1. The sole accused in C.C. No.40/2004 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short], challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against him as per the judgment dated 14.10.2010. The State of Kerala, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the Special Court.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. he prosecution case is that, the accused while working as Village Extension Officer, Perla Circle and as such being a public servant abused his official position, committed criminal misconduct, by adopting corrupt and illegal means, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500/- for himself from Sri.K.Abdulla, S/o.Mammunhi, Kuriadka, Perla P.O., Enmakaje Village at about 4 P.M on 27-03-2003 and accepted Rs.200/- at the Village Extention Office, Perla, for issuing a Stage Certificate to the said Sri.K.Abdulla for producing the same before the Block Development Officer, Manjeswar for getting the 1st instalment of money under Indira Awaz Yojana General Housing Scheme for construction of houses and after accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 200/- he told to the said Sri.Abdulla to pay the balance amount after encashing the cheque. He further demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.800/- for himself from K.Abdulla at 2 P.M on 29-04-2003 at the Village Extension Office, Perla, for issuing the 2nd Stage Certificate (Rs.300/- being the balance bribe amount of 1st Stage Certificate and Rs.500/- being the bribe amount for issuing the 2nd Stage Certificate) and accused accepted Rs.500/- from PW1 and told him to pay the balance amount of Rs.300/ before issuing the 3rd Stage Certificate and he reiterated the demand for the balance bribe amount of Rs.300/- from him at 1.15 PM on 7-5-2003 at the Village Extension Office, Perla, and in pursuance of the said demand, the accused accepted for himself an amount of Rs.300/- then and there, by way of bribe, from the said Abdulla as a motive or reward for the official act mentioned above and thereby, accused have committed criminal misconduct and obtained undue pecuniary advantage for himself. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act, 1988’ for short], by the accused.

5. After framing charge for the above said offences, the Special Court recorded evidence and completed trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 9 were examined, Exts.P1 to P19 and MOs 1 to 4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though, the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., he did not opt to adduce any defence evidence.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Accordingly, the accused was convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under:

                  “I therefore, convict and sentence the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each more, for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Set off, if any, is allowed under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O-1 series are to be returned to PW-1, and M.Os-2 to 4, being valueless are to be destroyed, after the appeal period is over.”

7. While assailing the verdict of the Special Court, the learned senior counsel for the accused raised multifold contentions. At the outset, the submission is that, this is a case foisted as part of conspiracy hatched between the Panchayat President and the Secretary of the Perla Panchayat, who are in enimical terms with the accused. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, the President had compelled the accused to include a large number of nominees and relatives of the President and her two sons in the list of beneficiaries for getting loans and subsidies. But, the accused did not oblige the President, since they were not found to be eligible for gettings loans and subsidies as per the norms and rules. At this juncture, in order to put the accused in trouble, this case is foisted against him. In this regard, it is submitted that, in this case Ext.P1 FIS was recorded at about 10.30 a.m. on 07.05.2003 and pre-trap mahazar was prepared at about 10.40 a.m. without a preliminary enquiry, since the Investigating Officer also joined with the Panchayat President and Secretary to trap the accused for no reason. It is argued further that, during chief examination of PW1, he had given evidence that, he had lodged a written complaint that too written by George (the Panchayat Secretary) examined as PW5 and entrusted the same to the Dy.S.P., who was examined as PW7. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, as far as the evidence given by PW1, as to lodging of awritten complaint in the above line, no cross- examination effected. Therefore, the said evidence would remain unchallenged. In this context, it is argued that, when PW7, the Dy.S.P. was examined, his version is that, no such complaint was given. Similarly, PW5, who alleged to have written the complaint stated to be given by PW1 in writing before the Dy.S.P., was examined, he also denied the same. This would go to show that PW1 was lying before the Court as regards to lodging of a complaint. It is also submitted that, in this case, even though PW2 was examined to prove the pre as well as post trap proceedings, he was not placed somewhere near the office of the accused to oversee and corroborate the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused and therefore, no corroborative evidence from the decoy witness is forthcoming to support the evidence of PW1.

