For a conviction under corruption charges, credible evidence directly linking the accused to the act of bribery is essential; otherwise, the presumption of innocence prevails.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. In this appeal, the sole accused in C.C.No.5/2005 on the files of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam challenges the conviction and sentence imposed against him as per judgment dated 13.05.2011 in the above case. CBI is the 1^st respondent and the State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor is the 2^nd respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor for State of Kerala. Perused the verdict impugned and the evidence available.

3. This case, emanated from the FIR registered as R.C.No.17(4)/2004/CBI/KER dated 16.07.2004, by the CBI alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`P.C Act, 1988’ for short), by the accused. Thereafter final report was filed and based on the final report, C.C.No.5/2005 was registered against the accused alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988 by him. Precisely the prosecution case is that the accused, while functioning in the capacity of Deputy Director, Mine Safety Department, Regional Office in Chennai, functioning as a public servant, habitually demanded and accepted gratification in the form of cash and other forms of gratification other than legal remuneration for himself as a motive or reward for not invoking provisions of the Mines Act and thereby committed the above offences.

4. The Special Court framed charge for the said offences and proceeded with trial. PW1 to PW24 and Exts.P1 to P35 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Exts.D1 to D8 were marked on the side of the defence.

5. On conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (a) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988. Thereafter the learned Special Judge sentenced the accused as seen in paragraph 10 of the judgment as under:

“This is a case where a graver offence compared to Sec.7 of the PC Act, is considered. But very same time, keeping in mind the fact that, he is not getting the benefit of Sec.71 in this case and also considering the nature of the evidence adduced u/s. 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1) (a) he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default simple imprisonment for 2 months. Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) can be considered only as an offence proved with the same ingredients which constituted the offence u/s. 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(a). No separate sentence is awarded on this court. The accused is entitled for set off for the period if any he had in custody either in Judicial or police.”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused mainly argued that, in fact, this case also ought to have been tried along with C.C.No.2/2005 and the prosecution herein as a separate trial is unwarranted. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused further that even though PW2 to PW15 and PW20 supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence available in no way would suggest that any amount was recovered from the accused, as alleged by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, in this case, the Special Court found commission of offences punishable Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C Act, 1988 by the accused/appellant. According to him, Section 13 (1)(a) deals with habitually accepting and obtaining illegal gratification. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused furth