State of Kerala v. M.H. Shabeer

This appeal has been filed by the State of Kerala, represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, challenging judgment in C.C.No.306/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha dated 29.04.2024, whereby the sole respondent/accused in the said case was acquitted. The respondent herein is the accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Kerala/appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the relevant records.

3. The parties in this appeal will be referred as ‘prosecution‘ and ‘accused‘, for easy reference hereafter.

4. Here, the prosecution allegation is that the accused, while working as Agricultural Officer at Krishibhavan at Paipra, demanded ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as illegal gratification on 22.07.2013 and 24.07.2013 from PW1 (Sri.A.M.Mershid), in order to give a report to the District collector favoring him to transport and deposit red earth for illegal filling of paddy land. The further case is that, again on 25.07.2013, the demand was repeated and accordingly, PW1 agreed to pay the same in two installments. The prosecution case further is that thereafter, at 4.20 p.m. on 26.07.2013, the accused accepted ₹50,000/- (the first installment) and he was nabbed red-handed. This is the base on which 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for short) by the accused.

5. The learned Special Judge recorded evidence after framing charge for the said offences, confined to that of PW1 to PW15, Exts.P1 to P25 and MO1 to MO6 on the side of the prosecution and DW1 and DW2 on the side of the defence.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Special Judge summarized his finding in paragraph No.21 of the judgment, relying on one answer given by PW1 during his cross-examination, and held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations, and thus by upholding the case of the defence that the appellant was falsely implicated by PW1, the accused was acquitted by enlarging benefit of doubt.

7. It is pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that, in the instant case, going through the evidence of PW1, supported by PW2, the decoy witness, and PW14, the Investigating Officer, the ingredients for the offences alleged by the prosecution to be found without any iota of reasonable doubts and the learned special Judge approached the matter in a hyper-technical manner to segregate only one sentence extracted during cross-examination of PW1, which also would, in no way, suggest that there was no demand on the date of trap, to record acquittal. He also pointed out that since the ingredients to prove commission of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act to be found from the prosecution materials, the learned Special Judge went wrong in recording acquittal by enlarging the benefit of doubt, in a case wherein the offences against the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubts. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, merely because of the fact that PW1 is a person having criminal antecedents, the same itself is not a ground to discard his evidence in toto, when the prosecution case as to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused to be found from the positive phenolphthalein test. Therefore, the verdict is liable to be interfered with.

8. Zealously opposing these contentions, the learned counsel for the accused argued that in this case, there is no evidence to show demand of bribe by the accused at any point of time, and the evidence given by PW1, as extracted in paragraph No.21 of the judgment, would speak of the same. It is pointed out that even though when the hands of the accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the same showed pink colour change because there was attempt on the part of PW1 to entrust the money on his hands forcefully and at this juncture, his hands came into contact with the hands of PW1 (which showed positive test result), the said aspect alone would not suffice the requirement of the twin ingredients, viz., demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused, none of the grounds, including the specific grounds ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, raised in the appeal memorandum are reasons to interfere with the well-considered verdict rendered by the learned Special Judge on evaluating the evidence. According to him, the specific case of the defence is that since PW1 is a person having involvement in 27 criminal cases and had also been declared as a proclaimed offender, his evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe would require sufficient corroboration, to be acted upon. Apart from that, PW3, who alleged to have accompanied PW1, turned hostile to the prosecution insofar as the demand and acceptance of the bribe were concerned. Therefore, he had submitted that the well-considered verdict of the Special Court would warrant no interference to reverse the same.

9. Having considered the rival submissions, points arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the Special Judge went wrong in finding that the accused/respondent did not commit the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act?

2. Whether the Special Judge erred in finding that the accused/respondent did not commit the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act?

