Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act; non-conduct of pre-trap verification does not invalidate a backed prosecution.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2025

These criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Cr.P.C .’ for short) by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in C.C.No.239/2008 on the files of the Special Court, Kottayam, challenging the conviction and sentenced imposed against them as per judgment dated 12.04.2010.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the impugned verdict and the decisions placed by the learned senior counsel for the accused.

3. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused, while working as Village Officer, and 2^nd accused, while working as Village man in Konny village, being public servants, entered into criminal conspiracy. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 26.02.2004, the 2^nd accused demanded ₹500 from Sri.Saseendran for himself and for the 1^st accused, and he accepted ₹200 from Sri.Saseendran on the same day, as illegal gratification for effecting mutation in respect of 11.5 cents of property in survey No.500/3/H/1/1 Konny village owned by Sri.Saseendran. The further case of the prosecution is that the 1^st accused demanded the balance bribe of ₹300 from Sri.Saseendran on 26.02.2004 itself. The 2^nd accused again demanded bribe from Sri.Saseendran on 03.03.2004 at Konny village office for the same purpose and in pursuance of that, at 1:00 pm on 06.03.2004, at the office room of village office Konny, 1^st accused accepted ₹200 and the 2^nd accused accepted ₹100 from Sri.Saseendran. Thereby they abused their official position and obtained undue pecuniary advantage for themselves. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act, 1988’ for short) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’ for short) by the accused.

4. Acting on the final report, the special court took cognizance of the case and proceeded with trial. During trial, on the side of prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined, Exts.P1 to P17 and MO1 to MO12 were marked. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked on the side of the defence.

5. The learned Special Court on appreciation of the evidence found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Section 120B of IPC and sentenced him as under:

“In the result, both accused persons are convicted under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years each and fine Rs.15,000/-(fifteen thousand) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months each, convicted under Sec.13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years each and fine Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months each and convicte