Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the P.C. Act; absence of direct evidence necessitates acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Crl.A. Nos.743 and 790 of 2014 have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 3^rd and 2^nd accused respectively in C.C. No.4 of 2009 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge against them as per the judgment dated 17.07.2014. The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

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

3. Parties in these appeals shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’ hereafter.

4. The prosecution case centered around the acceptance of bribe in connection with the construction of Thenpuzha – Mathumala road coming under the Block Development office, Kanjirappally in the year 2006-2007. The 1^st accused was the Overseer of the said block and the 2^nd accused was in additional charge of the Assistant Engineer of the said Block, while working as the Assistant Engineer, Pampady Block. The complainant had solicited the help of the 3^rd accused, a contractor, for the said work as the 3^rd accused was having the expertise in the said passing the final bill, accused Nos. 1 and 2, being public servants hatched a criminal conspiracy with the 3^rd accused and thereby demanded Rs.12,000/- and reiterated the demand through the 3^rd accused and thereby accepted Rs.7,000/- towards illegal gratification by the 2nd accused from the complainant through the 3^rd accused on 02-07-2007 at the Block office, Pampady. Before that the 1st accused accepted Rs.3,000/- and the 2^nd accused accepted Rs.2,000/- at the work site from the complainant claiming the same as taxi fare. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act, 1988’ for short] and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for short], by the accused.

5. The Special Court framed charge for the above said offences. Thereafter, the Special Court conducted trial of this case, recorded evidence and tried the matter. During trial, PWs 1 to 12 were examined, Exts.P1 to 25 and MOs 1 to 9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, Exts.D1 and D1(a) were marked on the side of accused as defence evidence. Ext.C1 also was marked as Court exhibit.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the 1^st accused was not guilty for the o alleged by the prosecution and the 1^st accused was acquitted by the Special Court. Further, the Special Court found that the 2nd accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and the 3rd accused was guilty for the offences punishable under and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act as well as under Section 120B of the IPC. Accordingly, accused Nos.2 and 3 were convicted for the above said offences and sentenced as under:

In the result, the 2^nd 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 sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand