1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused in C.C.No.52/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, assailing judgment dated 09.09.2016 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge.

3. Here, 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 'PC Act' for short) by the accused. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, being a public servant, while working as lineman Grade I, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section Office, Badiadka, Kasaragod district, had abused his position as public servant and committed criminal misconduct by demanding an amount of Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification from PW1 on 17.02.2007 at his house having No.BP VII/190 for providing electricity connection to his house and had accepted an amount of Rs.1,000/- on 22.02.2007 from PW1 as illegal gratification at the premises of PW1’s house after giving electricity connection to him and instructed PW1 to give Rs.200/- to the driver of the pick up van who brought the electrical posts to the site and PW1 gave that amount to the driver and later, the accused demanded the balance bribe amount of Rs.800/-from PW1 and directed to bring the amount at his office. Accordingly, at 10.00 am on 27.02.2007, the accused demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.800/- from PW1 as illegal gratification at K.S.E.B. Office, Badiadka and returned

4. The learned Special Judge framed charge for the above offences. PW1 to PW11 were examined, Exts.P1 to P23 and MO1 to MO6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

5. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Special Judge found that the appellant/accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as under:

                  “In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and he is convicted there under u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. He is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month for each of the offence punishable u/s 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Substantial portion of the sentence shall run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by accused is liable to be set off. Bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.”

6. The prime contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused is that, in this case, the prosecution alleges demand of bribe to the tune of Rs.2,000/- by the accused from PW1 on 17.02.2007, after providing electricity connection. The further allegation of the prosecution is that, out of the said amount, Rs.1,000/-was paid on 22.02.2007 to the accused by PW1 as illegal gratification at the premises of PW1's house. Thereafter, Rs.200/- was given to the driver of the pick up van by PW1. Thereafter, the accused instructed PW1 to arrange the balance amount of Rs.800/- and bring the same on 26.02.2007 at his office. Accordingly, at 10.00 am on 27.02.2007, as part of trap, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.800/- from PW1, and returned Rs.300/- to him. The further case of the prosecution is that, on receipt of the money, the accused moved towards the STD booth and put up the currency note therein, and the same was recovered by the Vigilance. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the accused, the amount, in fact, alleged to be paid by PW1 was meant for the wages of the employees engaged in the work and in such view of the matter, it is contended that it is not fair to hold that he had received any illegal gratification to find that he had committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act.

7. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, in the decision in Parappurath Damodaran v. State of Kerala, reported in 2016(3) KHC 495, this Court had occasion to consider a case where the allegation was receipt of Rs.750/- from PW1 therein by a lineman on contract basis in KSEB. In the said case, while appreciating the evidence, this Court, in paragraph Nos. 17 and 18, found that the amount paid by PW1 therein to the accused therein amounting to Rs.750/- was nothing but legal remuneration to which the aforsaid workers were entitled. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused, here also, the amount demanded and accepted was towards the legal remuneration and as such, the appellant/accused deserves acquittal.

8. Whereas the learned Special Public Prosecutor strongly supported the prosecution case, relying on the evidence of PW1, the complainant, PW3, PW4, PW10 as well as the other evidence and contended that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, as alleged by the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution succeeded in proving the ingredients for the offences and the verdict impugned would not require any interference.

9. Having appraised the rival contentions, the questions arise for consideration are:

                  1. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act?

                  2. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)

(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act?

