The court reaffirmed that conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires clear proof of demand and acceptance of bribe, establishing essential criteria for public servants' culpability.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in C.C.No.2 of 2005 on the files of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, as per judgment dated 18.08.2006, are under challenge in this Appeal at the instance of the sole accused therein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

3. The prosecution case is that the accused while working as Deputy Director in the office of the Director, Mines Safety, Ministry of Labour, Regional Office, Oorgaum, Bangalore, in between 21.05.2001 and 17.05.2004 had enjoyed the powers of the Inspector of Mines as defined under Section 7 of the Mines Act, 1952 (`Act’ for short). Thus he was bestowed with the duty to oversee the implementation of the provisions of the Act by the Mines Management, through inspections and inquiries at the mines, besides other promotional initiatives like conduct of safety weeks in Mines etc. The specific allegation is that while holding the post, the accused reached Thrissur on 14.07.2004 and stayed at Hotel Elite International, Thrissur. While so, on 16.07.2004, he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/- from PW1, the partner of M/s.St.Basil Granites, Pattikkad, Thrissur, in continuation of his earlier demand. Thus the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short), by the accused.

4. After investigation, final report was filed by the Investigating Officer and the Special Court took cognizance of the matter and recorded evidence. On the side of prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P15 and MO1 to MO8 were marked. On the side of defense, DW1 to DW4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D7 were marked.

5. The Special Court adverted to the allegations based on the evidence and finally found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offences under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused argued that the evidence relied on by the Special Court to find the commission of the aforesaid offences by the accused is not fully free from doubts. According to the learned counsel, there was delay in reaching the FIR before the court, and as per the endorsement made in the FIR, marked as Ext.P1(a), based on the complaint (Ext.P1) lodged by PW1, it reached the Court only on 04.05.2004 and the prosecution has not offered any explanation for this delay. It is pointed out further that the court below ought to have found that the suppression of PW1 about his intention to carry a folder to the room of the appellant and the manner in which PW1 had smuggled in, the said folder and the documents inside it to the room of the appellant without the knowledge or approval of any other members of the trap party would by itself prove the malafide intention of PW1 and the court below erred in placing reliance on the evidence of such a witness. It is arg