3. Whether the impugned verdict would require any interference by this Court?

4. The order to be passed.

10. Point Nos.1 to 4

Here, the crucial witness is PW1, who lodged Ext.P2 complaint before the Dy.S.P. The sum and substance of his version is that he had engaged in loading earth to the construction site during 2013. He used to take lorries for rent on a daily basis. According to him, three among the above lorries, belonging to Sri.Abdulla, Sri.Abuthahir and Sri.Naseer, were seized by the Muvattupuzha Police and for release of the said lorries from the police custody, he had deposited ₹25,000/- each as fine. For this purpose, the District Collector called for reports from the Police, Agricultural Officer as well as the Village Officer. According to him, Ext.P1 series would show that stringent conditions were imposed for the release of the lorries and in this connection, on 18.07.2013, the Agricultural Officer (the accused herein) called him to see the place, as a report was called for by the District Collector. Accordingly, he had shown the property of one Rajan where the earth was unloaded and then the accused stated that there was some risk in giving a favourable report. Thereafter, PW1 met the accused at his residence and then the accused demanded ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as illegal gratification and also warned him that if he did not pay the amount, he would face dangerous consequences. He further stated that thereafter, the accused called to his mobile number 9447606187 on 23.07.2013 and accordingly, he, along with PW3, reached the agricultural office and met the accused. Then the accused reached the courtyard of the office and asked about the money demanded, he stated that the money should be paid on the next day. He agreed to give a reply after thinking of the same and in turn, he had met the Dy.S.P. (Vigilance), Ernakulam and lodged Ext.P2 complaint. According to him, he had reached the vigilance office at 10.00 a.m. on 26.07.2013 and entrusted 50 currency notes of ₹1,000/- each in the presence of two Gazatted officers and vigilance officers. He read out the statement recorded as Ext.P2 and was introduced to the Gazatted officers. Thereafter, phenolphthalein test was demonstrated and phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes he had entrusted and identified as MO1 series (50 currency notes of ₹1000/-). He identified MO2 and MO3 as the solutions used for the phenolphthalein test. According to him, MO1 series was entrusted on his hands with request to give the same to the accused on demand. The Dy.S.P. also gave direction to show signal as soon as the accused would accept the same. Then he had shown a signal by touching on his head. According to him, Ext.P3 is the pre-trap mahazar prepared in this regard. He deposed further that when the trap party reached near the Agricultural Office, the accused was not found there. Thereafter, he contacted the accused over the phone and the accused informed him that he was attending a conference and asked PW1 to come near the new bus stand, Muvattupuzha. He had informed the same to the Dy.S.P. and moved towards the new bus stand. Then he stayed near the auto stand and at 4.15 p.m., Shabeer Sir (the accused) reached in a car and parked the car 50 meters away from him. Then he moved towards the accused. Then he stand on the right hand side of the door of the car and PW3 stand on the left hand side door of the car. When the accused asked whether the money demanded had been brought, he answered in affirmative and handed over MO1 series to the accused. The accused accepted the money and placed the same on the dashboard of the car and in turn, he had shown the signal and the vigilance vehicle reached near the car and arrested the accused. Thereafter, he was brought to the reception of the Kabani Bar, where the accused was subjected to examination and he was directed to go back. During cross-examination, multiple questions have been asked with a view to shake his version and also suggesting that the accused came into contact with the hands of PW1 when the accused had shown his hands for giving shake hand and when PW1 attempted to place the money on his hand. It is true that, during cross-examination, when a question was put to him to the effect that “18.07.2013 നും 26.07.2013 നും ഇടയിൽ പ്രതിയുമായി പൈസ സംബന്ധമായ സംസാരം ഉണ്ടായിട്ടുണ്ടോ (Q), he answered that “19-ാം തീയതിതിയതി സ്ഥലം സന്ദർശിക്കാൻ വന്നപ്പോൾ അല്പം risk എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞു (A):” In fact, the aforesaid portion of the evidence was extracted by the learned Special Judge in paragraph 21 of the judgment as a reason for disbelieving the prosecution case.

