Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe must be established for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance without credible evidence of demand does not sustain a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

The sole accused in C.C.No.23 of 2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case as per the judgment dated 31.01.2017. State of Kerala is the respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB. Scrutinised the verdict under challenge and the evidence available.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused while working as Village Officer, Pandikkad Village Office and was serving as a public servant demanded Rs.1,000/- from PW4, Sri V.P.Shibu at 2.30 p.m as a motive for issuing possession certificates in respect of the property owned by the mother of PW4 in Pandikkad Village. Thereafter trap was arranged and as on 09.01.2006 at 2.30 p.m the accused demanded and accepted bribe. On this premise prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short), by the accused/appellant.

4. On completion of the investigation, final report was filed by the Special Court and the Special Court took cognizance of the offences. Thereafter on complying pre trial formalities, the learned Special Judge tried the matter. During trial, PW1 to PW14 were examined, Exts.P1 to P28 and M.O1 to M.O6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Ext.D1 contradiction was marked through PW4 and also DW1 was examined on the side of the defence.

5. On analysis of the evidence tendered, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly he was sentenced as under:

a) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

b) He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

c) The substantial sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

d) Set off is allowed under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

e) MO1 series currency notes are confiscated. Deposit those currency notes in government account after the expiry of appeal period. MOs.2 to 6 shall be destroyed, after the expiry of appeal period, being useless and valueless.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused vehemently canvassed that in the instant case the evidence of PW4, who is the complainant, was given emphasis by the prosecution to find the twin ingredients viz., demand and acceptance of bribe, by the accused as alleged by the prosecution at 2.30 p.m on 09.01.06. for the purpose of issuance of possession certificates in respect of the property owned by the mother of PW4, who was examined as PW5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, on scrutiny of the evidence of PW4, he did not support demand of bribe by the accused and in fact he has turned hostile to 5 the prosecution.

7. According to the learned counsel for the accused, even though the evidence of PW7, the decoy witness who had accompanied the trap team, as w