The court reiterated that proof of demand is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly when primary witnesses turn hostile, rendering circumstantial evidence insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused, who is the sole accused in C.C. No. 153 of 2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. The State of Kerala, represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), is the respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well 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/accused and the learned special Public Prosecutor .

3. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as Forester on special duty at the Forest Range Office, Kasaragod, abused his official position and demanded illegal gratification from PW2 for the release of a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-14C-99, when the said vehicle had been ordered to be released by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, on 23.01.2012. The further allegation is that the accused negotiated with PW2 and reduced his initial demand for ₹10,000 to ₹5,000. Thereafter at about 2:30 p.m., on 06.02.2012 the accused alleged to have demanded and accepted the bribe amount of ₹5,000 from PW2 at the forest quarters of the Forest Range Office, Kasaragod, in consideration for releasing the said mini lorry. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act, 1988') by the appellant/accused.

4. On filing of the final report, the Special Judge took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 22 were examined, and Exhibits P1 to P36, along with MO1 series, MO2, and MO3, were marked on the side of the prosecution. On behalf of the defence, Exhibits D1 and D2 series were marked. After hearing both sides, the Special Court found that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced for the said offences.

5. While challenging the verdict of the Special Court, the prime contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that PW2, the complainant, who was examined to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification amounting to ₹5,000 by the accused, turned hostile to the prosecution. Even during his cross-examination carried out at the instance of the Legal Advisor for the prosecution nothing was elicited to establish the alleged demand. Similar is the position as regards to the evidence of PW3 who was examined by the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. Excluding PWs2 and 3 no other witnesses examined to prove demand of bribe by the accused. However, the Special Court relied on the testimonies of PW2, PW13, and PW20, along with Ext. P5— the First Information Statement— to conclude that the accused demanded and accepted ₹5,000 from PW2 for the release of the mini lorry, as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the evidence of PWs 2, 13, and 20 in fact, not at all established demand of ₹5,000 by the accused, and its consequential acceptance. According to the learned counsel for the accused, the Special Court relied on Ext. P5 (FIS) as a substantive piece of evidence to prove demand, which is not supported by PW2 though the same is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused pressed for interference in the impugned judgment. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State by Lokayuktha Police, Davangere v. S.B. Nagaraj [2025 KHC OnLine 6519] and Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi) [2025 KHC OnLine 6430], particularly referring to paragraphs 25 and 51 to 55, to contend