11. In this case, PW2 is the decoy witness. He was the Gazetted officer worked as senior superintendent in the Regional Archives at Ernakulam. He had witnessed the trap procedures. He had identified the accused as the person who had come in the red Wagon R car, spoken to by PW1. He further stated that he had seen PW1 delivering the bunch of currencies to the accused, who was sitting in the car. According to him, after surrounding the car of the accused, the DYSP (PW14) asked PW1 as to what had happened. PW2 deposed further that PW1 described his visit to the Krishibhavan, and receipt of ₹50,000 by the accused, and further demand of ₹50,000/-. The accused was taken out of the car thereafter. He deposed that the accused had said that “money received has been placed in the dash of the car”. The accused was taken to the reception counter of Kabani Hotel situated nearby. Thereafter, phenolphthalein test was conducted on both hands of the accused. The fingers of the accused and sodium carbonate solution turned pink colour. Then again PW14 had brought the accused to the side of the car and on checking the car, he had found MO1 currencies from the dashboard of the car. Those were the same currencies entrusted to PW1 by PW14 at the office of PW14 which had been previously verified by him. Thereafter, again the accused was taken to Kabani Hotel and MO1 currencies were subjected to phenolphthalein test and the currencies and sodium carbonate solution turned pink color and he had also signed Ext. P16 mahazar prepared.

12. It is true that, PW3 turned hostile to the prosecution. Apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the other witnesses also gave evidence, supporting the prosecution case. Among them, the evidence of PW4, PW7, PW9 and PW14 are relevant and the same needs to be discussed.

13. PW4 is the then Manager of Kabani Hotel, who had no knowledge regarding the relevant facts. PW5 was the Junior Superintendent in the District Collectorate who delivered Ext.P10 file regarding the seizure of three lorries. Those lorries were released on bond as per interim orders, and reports were called for from the Police, Revenue Divisional Officer, Agricultural Officer and the village officer. Ext.P11 is the order of the District collector calling for a report from the Mulavoor Krishibhavan.

14. PW7 is the inspector of Police who accompanied PW14 to conduct the trap. He deposed that the accused stated that he had placed the money on the dashboard of the car. Though he did not see PW1 handing over the money to the accused, he had witnessed PW1 was talking to the driver of the car (the accused). He further stated that after the arrest of the accused, as directed by PW14, he conducted search at the residence of the accused. He had prepared Ext.P14 search memorandum and Ext.P15 search list. PW8 is another inspector of Police who accompanied PW14. He had given evidence that he saw PW1 handing over the money to the accused. He also testified that the accused stated that money had been placed on the dashboard. He further testified that the money from the dashboard of the car was taken by PW2. PW8 also testified that he had conducted the pre-verification of Ext. P2 complaint.

15. PW9 was the sub inspector of Police who assisted PW14 in the pre-trap procedures. PW10 was the Agricultural Assistant working along with the accused. She stated that Ext.P11 communication from the District collector was received in the office on 17.07.2013 and the accused had put his initial on that document. She testified that a report was required to be submitted to the Assistant Director of Agriculture on 26.07.2013, which she had informed the same to the accused. She had prepared the report on the previous day and placed the same on the table of the accused. On 26.07.2013, she contacted the accused and informed him about the necessity to submit the said report on that day itself.

16. PW11 is the then village officer. He stated that prior to the arrest, the accused came to his office and enquired about Ext.P11. By the time, he had not received the said order which was addressed to him also. He testified that though the accused had requested phone number of PW1, he did not give it. Though PW11 claimed that he did not have the phone number of PW1 in his mobile phone, subsequent statements made by him revealed that at the time accused requested for phone number of PW1 he was having the same but had refused to give the same to the accused.

17. PW14 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who led the trap team. According to him, on the basis of Ext.P2 complaint, he had registered Ext.P19 First Information Report and he had laid the trap. He supported the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in particular. PW14 described the procedures adopted as spoken to by the other accompanying officials. He stated that after testing the hands of the accused in the sodium carbonate solution at the reception counter of Kabani Hotel, which showed positive result, he had returned to the spot along with the accused to recover the money, based on the information given by the accused that the money was kept inside the dashboard of the car. As directed by him, PW2 opened the car, and got inside and recovered MO1 currencies, which were entrusted by him to PW1 on the date of trap, after smearing phenolphthalein powder and after noting its numbers. PW14 also conducted the investigation of this crime and he testified in detail in this regard.

