To secure conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, both demand and acceptance of a bribe must be proved. The absence of sufficient evidence to establish demand results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

1. Crl.Appeal No.456 of 2008 is at the instance of the 1^st accused in C.C.No.53/2002 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur. He assails the conviction and sentence imposed on him, as per judgment dated 28.02.2008 rendered by the Special Court.

2. Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2008 is at the instance of the 2^nd accused in the same case, and he also assails the conviction and sentence imposed on him as per the above judgment.

3. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala, represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

4. Heard the learned senior counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2, in detail. Also heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

5. In the instant case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) by accused Nos.1 and 2. The precise allegation is that, on 19.12.2000, Sri.George, who was examined as PW8, filed an application before the Cochin Corporation for assigning a number to his house and for assessing the tax for obtaining an electric and water connection. On the same day, accused Nos.1 and 2, who were working as Revenue Inspector and Peon, respectively, in the Edappally Zonal Office of the Cochin Corporation, came to the house of PW8 and assigned a number to his house. When PW8 asked for a receipt for the payment of tax, the 2^nd accused informed him that there were some expenses involved and asked PW8 to meet the 1^st accused. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.400/- and Rs.100/- each, respectively, on 20.12.2000, and accepted Rs.300/- and Rs.100/- by accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively, on 03.01.2001, as illegal gratification.

6. On receipt of the final report after investigation, the learned Special Judge proceeded with the trial after taking cognizance. During trial, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 and MO1 to MO20 were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence.

7. On appreciation of the evidence, the Special Court found that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly, both the accused were sentenced as under:

“In the result, Both of the accused are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 (four) years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable U/s 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They are also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable U/s.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bonds of the accused persons are cancelled. MO1 and MO2 series currency notes shall be returned to PW8 and other M.O