The conviction of the accused was upheld for demanding and accepting bribe, reinforced by testimony establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in C.C. No.169/2016 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge as per the judgment dated 30.11.2017. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge, the records of the trial court as well as the decisions placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the accused, while working as the Block Development Officer, Devikulam, demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification from one Geetha Aji, W/o Aji K.K, examined as PW4, for releasing the balance amount of the housing grant sanctioned to her. In continuation of the said demand, the accused demanded and accepted the bribe money at 4.30 p.m. on 11.09.2013, as deposed by Geetha Aji and her husband, Aji K.K. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short], by the accused.

5. After, framing charge for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, the Special Court recorded evidence and tried the matter. During trial, PWs 1 to 11 were examined, Exts.P1 to 28 and MOs 1 to 7 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though, the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence, after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, he did not opt to adduce any defence evidence.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act. No separate sentenced was awarded for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Set off was allowed to the accused, as per law.

7. The learned senior counsel for the accused/appellant vehemently argued that, in this case, on conducting phenolphthalein test on both hands of the accused, there was no color change. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, the housing grant was provided to PW4, under the Indira Avas Yojana (IAY) and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA), out of which 50% of the amount was the contribution of the Central Government and 50% was the contribution of Local Self Government Institution.

According to him, there occurred delay in granting Rs.85,000/- to PW4 and the accused was not in a position to release Rs.85,000/-, because of non-providing of grant by the Panchayat. It is submitted further that, PW8, the Member of the Devikulam Block Panchayat, during the relevant period, recommend the same. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, the balance amount would not be given for the said reason. At this juncture, this case has been foisted against the accused, without the support of any materials, as instigated by PW8. The learned senior counsel for the accused also submitted that, in this matter, PW1, during his examination testified that a