                  3. Whether the verdict impugned would require any interference?

                  4. Order to be passed.

10. Point Nos.1 to 4 This case emerged when PW1 lodged Ext.P2 complaint before PW10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kasaragod, alleging demand of bribe by the accused, The crucial witness in this case is PW1 - the complainant. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW3 - the decoy witness, PW4 - the Assistant Engineer and PW10, apart from the evidence of PW2 and other witnesses, in support of the prosecution case. PW1 deposed that he was a coolie worker and he had submitted application in the year 2002 for getting electricity connection to his house situated at Vidyagiri Bappumoola. When the application was submitted, he was informed by the electricity office that electricity connection would be provided after some time. The accused had informed PW1 that the electricity connection was due to him and in order to provide the connection, Rs.2,000/- had to be paid to him. He had demanded the said amount and PW1 lodged the complaint before the vigilance. He did not remember the date on which the demand was made and told the accused that he would try to arrange the amount. Thereafter, he had obtained Rs.1500/- from his daughter and met the accused at the office. When the accused saw him, the accused asked whether he had brought the amount. PW1 replied that he had brought the amount. Thereafter, the accused told him that we would go to the site, and both of them had proceeded to the residence of PW1. When they reached the house of PW1, the posts for drawing the line had already been unloaded, and there were four or five persons present there. PW1 gave Rs.200/- to the driver of the vehicle as directed by the accused. The electricity connection was given to the house of PW1 by 4.00 p.m. on that day. When the accused was returning after providing the connection, he demanded the amount from PW1. PW1 gave Rs.1,000/- to him and told him that he would give the balance amount subsequently. However, he could not pay the balance amount, and when the accused insisted payment of the balance amount, PW1 lodged complaint before the Dy.S.P. V.A.C.B, Kasaragod. Ext.P2 FI statement was recorded, and he signed the same. He reached the V.A.C.B. Office on the next day at 8.00 a.m. The Dy.S.P. handed over to him the currency notes which had been entrusted by him. Ext.P5 mahazar was prepared at that time, and he had signed the same. The Dy.S.P. instructed him that, if the accused would accept the bribe, he should give signal by rubbing his nose with his dhothi. When PW1 reached the K.S.E.B. Office, the accused was not there. Therefore, he waited at the K.S.E.B. Office. While he was waiting for the accused at the staircase, the accused came and asked him whether he had brought the amount. He gave the amount to the accused. Then the accused returned Rs.300/- to him. He did not know the reason for returning Rs.300/- to him. Thereafter, PW1 gave the signal. After receiving the amount from PW1, the accused went to the S.T.D. booth situated near the K.S.E.B. Office. Subsequently, the Vigilance officials and the witnesses came near the accused. The Dy.S.P. asked PW1 whether he had handed over the money to the accused. He replied that he had handed over the money to the accused. He handed over Rs.300/- to the Dy.S.P. which had been returned to him by the accused. He knew that the police had seized the remaining currency notes that had been handed over by him to the accused from the STD booth. Ext.P1, the file containing the application given by him for obtaining an electricity connection and Ext.P1(a), the application given by him for obtaining an electricity connection, Ext.P1(b), the ownership certificate regarding the house of PW1, and Ext.P1(c), the agreement executed by him with the Electricity Board for getting an electricity connection were tendered in evidence through PW1.

11. PW1 was subjected to searching cross-examination. Then he testified that when he had submitted application for getting electricity connection, the Engineer had told him that he would get the connection according to the priority and the Assistant Engineer had told him that he would be informed when his turn for getting the electricity connection became due. He did not remember whether the Assistant Engineer had told him that he had to bear the expenses of transporting the posts for drawing the electricity line and erecting those posts. Nobody had told him that the consumer had to transport the electricity posts to the site. PW1 reiterated that the accused had demanded Rs.2,000/-on 17.02.2007. He did not remember whether the electricity connection had been obtained by him on 17.02.2007. He had not made any enquiry with any officer of the K.S.E.B. Office regarding the demand for Rs.2,000/- for providing the electricity connection. He further deposed that before proceeding from the K.S.E.B. Office to his house on a motorcycle, the accused had not asked him whether he had money with him. The connection was given after the line had been drawn, and the workers had worked from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. for providing the electricity connection. He did not remember whether the Engineer was present at the site when the electricity connection was given. He further stated that food was provided to the workers from his house. The accused had not asked him to pay the wages of the workers. He denied the suggestion that he had given Rs.1,000/- as the wages to the workers.

12. During further cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the statement contained in the complaint, to the effect that the accused had directed him to bring the balance amount of Rs.800/- to the office on 26.02.2007, was correct. He further stated that, when he went to the office on that day, the accused was not there. He denied the suggestion that the accused had directed him to hand over the balance amount of Rs.800/-, which was to be paid as wages to the workers, at the office. He further deposed that he had handed over Rs.800/- to the accused at the bottom of the staircase and that the accused had returned Rs.300/- to him. He denied the suggestion that the accused had told him that the balance amount of Rs.500/-, which was to be paid as wages to the workers, should be entrusted to the S.T.D. booth near the office and that the workers would collect the amount from the S.T.D. booth. PW1 further deposed that he had entered the Office after the police party arrived. He had not seen the Engineer or any other staff member at the K.S.E.B. Office at that time. Sudhakaran was his neighbour. He was engaged in cutting laterite and granite using a cutter. He did not know whether the accused had warned Sudhakaran against cutting granite and laterite stones using a cutter by illegally getting electricity connection. Sudhakaran had accompanied him to the Vigilance Office when he went there to lodge the complaint. PW1 further stated that electricity connection was provided to him before 22.02.2007. PW1 had given evidence further that, on the first day when he went to the Vigilance Office, Sudhakaran had accompanied him. When Rs.800/-was handed over to the accused, he and the accused had been standing at the bottom of the staircase. He had not entered the K.S.E.B. Office on 26.02.2007. He had gone to the K.S.E.B. Office on the next day.

