The essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act are crucial for securing a conviction against public servants.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Judgment in C.C.No.27/2010 dated 31.10.2014 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, is put under challenge in this appeal filed by the sole accused arraying State of Kerala as the respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the evidence available.

3. Precisely the prosecution case is that the accused, who was employed as Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) in Chavara Police Station during the period from 24.4.2006 to 22.04.2009, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from Sri Shiharudheen, who was examined as PW1 on 21.04.2009 and thereafter demanded and accepted the same at 11.30 a.m on 24.04.2009. Accordingl,y the prosecution case is that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988' for short).

4. When final report was filed before the Special Court, the Special Court secured the presence of the accused and completed the pre- trial formalities. Thereafter charge was framed for the said offences and recorded evidence. PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P27 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Apart from that M.O1 to M.O11 were also marked on the side of the prosecution. During cross examination of PW1, Exts.D1 to D6 and during cross examination of PW2, Ext.D7 contradictions were marked on the side of the accused. Apart from that, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.D8 and D9 were also marked on the side of the defense. The learned Special Judge meticulously analysed the evidence and found that the appellant/accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly, the accused was sentenced as under:

“Therefore, for the offence under S.7 of P.C. Act, 1988, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs, 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Fine, if not paid, accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. For the offence S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 also the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Fine, if not paid, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.”

5. The learned counsel for he appellant/accused argued that on perusal of Ext.P26 prosecution sanction proved through PW11, the same would show that it was not issued by PW11 Smt.Harhitha Attaluri, who was the District Superintendent of Police at the relevant time, which was issued by. Therefore, the competent authority had not issued sanction to prosecute the accused and for the said reason alone the entire prosecution is vitiated. Apart from that, the evidence of PW1 is not trustworthy and the same would show contradictions. Exts.D1 to D6 have been highlighted in this regard. According to him, there are contradictions between the evidence of PW2, the friend of PW1, who accompanied PW1 at the relevant time of trap. That apart, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are contrary and mutually destructive. According to him, there is no version as that of PW1 as to demand of illegal gratification and his version regarding demand of `other item’ would not be sufficient to prove any demand of illegal gratification or bribe by the accused. It is pointed out that, while recovering M.O1