The prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of bribe for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; credible evidence supporting the accused's guilt suffices against claims of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This criminal appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in C.C.No.36/2007 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode and he assails conviction and sentence imposed against him as per judgment dated 12.07.2013 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused the verdict impugned and records of the Special Court.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13 (2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988') by the accused, who was working as a Villageman at Payyampally Village Office, Mananthavady, on the premise that the accused demanded and accepted Rs. 500 as bribe at 3.15 pm on 04.10.2006.

4. On getting the final report filed, the learned Special Judge recorded evidence. PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P23 and MO1 to MO8 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

5. The Special Court, on evaluation of evidence, finally 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 accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:

“In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month for each of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Substantial portion of the sentence shall run concurrently. Accused is entitled to get set off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code regarding the period of detention. Bail bond executed by the accused is cancelled.”

6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant argued that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court are unsustainable in law. According to him, the prosecution case, which proceeds on the assumption that PW1/the complainant’s property was measured by the accused, who was incompetent to measure the property, is not believable. It is submitted that in fact, when PW1 had approached the accused to measure his property, the accused arranged a private surveyor and on the date of trap, the complainant reached the village office, where the private surveyor, who was examined as DW1, also was present and in the meantime, the complainant, who was examined as PW1, forcefully inserted the bribe money into the pocket of the accused, though the accused had no intention to either demand or accept the bribe, as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel given emphasis to the evidence of PW1 also in this regard. It is also pointed out that there is a contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and PW7 regarding the handing over of money by PW1 to the accused, and that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of PW7 regarding his position at the time of the incident. On this premise, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the prosecution case is not free from doubts and therefore, enlarging the benefit of doubts, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

7. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that in this case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to prove demand and acceptance and the evidence of PW1 in this regard was not at all shaken during cross-examination. Therefore, the Special Court rightly entered into the finding that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of t