Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of both bribe demand and acceptance, which can be established through various forms of evidence even if the complainant's testimony lacks corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The sole accused in C.C.No.85/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this appeal challenging conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court against her in the above case, as per judgment dated 26.06.2020.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondent - State of Kerala.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of 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), by the appellant/accused.

4. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as Sub Registrar at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayoor, and while holding the post of a public servant, demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000 as bribe from Sri.Bhaskaran Nair, a document writer, who was examined as PW1, as illegal gratification, as a motive or reward for the registration of six documents produced by him before the Sub Registrar. Pursuant to the said demand, the accused demanded and accepted Rs. 5,000 on 22.02.2014 and was caught red-handedly with the bribe money.

5. When the final report was filed before the learned Special Judge, who took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and proceeded with the trial. Before the commencement of trial, the prosecution sanction was challenged before this Court by filing Crl.R.P.No.186/2019, and the same was dismissed by this Court.

6. The Special Court ventured the matter. PW1 to PW18 were examined andExts.P1 to P64 and MO1 to MO9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 was examined and Exts. D1 to D6 were marked on the side of the defence, apart from filing a written statement under Section 313 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Finally, the Special Court appreciated the evidence and found that the accused committed the above offences and accordingly, she was sentenced as under:

“a) She shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) and, in default of payment of the fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.

b) She shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

c) The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

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

e) MO1 series currency notes shall be released to PW1 and MO5 currency note shall be confiscated to State Exchequer, after the expiry of the appeal period. MOs.2 to 4 and MOs. 6 to 9 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period, being useless and valueless.”

7. The learned senior counsel Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, appearing for the appellant/accused, attempted to contend that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w