8. he learned senior counsel for the accused argued further that, as per the evidence of PW5, the Panchayat Secretary, he was absent on the day of trap at the office during forenoon and he had reached the office during afternoon. According to PW5, the accused also was not in the office during the relevant time. The evidence of PW5 in this regard is given emphasis to hold that the entire trap is a concocted story. According to the learned senior counsel, here the defense case is more probable than that of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not free from doubt and the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel for the accused pressed for interference in the verdict impugned.

9. Repelling the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the accused, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that, as far as lodging of a complaint alleged to be written by PW5 before PW7 is concerned, the same may be a mistake on the part of PW1, since PW5 and PW7 categorically denied such a complaint. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the trap was in the year 2003 and the examination of PW1 was during the year 2010 i.e. after seven years. So, while giving evidence about an occurrence of the year 2003, natural omissions, additions and variations, by passage of time, that too when the examination was after seven years is usual and the same should not be given much emphasis to disbelieve the evidence of PW1, which is categorical to prove the case of the prosecution, supported by other evidence. It is also pointed out that, as per the available evidence, the entire allegation as to demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused have been proved by the prosecution without any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be sustained.

10. In view of the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are:

                  1. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988?

                  2. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d)of the P.C. Act, 1988?

                  3. Whether the verdict of the Special Court would require interference?

                  4. Order to be passed?

11. Point Nos.1 and 2:- In this case, in order to prosecute the accused, sanction to prosecute him got marked as Ext.P19 was issued by the Commissioner, Rural Development and she was examined as PW9 to prove the same. She supported issuance of Ext.P19 and no cross- examination effected to disbelieve her version. Thus, the prosecution sanction is not at all under challenge. In fact, in order to prove the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, in a convincing manner, without any reasonable doubts.

12. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. 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.

13. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [AIR 2023 SC 330], Neeraj Dutta v. 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, 1988 and in paragraph No.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) he 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.”

14. hus, the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, is extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay bribe 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.

15. 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 or 13(1)(d)(i) 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 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.”

16. In this matter, the learned Special Judge relied on the evidence of PW1 supported by other evidence to found the ingredients to find commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, by the accused. PW1 deposed that, he was a beneficiary of housing scheme under Indira Awaz Yojana and the accused was the Village Extension Officer, Perla Circle, authorized to deal with the same. His evidence is that, after completing the first stage of his house, he had approached the accused for obtaining the first Stage Certificate for getting the first instalment of the amount from the Block Development Office. The accused demanded Rs.500/- for issuance of the Stage Certificate. At that time, even though PW1 was not willing to pay the amount he has given Rs.200/- to the accused for obtaining the first Stage Certificate. The total amount sanctioned for the construction of the house was Rs.22,000/- from the Block Panchayat Office. This would be paid in three instalments. The first instalment of Rs.9,500/- to be paid after obtaining the first Stage Certificate. After accepting Rs.200/- the accused reiterated the demand of the balance amount of Rs.300/- along with Rs.500/- for the second Stage Certificate on that day itself, viz. 27-3-2003. Subsequently, after completing the second stage, he approached the accused and requested for the second Stage Certificate. At that time, the accused demanded Rs.800/- inclusive of the balance amount to be paid to him at the time of issuing the first Stage Certificate. Subsequently, he demanded Rs.800/- inclusive of the balance amount to be paid at the time of issuance of the second Stage Certificate. Since he was not willing to pay the amount, he straight-away gone to the office of the Dy.S.P., Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, Kasaragod, on 7-5- 2003 at 10.30 A.M. He had stated factual events of the case and that was reduced into writing by the Dy.S.P. and the same was signed by him, which he identified and marked as Ext.P-1. Subsequently, two Gazetted Officers reached the Vigilance Office and they were introduced to him and the facts of the case was narrated to them also. In their presence Rs.300/- (100 x 3) was entrusted to the Dy.S.P. by PW1, for giving as bribe money to the accused. That amount was identified as MO-1 series. A demonstration of the phenolphthalein test was conducted on a one rupee currency note and after preparing an entrustment Mahazar MO-1 series was received by the Dy.S.P. After smearing phenolphthalein powder on MO-1 series currency notes and after noting the number in the entrustment Mahazar, which was marked as Ext.P-2, given to PW1 for handing over to the accused only on demand. After completing all the formalities they were proceeded to the Village Extension Office, Perla, at about 11.30 Α.Μ. They reached nearby the Perla junction at 1.00 P.M and PW1 and a Police Constable alighted from the vehicle and as directed by the Dy.S.P. they had gone to the Village Extension Office. The complainant gone to the Village Extension Officer's Office, where the accused was seated. On seeing PW1, the accused demanded the amount of Rs.300/-. PW1 handed over Rs.300/- to the accused and the accused accepted the same with his right hand and put it into his shirt pocket. Then, PW1 came out of the room and gave signal to the Police Constable, who was waiting in front of the Village Extension Office. After sometime the Police Party came to the office and the accused was arrested and the amount was recovered. The application as well as the Agreement executed by him for obtaining the amount were marked as Exts.P-3 and P-3(a) respectively.