13. PW3 deposed that, while he was working as Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kasaragod, he had reported before the Dy.S.P., V.A.C.B., Kasaragod, as directed by T.V. Gangadharan, Deputy Collector (General). Addl. Tahsildar Divakara had also accompanied him to the V.A.C.B. Office. When they reached the office of the Dy.S.P., PW1 was there. The Dy.S.P. introduced PW1 to them and informed them about the complaint given by PW1. A demonstration of the phenolphthalein test was conducted using a currency note of Rs.10/- denomination . A sample of the solution used in the demonstration was collected in a bottle, which was sealed and labelled. Thereafter, PW1 handed over one Rs.500/- currency note and three Rs.100/-currency notes to the Dy.S.P. The Dy.S.P. marked those currency notes with the letters “VP”. PW3 noted down the numbers of those currency notes, which were marked as MO1 series. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those currency notes, and they were handed over to PW1. Ext.P3 mahazar was prepared recording all these facts, and he had signed the same. The Vigilance party reached near the K.S.E.B. Office at 4.45 p.m. The Dy.S.P. sent PW1 to the K.S.E.B. Office. He returned and stated that the accused was not seen in the office. All of them returned to the V.A.C.B. Office. The MO1 series currency notes were taken into custody by the Dy.S.P. under Ext.P4 mahazar. All of them reported before the Dy.S.P. at 8.00 a.m. on the next day. The Dy.S.P. handed over the MO1 series currency notes to PW1 after preparing Ext.P5 mahazar. The Dy.S.P. instructed PW1 to hand over the MO1 series currency notes only if the accused would demand the same and to give signal if the accused would accept the same. All of them reached near the K.S.E.B. Office at 9.45 a.m. PW1 was sent to the K.S.E.B. Office after being instructed to give a signal by rubbing his nose with his dhothi if the accused would receive MO1 series. The signal was received at 10.15 a.m. All of them went to the K.S.E.B. Office, which was situated on the first floor of the building. PW1 was seen there when they reached the office. He stated that he had given the amount to the accused and that the accused had returned Rs.300/- to him and had gone to the S.T.D. booth situated near the office. They saw the accused near the staircase, and PW1 identified him as the person who had received the amount from him. The accused went inside the office and sat on a chair. The Dy.S.P. went near him and disclosed his identity. The accused became perplexed. The Dy.S.P. asked the accused whether he had accepted any amount from PW1, who was standing nearby. The accused stated that he had accepted the amount and had returned the same to PW1. The Dy.S.P. thus understood that the accused had accepted Rs.800/- from PW1 and had returned Rs.300/- to him. A body search of the Dy.S.P. and the independent witnesses was conducted to satisfy the accused that they were not carrying any cash. Thereafter, the fingers of the Dy.S.P. and the independent witnesses were dipped in a solution. There was no change in the colour of the solution. A sample of the said solution was taken in a bottle, which was sealed and labelled, and the bottle got marked as MO2. Thereafter, the fingers of the accused were dipped in the solution taken in a tumbler. The solution turned pink. A sample of that solution was taken in a bottle. The bottle was sealed and labelled, and it was marked as MO3. The Dy.S.P. arrested the accused after preparing arrest memo. Even though body search of the accused was conducted, no currency notes were seized from him. The solution was sprinkled over the pockets of the shirt and pants worn by the accused. The portion of the shirt pocket where the solution was sprinkled turned pink, and the portion of the pant pocket where the solution was sprinkled also turned pink. Since no currency notes were seized from the body of the accused, the Dy.S.P. took the accused to the S.T.D. booth situated near the K.S.E.B. Office building. A woman was present in the S.T.D. booth. The Dy.S.P. asked her whether the accused had come there. She stated that the accused had come there, had placed certain Rs.500/-currency notes in the cabin of the S.T.D. booth, and had told her to keep those currency notes there for the time being before leaving the booth. Five Rs.500/- currency notes were found in the cabin of the S.T.D. booth, on the table kept therein. As per the direction of the Dy.S.P., sodium carbonate solution was sprinkled over the currency notes found on the table of the S.T.D. booth. One of the currency notes turned completely pink, and it was found to be the currency note that had been handed over to PW1. The currency notes were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, and the solution turned pink. A sample of the solution was taken in a bottle, which was sealed and labelled and marked as MO4. The remaining four currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination found on the table of the S.T.D. booth were marked as MO5 series. Those currency notes were seized by the Dy.S.P. The currency notes that had been returned to PW1 by the accused were also seized by the Dy.S.P. The shirt worn by the accused was also seized by the Dy.S.P., and it was marked as MO6. He identified the person arrested by the Dy.S.P. on that day was the person who was standing as the accused in the case. A mahazar was prepared recording the facts that had occurred at the K.S.E.B. Office. As per the direction of the Dy.S.P., PW3 and Divakara went to search the house of the accused. Ext.P7 was the search list prepared after the search of the house of the accused. Thereafter, the Vigilance party, along with the accused, returned to the V.A.C.B. Office.

