Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; mere receipt of bribe without evidence of demand is insufficient for a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The appellant, who was convicted and sentenced by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, in C.C.No. 16/1998 by judgment dated 29.07.2006, has preferred this appeal, challenging the said conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. The State of Kerala is the respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the evidence available in the records of the Special Court and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. In a nutshell, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused demanded Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as illegal gratification from PW1, Sri.Paul Varghese, as a motive or reward for not making any reduction in the value of improvements of the land acquired for Kochi International Airport and for disbursing the compensation. Accordingly, he demanded and accepted Rs.10,000/- on 05.09.1997 and again, Rs.15,000/- was demanded and accepted on 19.09.1997 and he was trapped along with Rs.15,000/- by the trap team. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’ for short) by the accused.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, initially, the Deputy Collector (LR), the Special Tahsildar as well as the Village Assistant were arrayed as accused in the First Information Statement as accused Nos.1 to 3. After investigation, final report filed against the appellant alone, excluding the others from the array of accused. Thereafter, when PW1 was examined, he deposed about demand of bribe by the Deputy Collector and Special Tahsildar also. Acting on the said evidence, by invoking the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), they got arrayed as additional accused by the Special Court. However, challenging the said order, the above persons approached this Court and the said order was set aside and accordingly, their case was quashed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, in the instant case, the case of the prosecution as well as the evidence given by PW1 is that, accused Nos.1 to 3 in the First Information Report visited the property of PW1 and demanded bribe for the purpose of not reducing the value of improvements for the property assessed as Rs.71,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant, who is the Village Assistant, is low in hierarchy, had any role either to reduce or increase the land value for improvements. The prosecution records would show that the demand was by the Deputy Collector and the Tahsildar, who were capable of doing the said exercise. Accordingly, it is pointed out that the story of demand and acceptance of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.10,000 + Rs.15,000) by the accused is an improbable story and the appellant/accused was made as a scapegoat to give clean chit to the Deputy Collector and the Tahsildar, though they demanded the bribe and made to accept the same by the accused under the guise of accepting the amount for a ‘Kuri’ transaction.

5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel of the appellant/accused further that, in this case, the demand, which is the most essential ingredient to prove the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988, has not been proved. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused, and in such view of the matter, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside.

6. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused placed latest decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. V. State of Kerala , reported in 2025 KHC 983. In paragraph No.12 of the judgment, this Court observed the ingredients as under:

“12. Indubitably in Neeraj Dutta’s case (sup