Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

This is an appeal filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.55/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Moovattupuzha, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him as per the judgment dated 21.12.2018. State of Kerala represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau ('VACB' for short) is the respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Meticulously gone through the verdict under challenge as well as the evidence. Also perused the decisions placed by both sides.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused while working as Excise Preventive Officer, Narcotic Enforcement Squad (NES), Adimaly during the period between June, 2009 and September, 2010, demanded and accepted Rs.10,500/- on 27.09.2010. Again on 30.09.2010, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.10,000/- from the defacto complainant as illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing favour to the accused in Crime No.12/2009 of NES, Adimaly, to save them from the above criminal case. This is the base on which prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act, 1988' for short), by the appellant/accused.

4. When the final report was filed before the Special Court, the learned Special Judge completed the pre-trial formalities and framed charges for the said offences. Pursuant to framing of charges, the learned Special Judge tried the matter. During trial, PW1 to PW16 were examined and Exts.P1 to P15 as well as M.Os 1 to 9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of defence, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked.

5. The learned Special Judge appreciated the evidence to find the ingredients for the offences for which the accused was tried and found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly, the appellant/accused is sentenced as under:

“In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2(Two) years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2(Two) months U/s. 13(2) r/w.S.13(1)(d) of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for 1(One) year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1(One) month U/s.7 of the PC Act. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The accused is entitled to set off the period of detention undergone during the investigation, enquiry and trial of the case. The accused was under detention for the purpose of this case for the period from 30.09.2010 till 07.10.2010.”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused pointed out some contradictions, which are so material according to him, in the evidence of the witnesses, relied on by the Special Court to disbelieve the prosecution case. According to him, the accused never demanded or accepted bribe, as alleged by the prosecution, from the defacto complainant or anybody. He has highlighted that the Special Court relied on the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW13, who were the accused in Crime No.12/2009 (wherein the accused was alleged to have committed offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act offences), though such evidence would not qualify the test of credibility and in such a view of the matter the verdict put under query would require intrusion.

7. He also submitted that even though initially the 2^nd