17. Apart from the evidence of PW1, PW7, the Dy.S.P., who laid the trap also was examined to prove the prosecution allegations. His evidence is that, on 7-5-2003, PW1 came to his office and narrated the facts of the case. He had taken down the complaint and after obtaining the signature of PW1 therein, a case was registered by him. The complaint so taken down by him was marked as Ext.P-1 and the FIR registered got marked as Ext.P-1(a) also tendered in evidence through him. According to him, he made a request for obtaining the services of two Gazetted Officers as witnesses, from the General Manager of the District Industries Office. As per the request, PW-2 and CW-3 were present in the office. PW1 was introduced to them. PW1 had produced Rs.300/- (100 x 3) before him as trap money. After noting the number of the currency notes he had prepared the entrustment Mahazar, which was marked as Ext.P-2 and after conducting phenolphthalein test in a one rupee currency note, they were proceeded to the Village Extension Office, Perla Circle. The currency notes entrusted by PW1 was identified as MO-1 series. Then they reached nearby the Village Extension Office, Perla, at about 1.00 P.M. The accused as well as one Police Constable and an Inspector, were alighted from the vehicle and they were gone to the Village Extension Office. After obtaining the signal they have proceeded to the Village Extension Office. PW1 had pointed out the accused from the verandah. Then, they were gone to the accused and he introduced himself as well as the witness to him. They have searched themselves in person and nothing was recovered. Then their hands were also immersed in the sodium carbonate solution. No colour change had occurred. Then, he asked the accused about the amount received from PW1. The accused denied it. When the hands of the accused were immersed in the sodium carbonate solution, the solution showed pink colour change. Then, he questioned about the bribe money he had stated that he had accepted the amount and kept in the shirt pocket. Then, he directed PW2 to take the amount from his shirt pocket. After recovering the amount that was immersed in the sodium carbonate solution, then the solution showed pink colour change. The solution was seized. The accused was arrested and the Arrest Memo was marked as Ext.P-17. When sodium carbonate solution was sprinkled in the pocket portion of the shirt worn by the accused at the time of trap, it also turned into pink colour. The shirt was sized and identified as MO-4. The Work Register Ext.P-4 and the Beneficiary List Ext.P-5 kept on the table of the accused were also seized. A recovery Mahazar Ext.P-6 was prepared from there and the witnesses and the accused himself were signed in it. Subsequently, the accused, documents and the properties were brought to the Vigilance Office. The properties were shown in the property list, which was marked as Ext.P-18. The investigation was conducted as per his direction by the Inspector. He had questioned the Additional Development Officer for identifying the signature of the Sanctioning Authority and recorded his statement. After completing the investigation he has laid the charge against the accused before Court.

