Demand and acceptance of bribe are essential for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; without sufficient evidence, proceedings should be quashed.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash Annexure-1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.VC.01/2021/CRE of VACB, Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner herein is the 3^rd accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the documents placed by both sides.

3. Parties in this petition shall be referred as ‘accused Nos.1, 2 and 3’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. Short facts:- The defacto complainant holds a contract license under the Kerala Forest Department. He was engaged in the contract work of the Forest Department at Attingal in Thiruvananthapuram Range. In 2020, the complainant was awarded the contract for the maintenance of compensatory afforestation at Kerala University Campus, Karyavattam, in lieu of tree felling for the Vizhinjam International Seaport Project. Smt.Divya Rose, the 1^st accused, being the Range O Social Forestry Division, was responsible for passing the bills submitted for the work undertaken by the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau on 15.08.2021, alleging that he has completed the work of compensatory afforestation at the Kerala University Campus in Karyavattam by June, 2020 and he was entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- towards the work. Thereafter, he approached the 1^st accused for passing the bill. The 1^st accused demanded Rs.70,000/- as a bribe for clearing the bill. The 1^st accused instructed the complainant to handover the money to Sri.K.K.Salim, the 3^rd accused, a forester attached to her office. On 11.08.2021, the complainant reached the office of the 1st accused at PTP Nagar and requested her to clear the bills before Onam. However, accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded Rs.70,000/- for clearing the bill. He was also instructed to pay a part of the amount to Sri.Ragesh, the 2^nd accused, another o of the department. Based on the complaint preferred by the complainant, FIR was registered. At 15.00 hours on 16.08.2021, the Vigilance Officials, accompanied by the complainant, arrived at the Range Forest Office, Thiruvananthapuram at PTP Nagar. The 1^st accused was not there. The complainant contacted the 1^st accused over the phone. She instructed the complainant to contact the 3^rd accused. The complainant handed over the ‘trap money’ of Rs.70,000/- to the 3^rd accused and he was arrested along with the ‘trap money’. The Vigilance Officials conducted a phenolphthalein test, which turned positive. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short], by the accused.

5. While canvasing quashment of the proceedings as against the 3^rd accused, it is argued by the learned counsel for the 3^rd accused that, as per Annexure-4 order dated 07.11.2023 in Crl.M.C. No.2384/2022, when the 1^st accused, Smt.Divya S. Rose, approached this Court to quash the FIR, this Court considered the matter in detail and as per Annexure-4 order, the FIR and further proceedings against the 1^st accused were quashed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the 3^rd accused that, challenging Annexure-4 order, the prosecution filed S.L.P. No.3168/2024 and as per Annexure-6 order dated 11.03.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P. and confirmed Annexure-4 order. It is specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3^rd accused that, in this matter, as per Annexure-3, as on 30.06.2021, the 3^rd accused, who was the Section Forest Officer during the relevant time, considered the works done by the complainant and found short falls in the works carried out by the complainant and accordingly, he reported the same to the Range Forest Officer that the work was not completed. Thereafter, the complainant approached the 1^st accused, the higher official and bypassing Ann