The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

The sole accused in C.C.No.45 of 2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 05.03.2014 rendered in the above case. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala represented by VACB.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the Special Court.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused while working as Secretary to Mattool Grama Panchayat and as being a public servant had abused his official position and committed criminal misconduct by demanding and accepting Rs.500/- as bribe from PW1 Muhammedali at 8 p.m on 14.05.2007 to grant permission to construct the house of one Zeenath, who is the niece of PW1. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short), by the accused/appellant.

4. On receipt of final report filed after investigation, the Special Court secured the presence of the accused for trial and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P20 as well as M.O1 to M.O8 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defense, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D2(a) were marked.

5. The Special Court appreciated the evidence and found that the prosecution proved commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, by the appellant/accused and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as under:

“accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section S.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, he The substantial portion of the sentence shall run concurrently. Accused is entitled to get set off under Section 428 of Crl.P.C regarding the period of detention undergone by him. MO-1 currency note shall be returned to PW-1, MO-3 currency note shall be confiscated and MO-2 and MO-4 to MO-8 shall be destroyed as valueless, after the expiry of period of appeal. Bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.”

6. While assailing the verdict of the Special Court, the specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that, in this case, the prosecution allegation is that the accused demanded and accepted bribe on 14.05.2007 for granting permission to construct the house of Zeenath, the niece of PW1, acting on the revised application and plan submitted by Zeenath. On perusal of Ext.P11 file, the same would show that the application alleged to have been submitted for the purpose of granting revised sanction and the revised plan thereof were not available even though Ext.P11 file would indicate that, earlier, sanction was issued for constructing the building based on the plan appended to the application then filed. Thereafter, one T.P.Musthafa had filed a Suit, O.S.NO.41/2006, against Zeenath before the Munsiff Court,