18. PW2, the official witness, who accompanied the trap team, examined in this case was the Manager of the District Industries Office, Kasaragod and he deposed in support of the prosecution evidence in tune with the version of PW1 and PW7 as regards to preparation of pre-trap mahazar and post trap mahazar and nothing extracted during cross-examination to disbelieve his version.

19. PW3 examined was the then Block Development Officer, Manjeswar Block Panchayat, since 13-9-2001. On 15- 5-2003 and according to him, he had produced certain documents before the Vigilance Dy.S.P., Kasaragod. Those documents got marked Exts.P-3 and P-3(a). The Stage Certificate issued by the accused was also produced by him before the Dy.S.P., which was marked as Ext.P-7. As per Ext.P-7, the accused had recommended for giving Rs.9,500/- as first instalment amount to PW1. Another Stage Certificate which was marked as Ext.P-8 was issued by the accused to PW1 on 29-4-2003, in which it was recommended for passing an amount of Rs.7,500/-. The Cheque Issue Register of Indira Awaz Yojana Project for the year 2002-03 was also produced by him. The certified copy of the relevant pages were marked as Ext.P-9. The Housing Register for the year 2002- 03 was also produced by him and the attested copy was marked as Ext.P-10. A mahazar was prepared by the police for seizing those documents, which got marked as Ext.P-11. As per Indira Awaz Yojana, a beneficiary would get Rs.22,000/- for constructing a house. That was given from the Block Office in three instalments. The beneficiaries were elected by the Grama Sabha. That list had to be given to the Panchayat Board. After accepting it, subsequently that would be forwarded to the Block Development Office. Along with the application, the income certificate obtained from the Village Office and the Enquiry Report of the Village Extension Officer and the decision of the Panchayat Board and the Agreement of the applicant were also to be obtained. In Ext.P-3(a) Agreement, it was signed by the accused as a witness. There were two Village Extension Officers in the Perla Village. The accused was the Village Extension Officer of Perla Circle. Janu Naik was the Village Extension Officer of the Kattumukke Circle. The order of appointment of both these Village Extension Officers produced by the Block Development Officer got marked as Ext.P-12. According to him, the Village Extension Officers would have to produce the work report in daily diary in two times in one month before the Block Development Office. The daily diary of Perla Circle from February, 2002 to 7/9/2003 was produced and marked as Ext.P-13. The accused was working under him. After arresting the accused, the Dy.S.P., Vigilance informed the arrest of the accused to him. The key of the office was directed to be given to the Secretary of the Panchayat, since the other Village Extension Officer was on leave. It was deposed by PW3 that, the Vigilance Police had questioned and recorded his statement as part of investigation.

20. PW4 examined was the Village Extension Officer, Puthige. On 15-5-2003, he was in full additional charge of Perla Circle Village Extension Officer. On 27-5-2003, he has produced three documents to the Vigilance Police. The Attendance Register of Perla Circle Village Extension Office from October, 2002 was produced and marked as Ext.P-14. The Posting Order of the accused was also produced by him which already got marked as Ext.P-12. The Mahazar prepared for seizing the above documents was marked as Ext.P-15. As per Ext.P-13, the accused has took charge as Village Extension Officer, Perla Circle, on 19-2-2003.

21. PW9 examined was working as the Commissioner, Rural Development. He deposed that, on 20- 3-2004, she had issued the Sanction Order to prosecute Kesava, the accused in this case and Ext.P-19 sanction order tendered in evidence through her. The Commissioner, Rural Development, is the competent authority to remove the Village Extension Officer from the service. Before issuing the Sanction Order she had verified all the connected records and applied her mind.

22. Here, the prosecution sanction is not under challenge, rather the same has been proved by the prosecution to accept the same. On perusal of the evidence discussed, the prime witness to prove the necessary ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, is PW1, supported by the evidence of PW2, the decoy witness and PW7, the Dy.S.P., who laid the trap.

23. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, in fact, nothing extracted to disbelieve his version in the matter of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused for issuance of stage certificates for getting money under Indira Awaz Yojana, as stated by him. But, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the accused, during examination PW1 had a version that a written complaint was lodged by him before the Dy.S.P. on the date of registration of the FIR and the same was one prepared in the handwriting of PW5, who was the Panchayat Secretary. However, PW5 and PW7 categorically denied the said statement of PW1. This argument has been advanced by the learned senior counsel for the accused to contend that, the accused put up a specific case that he was implicated in this crime, since the Panchayat President and Secretary were in inimical terms with him as he did not obey their command to include their kith and kin in the list of beneficiaries under the scheme. Now, the question poses for consideration is, because of this version given by PW1 during his examination after seven years of recording his statement by the Police itself would take away his evidence as wholly unbelievable and unreliable, in a case where the bribe money was recovered from the possession of the accused soon after the trap in consonance with the consistent evidence of PW1 positing demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused/appellant. It is relevant to note that, after seven years of the occurrence, when PW1 was examined before the Court, for the first time, he had given evidence that he had lodged a written complaint regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused and the said version was emphatically denied by PW5 as well as PW7. Be it so, the version of PW1 is to be read as a mistake by loss of memory and in fact, if such a complaint was lodged raising the same allegations in Ext.P1, the prosecution would not suffer any harm in placing the same as part of prosecution records. In such a situation, this challenge by itself is held as insufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW1.

24. It is true that, on getting information from PW1, on the date of trap, the FIR was registered after one hour, without opting for a preliminary enquiry. The law is well settled that, preliminary enquiry may be opted by the Investigating Officer, once he found it is necessary to rule out possibility of false implication, merely acting on the oral version of the complainant. But, when the Investigating Officer felt that the statement regarding the alleged demand of bribe by a public servant is genuine to be acted upon, then preliminary enquiry is not mandatory. Therefore, non conduct of preliminary enquiry is not a reason to disbelieve the prosecution case, which in fact supported by the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 7 and other witnesses discussed in detail.

25. Regarding the animosity in between the accused as well as the Panchayat President and the Secretary (PW5) is concerned, during examination of PW5, he candidly denied the same. PW1 also denied any such animosity. It is interesting to note that, apart from putting such a defense, even no remote evidence forthcoming to find any animosity as alleged and thus the defense case found to be without support of any convincing evidence, rather than a version or stand taken by the accused.

26. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, the decoy witness did not witness the demand and acceptance of bribe and the same would affect the prosecution case, for want of proof of the said ingredients with the aid of the decoy witness. In fact, proof of the ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, are concerned, the law discussed in Neeraj Dutta’s case (supra) will hold the field and as per which, the evidence of the complainant alone, if reliable, is sufficient to act upon the same, even in cases if he would turn hostile to the prosecution. Therefore, this challenge also must fail.

27. Thus, on re-appreciation of evidence it could be seen that the prosecution successfully proved the ingredients to bring home the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, by the accused beyond reasonable doubt and none of the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the accused to hold otherwise found to be convincing or acceptable. Therefore, the finding of the learned Special Judge that the accused committed the above offences is only to be justified. In consequence thereof, the conviction entered into by the learned Special Judge is liable to sustain.

28. Coming to the sentence, I am of the view that some leniency in the matter of sentence can be considered, in the interest of justice.

29. Point Nos.3 and 4:- In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge is confirmed. In the interest of justice, the sentence imposed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, is modified as under:

                  i. he accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks, for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

                  ii. he accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks, for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

                  iii. he substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run separately, after the substantive sentence.

                  vi. The period of detention undergone by the accused in this case will be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

30. he order suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stands vacated, with direction to the accused to appear before the Special Court, forthwith, to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail.

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