Proof of demand and acceptance of bribes is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the court reaffirming that mere acceptance without evidence of prior demand does not establish guilt.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in C.C.No.35 of 2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, and he assails the verdict in the above case dated 14.01.2011. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor is the respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the Special Court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused while working as a Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry) attached to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, also held the charge of Luxury Tax Officer form 27.05.2005 to 28.02.2006. While holding the post of Luxury Tax Officer, the accused demanded gratification other than legal remuneration to the tune of Rs.3,000/- as a motive for reducing the luxury tax for the year 2004-05 which was levied on Hotel California. The further case of the prosecution is that thereafter at 12.20 p.m on 28.02.2006 the accused again repeated the demand and pursuant thereto he had accepted Rs.3,000/- from the complainant. Thus 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 accused/appellant.

4. When final report was filed after investigation, the Special Court took cognizance of the said offences and on completion of the pre trial formalities, proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P21 as well as M.O1 to M.O6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defense, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ext.D1 was marked.

5. On merits, the Special Court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as under:

“ sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and in addition he shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and for the offence under S.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and in addition he shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The accused shall be given set off for the period from 28.2.2006 to 3.3.2006 as provided by S.428 of Crl.P.C.

6. The learned counsel for the accused, who assailed the verdict of the Special Court, argued that the evidence of PW1 supported by the evidence of PW8 the Vigilance Dy.S.P as well as that of PW2 and PW5 are insufficient to find the twin ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. It is pointed out that right from the very beginning, the appellant put up a case that he had never demanded any illegal gratification from PW1 and he had never accepted any bribe from PW1 at any point of time.

7. At the same time, the accused raised a contention that he insisted and compelled PW1 to pay luxury tax on the income suppressed by PW1, which the appellant detected on 27.02.2006, during the course of the inspection of the books of accounts produced by PW1 on that day. The further case put up by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, as a matter of fact, the amount of Rs.3,000/- accepted by the appellan