18. PW15 is the successor of PW14, who presented the final report after getting approval from the Director of the VACB.

19. Here, the prosecution case is that the accused demanded bribe on four days, viz., 22.07.2013, 24.07.2013, 25.07.2013 and 26.07.2013. It was at 4.20 pm on 26.07.2013, the accused alleged to have accepted ₹50,000/-, MO1 series, from PW1 pursuant to demand made on that day and at a place near the private bus stand Muvattupuzha, as directed by the accused, while the accused was sitting inside his car and MO1 series were recovered from the dashboard of the car.

20. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same are extracted as under:-

Section 7:- Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. – Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government Company referred to in clause (C) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a public servant. – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-

a) xxxxx

(b) xxxxx

(c) xxxxxx

(d) If he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. xxxxx

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

21. In this connection it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [AIR 2023 SC 330], Neeraj Dutta Vs State, where the Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C Act to be said to be proved along with ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and in paragraph 68, it has been held as under :

“68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:

(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.

(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1) (d) and (ii) of the Act.

(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.”

22. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C Act is extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. The mode of proof of demand and acceptance is either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law.

23. In this context, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 983], in Crl.Appeal No.323/2020, dated 12.9.2025, wherein in paragraph No. 12, it was held as under:

“12. Indubitably in Neeraj Dutta’s case (supra) the Apex Court held in paragraph No.69 that there is no conflict in the three judge Bench decisions of this Court in B.Jayaraj and P.Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge Bench decision in M.Narasinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 (now BSA 5) or 13(1)(d)(i) (now BSA 11) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or “primary evidence” of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns “hostile” is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 (now BSA 157) of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases. Further in Paragraph No.70 the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary,oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. In paragraph No.68 the Apex Court summarized the discussion. That apart, in State by Lokayuktha Police’s case (supra) placed by the learned counsel for the accused also the Apex Court considered the ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act,1988 and held that demand and acceptance of bribe are necessary to constitute the said offences. Similarly as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Aman Bhatia’s case (supra) the Apex court reiterated the same principles. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials to be established to fasten criminal culpability on an accused are demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. To put it otherwise, proof of demand is sine qua non for the offences to be established under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and dehors the proof of demand the offences under the two Sections could not be established. Therefore mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of bribe or as undue pecuniary advantage or illegal gratification or the recovery of the same would not be sufficient to prove the offences under the two Sections in the absence of evidence to prove the demand.”

24. In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in [2026 INSC 365] in The State of Kerala v. K.A.Abdul Rasheed, the Apex Court considered the decision [(2023) 4 SCC 731], Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and in paragraph 13 the Apex Court held as under:

“13. We pause here to notice that the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta had specifically dealt with the efficacy of the deposition of hostile witnesses. It referred with approval to Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration wherein it was held:

“52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.”

25. Here, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the prosecution evidence, particularly given by PW1, the complainant, supported by PW2, the decoy witness, and PW14, the Investigating-cum-trap laying officer, categorically established the twin ingredients, viz., demand and acceptance of illegal gratification (MO1 series) by the accused beyond reasonable doubts. However, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that the reasons stated in paragraph No.21 of the judgment, relying on the evidence given by PW1 during cross-examination that the demand stated by PW1 in between 18.07.2013 and 26.07.2013 to be found as false and therefore, the first ingredient, viz., demand, necessary to prove the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act failed to be established by the prosecution. The legal position regarding the twin ingredients and the mode of proof thereof have been stated above in detail.

