketch and plan of the landed property belonged to PW3, initially on 29.10.2004 and thereafter, on 01.11.2004 at about 10.05 a.m. Thereafter, both the accused accepted the same as illegal gratification. In this backdrop, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter), by the accused.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 1^st accused argued that in the instant case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to find demand of illegal gratification by the 1^st accused. It is also pointed out that even though there is a change in the name of the 1^st accused as per the FIR and the final report, there was no proper identification of the accused at the dock, at the instance of the witnesses. According to the learned senior Counsel, initially, in the prosecution records, the name of the 1^st accused was stated as ‘Viswanadhan’, and subsequently, his original name, Visweswaran Pillai, came into the picture. In such a case, specific identification of the 1^st accused would be necessary and lack of the said identification is fatal to the prosecution. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that, in the present case, the bribe amount alleged to have been demanded and accepted by the 1^st accused is only a trivial sum of Rs.100/-, and, in such view of the matter, sub- section (3) of Section 20 of the PC Act, 1988, would have application. The said provision provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn. The learned senior counsel for the 1^st accused placed decision of the Apex Court in A.Subair v. State of Kerala reported in order/00100046865">[(2009) 8 SCC 587] , wherein, in paragraph Nos.22 and 23, the Apex Court considered a case involving Rs.25/- and held that the High Court went wrong in drawing presumption under Section 20 ignoring the trivial nature of the amount.

5. The learned counsel for the 2^nd accused also zealously shared the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the 1^st accused, while pointing out that the evidence of PW1 does not disclose any material to prove the initial demand, as alleged by the prosecution. That apart, the learned counsel for the 2^nd accused also found shelter under Section 20 (3) of the PC Act, 1988, by placing a decision of the Bombay High Court in Hanmantappa Murtyappa Vijapure v. State of Maharashtra