The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in C.C.No.05/2010 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge, Kottayam. The appellant herein is the accused in the said case. The State of Kerala, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, is the respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.Perused the records of the Special Court.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter). The prosecution case is that one Smt.Geetha Santhoshkumar, the sister of PW3, purchased property within the limits of Alappuzha Municipality and she had filed Ext.P6 application before the Municipal Office along with the relevant documents on 18.01.2008, seeking change of ownership and issuance of a Jama Certificate/Ownership Certificate in respect of the building situated in the said property. Thereafter, she left abroad and PW1 was instructed to enquire about the same. The prosecution case is that, when PW1 contacted the accused for obtaining the ownership certificate in terms of Ext.P6 application, the accused, on 04.04.2008, demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe for discharging his official duty to issue the certificate. Thereafter, PW1 lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, on the basis of which, FIR was registered and a trap was arranged. On the date of the trap, i.e., on 05.04.2008, the accused again demanded Rs.2,000/-, and accepted the same, soon he was caught red-handed along with the bribe money. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences by the accused.

4. The Special Court took cognizance of the matter. PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 and MO1 series to MO8 were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D7 were marked on the side of the defence.

5. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 and sentenced the accused as under:

“In the result, the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a period of three months u/S.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . He is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a period of six months u/S.13(1)(d) r/w.S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . The substantive sentences will run concurrently.”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused zealously argued that the prosecution evidence is insufficient to fasten criminal culpability on the accused finding that he had committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. According to him, though it is an admitted fact from the evidence of PW1 as well as PW9, the Trap Laying Officer, that a digital voice recorder was entrusted to PW1 to record the proceedings on the date of the trap, the same was not produced before the Court, and during cross-examination, both PW1 and PW9 deposed that PW1 failed to switch on t