Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was satisfactorily proved in this case.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The sole accused in C.C No.2 of 2004 on the files of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam has filed this Criminal Appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI and perused the records.

3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act, 1988’ for short hereinafter) by the accused. The specific allegation is that the accused who held the post of Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kochi from 18.6.2003 to 12.12.2003, while holding the post he had demanded Rs.30,000/- as illegal gratification from M/s Paradigam IT Pvt. Ltd when they wanted to remit EPF dues in Cochin office due to shifting of their office from Chennai to Kochi. According to the prosecution, on 10.12.2003, the accused reached M/s Paradigam IT Pvt. Ltd and met PWs 1 and 2 and collected documents and demanded Rs.30,000/- for processing the request. Thereafter on 12.12.2003, when the accused demanded and accepted Rs.30,000/-, as illegal gratification. Then he was nabbed with bribe money.

4. The Special Court framed charge for the said offences and tried the matter. During trial, PW1 to PW13 were examined, Exts.P1 to P50 and MO1 to MO14 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Thereafter, the Special Court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly, he was sentenced as under:-

“In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year, under Section 13 (2) r/w (1)(d) of the . The substantive sentences of the imprisonments shall run concurrently. It is made clear that the accused is entitled to get set off, of the period of detention, if any, undergone by him in connection with the investigation, inquiry and trial of this case under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is committed to the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram to undergo the sentence imposed.”

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused fervently argued that the allegation of the prosecution that the appellant/accused visited the office on 10.12.2003 is false and the same is not supported by any evidence. It is pointed out that even though MO4 casette was also placed during the trap proceedings to record the conversation between the accused as well as PWs1 and 2, in Ext.P48 conversation, the same is stated as telephonic conversation and in support of the same, the conversation in Exhibit P9 would depict the words ‘Hello Hello Hello’. Thus it is argued that the authenticity of MO4 and Ext.P48 report was not properly proved and the same could not be relied on. It is also pointed out that since Exts.P9 and P48 are not believable, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 supporting demand and acceptance of Rs.30,000/- by the accused also cannot be believed and therefore the conviction and sentence could not stand. As such the same would require