The standard of proof for demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act is met when evidence establishes exigent demands backed by corroborative testimony, with appropriate presumptions where necessary.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The 1^st accused in C.C.No.19/2005 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, is the appellant, who assails judgment dated 19.11.2013 rendered in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1^st accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant records.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 , 12 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) as well as under Section 12 0B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter), by the appellant/1^st accused.

4. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2, being public servants, while working as Sub Inspector of Police and Police Constable, respectively, at Karikkottakkari Police Station, abused their official position and hatched criminal conspiracy between themselves. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, they had committed acts of criminal misconduct. It is alleged that at about 12.00 midnight on 02.05.2003, while PW1 was driving an autorickshaw in which one Sheena, who was personally known to him, was travelling from the Meditation Centre at Anapanthi to her house, the 1^st accused arrived in a police jeep driven by the 2^nd accused, intercepted the autorickshaw, and directed PW1 to drop Sheena at her house and thereafter to bring the autorickshaw to the Police Station, alleging wickedness in the conduct of PW1. After PW1 dropped Sheena at her house and while he was proceeding in the autorickshaw, the 1^st accused, who was following him in the police vehicle driven by the 2^nd accused, again stopped the autorickshaw and directed PW1 to meet the 2^nd accused. When PW1 met the 2^nd accused, he demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000 from PW1 for and on behalf of the 1^st accused. When PW1 stated that he had no cash with him, the 2^nd accused consulted the 1^st accused and reduced the bribe amount to Rs. 3,000, which was again demanded from PW1. As PW1 reiterated that he had no cash with him, the 1^st accused seized the vehicle documents from PW1 and directed him to pay the amount on the next day before 5.00 p.m., threatening that failure to do so would result in PW1 being taken into custody. On 04.05.2003, when PW1 met the 1^st accused at his quarters and informed him that he had no money, the 1^st accused directed PW1 to keep the autorickshaw in his compound. The 2^nd accused, who was present there, told PW1 that if the amount would not be paid, the 1^st accused would not leave him alone, and directed PW1 to bring the amount on the next day. Thus, the 2^nd accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 3,000 from PW1 for and on behalf of the 1^st accused and thereby abetted the commission of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. Consequently, the 2^nd accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 12 0B of the IPC r/w and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. Subsequently, the 1^st accused repeated the demand for bribe from PW1 at 7.00 p.m. on 06.05.2003 and again at 7.30 p.m. on 11.05.2003 when PW1 contacted the 1^st accused over the phone, he threatened PW1 that a case would be registered against PW1 if the amount would not be paid. In pursuance of the said demand, the 1^st accused demanded and accepted Rs. 3,000 from PW1 at 4.00 p.m. on 12.05.2003 at his quarters. Thereby, the 1^st accused obtained undue pecuniary advantage by adopting corrupt and illegal