26. In this case, PW1 given evidence that in order to give him a favourable report, the accused inspected the site on 18.07.2013 and he stated that there was some risk in giving a favourable reply. But according to PW1, when PW1 met the accused thereafter, the accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as illegal gratification and also warned him that, if he did not pay the amount, he would face dangerous consequences. Again, the accused called PW1, on his mobile phone on 23.07.2013 and repeated the demand, and when PW1 reached the Agricultural office and met the accused, he again demanded the money on 25.07.2013. Thereafter, on 26.07.2013, he had demanded the money as part of trap and accepted the same. His statement given before the investigating officer, marked as Ext.P2, would also substantiate the demand, which led to registration of FIR. Here, when a complex question was asked to PW1, suggesting a period to the effect that, in between 18.07.2013 and 26.07.2013, whether any talk regarding the money was there? PW1 given answer stating that, on 19.07.2013, it was stated by the accused that there was some risk. But PW1 did not state that there was no demand either on 18.07.2013 or on 23.07.2013 or on 26.07.2013, and his evidence at the most would show that there was no talk regarding the money on 19.07.2013. Therefore, the above evidence alone is quite insufficient to disbelieve the evidence given by PW1 regarding the demand spoken to by PW1, after lodging Ext.P2 complaint alleging the same, which ended in red-handed arrest of the accused, at the time, when he demanded and accepted bribe from PW1. In addition to the evidence of PW1, PW2, the decoy witness, though not specifically stated that the accused demanded the money on the date of trap, also stated that when the accused reached the bus stand in his car, the accused spoken to PW1 and thereafter, he had seen PW1 delivering the bunch of currencies to the accused, who was sitting in the car. Thus, the evidence of PW1 is fortified by the evidence of PW2 and also that of PW14 who in turn, recovered the currency, as stated by the accused, from the dash board of the car. That apart, on phenolphthalein test conducted on both hands of the accused, the same showed pink color change to corroborate the acceptance as spoken by PW1 and PW2. It is true that, PW3 turned hostile to the prosecution, but his hostility by itself would not make the evidence of PW1 and PW2 or the other witnesses as false. PW4, the Manager of Kabani Hotel, also supported the prosecution case. It is true that, admittedly, PW1 is a person having involvement in multiple criminal cases. When a witness who is the complainant in a case of trap is a person having criminal antecedents, that by itself is not a reason to disbelieve his evidence unless the same is found to be not reliable because of any improbability or otherwise. In the instant case, merely relying on the evidence given by PW1 during cross-examination that there was no talk about the amount on 19.07.2013, the learned Special Judge jumped into a conclusion that there was no demand of money by the accused at any point of time, without evaluating the evidence of PW1 in toto in juxtaposition with other evidence. But on evaluation of the evidence of PW1 and other witnesses, multiple demands prior to 26.07.2013 and also a specific demand on 26.07.2013 to be found beyond reasonable doubts from the evidence already discussed. That apart, acceptance of MO1 series by the accused also is proved by the prosecution. Be it so, the learned Special Judge went wrong in finding that the accused did not commit offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act. The said finding is liable to be set aside.

27. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The verdict impugned is set aside. Consequently, the accused/respondent herein is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act.

Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2026

28. The respondent/accused appeared as directed and the judgment pronounced in open Court in his presence, holding that he had committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly, he was convicted for the said offences.

29. The respondent/accused was heard on the question of sentence to be imposed upon him. According to him, he did not commit the offences and he is innocent. He stated that PW1 threatened him to obtain the certificate. He further stated that his son’s marriage would be solemnised on 12.12.2026. Regarding the sentence, he canvassed leniency to reduce the same to the minimum permissible.

30. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed leniency in the matter of sentence, pointing out the seriousness of the offences of corruption, found against the respondent by this Court.

31. Considered the plea of the accused to reduce the sentence. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to impose a very lesser sentence. Since the offences found to be committed by the accused is on 24.07.2013, before the enhancement of punishment under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act with effect from 16.01.2014, the minimum sentence provided before the amendment of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act is liable to be imposed.

32. Accordingly, the respondent/accused is sentenced as under:

(i) The respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo default simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(ii) The respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo default simple imprisonment for a period of four months.

(iii) The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run separately.

(iv) Set off, if any, is allowed.

(v) MO1 series shall be returned to PW1 facilitating to get the same exchanged as per law, after the appeal or appeal period is over.

(vi) Other MO’s shall be dealt with in accordance with law, after the appeal or appeal period is over.

The sentence imposed has been suspended till 12.12.2026 by this Court facilitating appeal before the Apex Court, challenging the verdict herein.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith for information and compliance.