Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for establishing corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'CrPC') challenging the judgment dated 23.02.2010 in C.C. No. 120 of 2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The respondent is the State of Kerala, represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge as well as the records of the special court in detail.

3. The precise allegation of the prosecution is that, in continuation of a demand for illegal gratification made by the appellant/accused on 30.12.2001 and 03.01.2003, the accused who was then serving as Secretary (Special Grade) of the Erumeli Grama Panchayat accepted a sum of ₹6,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant (examined as PW3) at 4:45 p.m. on 20.01.2003. This forms the basis of the prosecution case that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’).Following the registration of the FIR on 20.01.2003, the investigation was completed, and the final report was filed before the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and proceeded with the trial. During trial, PWs1 to 8 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P13 and MOs 1 to 8 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, DWs1 to 9 were examined, and Exhibits D1 to D10 were marked.

4. On anxious consideration of the evidence in detail, the learned Special Judge found that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and accordingly he was convicted for the said offences and the accused was sentenced as under:-

“The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and convicted under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The sentences shall run concurrently. The accused is entitled to get set off under Section 428 of CrPC from 20.01.2003 till 27.01.2003. MO1 series shall be given to PW3 and MOs2 to 8 shall be destroyed after the appeal period or appeal is over.”

5. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused pointed out certain flaws in the evidence, and pointed out the anomalies in the prosecution case from the very beginning. According to the learned counsel, with respect to the sanction order marked as Ext.P5, the author of the said document was not examined. Instead, an Under Secretary in the Vigilance Department, who was familiar with the signature of the author of Ext.P5, was examined. It was further submitted that a perusal of Ext.P5, the same does not reflect the essential elements indicating proper application of mind while granting sanction. Therefore, it was contended that there was no valid or proper sanction to prosecute the appellant/accused, and on tha