The court established that proving demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with particular attention to evidence during trap operations.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

The sole accused in C.C. No.3/2013 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this appeal, under Section 374 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short], challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against him as per the judgment dated 27.01.2017. The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), represented by the Special Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the Special Court.

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

4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that, the accused, who was the Social Security Officer in Employees State Insurance Corporation, Kottarakkara Division, Kollam, after having inspected M/s. Nandhil Honda at Punalur in Kollam District, noted down the list of employees serving on the establishment and put his initials in the attendance register to prove that he had visited and verified the records. Thereafter, the accused tore off the portion of attendance registers showing less number of employees to escape the firm from the penalty with intention to manipulate the records, after having accepting bribe from the officers of the firm. Accordingly, the accused demanded Rs.20,000/- from the partners of the firm and accepted Rs.10,000/- out of the same on 24.06.2013 at his office, as part of trap proceedings. Later, Rs.10,000/- alleged to be accepted by the accused was taken from a bag at the office of the accused, where he was arrested. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act, 1988’ for short], by the accused.

5. After framing charge, the Special Court recorded evidence and completed trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 13 were examined, Exts.P1 to P26 and MO1 to MO9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. During cross-examination of PWs 1 and 5, Exts.D1 to D6 contradictions were also marked. 6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Accordingly, the accused was convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under:

1) The accused, Sri. Suraj Kumar Keshri, is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rupees 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . In case of default in payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

(2). The accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rupees 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) u/s. 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . In case of default in payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(3). The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run consecutively.

(4). Set off is allowed u/s 428 for the period from 24/06/2013 to 18/07/2013.

(5). MO4 and MO5 currency notes shall be returned to PW1, after the appeal period is over.

(6). MO1 to MO3 and MO6 to MO9, being valueless, shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over.

7. While assailing