Conviction for corruption offences requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a sine qua non. The prosecution must establish these foundational facts through either direct or circumstantial evidence to justify criminal culpability, as mere recovery of currency without proof of demand is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This appeal is at the instance of the 1^st accused in C.C.No.19/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, and he assails the judgment in the above case dated 25.08.2016.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Gone through the verdict impugned and the records of the Special Court.

3. Here as per the final report, 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) as well as under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short hereafter), by the 1^st and 2^nd accused. The precise allegation is that accused Nos.1 and 2 while working as Regional Transport Officer and Head Clerk of Regional Transport Office, Kannur, respectively, being public servants, had abused their position and entered into criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the 1^st accused had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.500/- for himself and Rs.2,000/- for the 2^nd accused as illegal gratification for changing the timing of the bus owned by the complainant.

4. The Special Court ventured the matter after framing charge for the said offences. During trial, PW1 to PW7 were examined. Exts.P1 to P22 and MO1 to MO4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of defense, Exts.D1 series - D1(a) and D1(b), were marked.

5. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Special Judge found that the appellant/1^st accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while holding that the prosecution failed to prove the offences alleged to be committed by the 2^nd accused. Accordingly, the 2^nd accused was acquitted and the 1^st accused was sentenced as under:

“In the result, A1 is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and he is convicted u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. A1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable u/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Substantive portion of the sentence shall run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by A1 is liable to be given set off. Bail bond executed by A1 stands cancelled. A1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s 120- B of I.P.C and he is acquitted of that charge.”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/1^st accused argued that in paragraph 31 of the judgment, the learned Special Judge evaluated the evidence of PW1 and also Ext.P1 FIS and thereafter on finding anomaly in the evidence of PW1, the 2^nd accused was acquitted. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/1^st accused, the reasons for acquittal of the 2^nd accused are applicable to the 1^st accused also. In such a case, the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/1^st accused guilty for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the impugned verdict would require interference.

7. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/1^st accused that in this case ingredients for demand and acceptance of bribe by the 1^st accused are failed to be proved by the prosecution. Therefore, on the said ground also