Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is critical for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

The sole accused in C.C.No.173/2016 (formerly C.C.No.1/2015 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam) on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha, has filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him vide judgment dated 04.12.2020 in the above case. Respondent is the State of Kerala representing the VACB.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Gone through the verdict impugned and the evidence available.

3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of 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), by the appellant/accused. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 11.12.2012 the accused, while working as Forest Officer, Mukkudam Section as a public servant demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification from the defacto complainant as a motive or reward for allowing him to transport pieces of woods of Mango trees, jackfruits, etc. The further case of the prosecution is that pursuant to the said demand, on 11.12.2012, the accused accepted Rs.10,000/- from the defacto complainant. Thereafter on 14.12.2012, the accused again demanded Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant for the said purpose as illegal gratification and he obtained the same at 3.50 p.m on 15.12.2012. Further, 1½ months prior to 15.12012, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the said offences by the appellant/accused.

4. The learned Special Judge proceeded with trial in this case after framing charge for the said offences. During trial, PW1 to PW19 were examined and Exts.P1 to P32 were marked on the side of the prosecution. M.O1 to M.O10 series were also marked. On the side of the defense, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked. Ext.C1 was marked as the court document. Exts.X1 to X3 series were also marked. Thereafter the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly, he was sentenced as under:

“1. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand ) for offence punishable u/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two months.

2. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) for offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two months.

3. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.”

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, who challenged the finding of the Special Court, specifically argued that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove the factum of demand of bribe by the accused. That apart, the evidence of PW1 is not believable since PW1 is a person who had involvement in multiple criminal cases. It is further argued that, the specific case of the defense, while admitting rec