Conviction for corruption requires clear proof of bribery demand and acceptance; mere acceptance without evidence of demand is insufficient under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The sole accused in C.C. No.26/2006 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short], challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against him as per the judgment dated 26.03.2013. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Wayanad and the State of Kerala, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor are arrayed as the respondents herein.

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

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’ hereafter.

4. The prosecution case is that, the accused, while working as District Officer, Ground Water Department, Wayanad, had abused his position as public servant and committed criminal misconduct and demanded and accepted Rs.50,000/- each from Sri. P.D. Dinesh Babu (PW1), Sri. P.V. Vinod (PW2), during the last week of January, 2003 at his house at Munderi, promising to appoint them as Casual Labourers in the Department and to regularize their service within 3 months. The further allegation is that the accused had accepted an amount of Rs.60,000/- from one Sri. K. Aboobacker, during February, 2002, at the residence of the accused promising to appoint him as Driver in the Department and his service would be regularized within 3 months. Then the accused had given appointment to these persons as Casual Labourers and Driver and had cheated them by not regularizing their appointment and had obtained undue pecuniary advantage of Rs.1,60,000/- by adopting fraudulent method. 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, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act, 1988’ for short] and under Section 420 of INDIAN PENAL CODE [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for short] , by the accused.

5. After framing charge, the Special Court recorded evidence and completed trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 19 were examined and Exts.P1 to P27 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though, the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning him under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C, he did not opt to adduce any defence evidence.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused was not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and he was acquitted for the said offence. However, the Special Court found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Accordingly, the accused was convicted for the said offences 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.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2