Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as fact in issue; evidence of PW17 and PW18 established accused's demand and receipt of Rs.1.5 lakh, justifying conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with sentence partially reduced.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

Crl.Appeal No.1511/2018 is at the instance of the 1^st accused in C.C.No.268/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha and he assails conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 21.11.2018.

2. Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 is at the instance of the prosecution to enhance the sentence on the ground that inadequate sentence was imposed in this case, without considering the gravity of the offence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1^st accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge and the relevant records including the depositions of the witnesses.

4. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused, who was working as the Headmaster of ‘Our Lady Shepherd Anglo Indian L.P. School’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘OLSAI L.P. School’), Kunjithai, being a public servant, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the 2^nd accused, Lessly Bevero (now no more), who was the Chairman and Corporate Manager of the Central Board of Anglo Indian Education to demand an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Smt.Suharabi and from Sri.Abdul Majeed, Kattisery House, Machanthuruth, who is the husband of Smt.Suharabi, to appoint her as a permanent Arabic Teacher in the said school. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the 1^st accused, by abusing his official position as a public servant, demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Sri.Abdul Majeed for the appointment of his wife, named Suharabi, as a permanent teacher in Arabic. The accused accepted the amount in four instalments on 11.06.2005, 02.07.2005, 06.08.2005 and 12.08.2005. On this premise, the prosecution alleges that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter), and Sections 409 , 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code .

5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1^st accused that in this matter, the allegation is that the 1^st accused demanded and accepted Rs.1,50,000/- from PW18, Sri.Abdul Majeed, who is the husband of PW17, Smt.Suharabi, after demanding the same from PW17 also, who was appointed as Arabic Teacher in OLSAI L.P.School, Kunjithai. According to the learned counsel for the 1^st accused, on going through the evidence of PW17 and PW18, it could be gathered that a complaint was lodged when Rs.1,50,000/- allegedly given by PW18 was not used for the maintenance works of the school. It is pointed out that going by the evidence PW17 and PW18, PW17, her husband (PW18) and PW2 went to the office of the Board at Perumannoor for getting back the amount. The 1^st accused and other persons were present there. PW17 did not get back the money on that day. The Chairman told them that they would inform the matter and accordingly, PW17 and PW18 returned. After a few days, the 2^nd accused called her and directed her to reach his residence. Accordingly, PW17 and her husband (PW18) went there. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were present there. According to PW17, some amount (presumably Rs.40,000/-) was given to them, but they did not accept the same. Subsequently, PW2 informed PW17 that the 1^st accused had come with an amount of Rs.40,000/-, and accordingly, PW18 went near the residence of PW2. An amount of Rs.40,000/- was handed over in cash by the 1^st accused and four cheques for Rs.15,000/- each were issued in favour of PW2, by the 1^st accused. It was further informed that the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- had been credited to the account of the Board, and hence, the same would not be returned.

6. The point argued by the learned counsel for the 1^st accused is that the evidence would suggest that the amount was received by the Management and the 1^st accused, being the Headmaster, was compelled by PW17, PW18 and PTA members to give Ext.P5 acknowledgment stating that he had received the amount. It is pointed out further that since the amount was received