14. During cross-examination, he stated that, on both days, the currency notes were entrusted to PW1 by placing them in a cover. He did not know what had happened in the K.S.E.B. Office. He had not seen the signal given by the complainant. The front portion of the K.S.E.B. Office faced west. The staircase to the K.S.E.B. Office was on the southern side. After receiving the signal, they climbed the staircase on the southern side to reach the K.S.E.B. Office. Members of the Vigilance party also stood near the staircase. He did not know whether the complainant had entered the K.S.E.B. Office through the staircase on the southern side. PW3 stood at a distance of 10 feet from the staircase on the southern side. When he reached the southern side of the building, he saw the accused climbing the staircase on the southern side. There were several persons standing on the steps of the staircase and at the bottom of the staircase, who were not involved in the case. A person standing at a distance of 10 feet from the staircase could not see the signal given from the first floor of the building. The Dy.S.P. had received the signal about 15 minutes after PW1 had left. He could not say from memory on which side of the building the S.T.D. booth was situated. The K.S.E.B. Office was situated near the staircase. He did not remember whether there was door to enter the K.S.E.B. Office opposite the staircase. He saw the complainant on the trap day from the K.S.E.B. Office, and when he saw the accused after reaching the upper floor, the accused was inside the room near the staircase. There were persons who had come to the K.S.E.B. Office for payment of bills, and the staff of the K.S.E.B. Office were near the accused at that time. He did not remember whether PW1 had given the amount to the accused and whether the accused had returned Rs.300/- to PW1 from inside the K.S.E.B. Office, or from the veranda, or from the bottom of the staircase. He denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence by stating that the accused was seen in a perplexed condition. In fact, noting elicited during cross-examination of PW3 to disbelieve his evidence as regards to the pre as well as post trap proceedings.

15. PW10 examined in this case is the Dy.S.P., who led the trap. He deposed about recording of Ext.P2 statement of PW1 and registration of this crime. He also deposed in detail regarding the pre as well as the post trap proceedings including the arrest of the accused. He also deposed about recovery of MO1 series from the S.T.D. booth in similar terms, as deposed by PW3, the decoy witness. PW11, the Inspector, VACB, who had participated in the trap proceedings also deposed in tune with the versions of PW3 and PW10.

16. PW4 in this case deposed that he had worked as Assistant Engineer at the K.S.E.B. Office, Badiadka, from 24.09.2007 onwards. There were Sub Engineers, two Overseers, 11 Linemen, four workers, one Senior Assistant, one Cashier and one Sweeper working in that office. The accused was working as Grade I Lineman in the office. He was arrested on 27.02.2007 at 10.45 a.m. The accused was suspended from service on the same day. PW4 was not present in the office at the time of the arrest, as he had gone to attend the conference of the Deputy Chief Engineer. On 06.03.2007, he had produced certain documents before the Vigilance official, and Ext.P8 was the mahazar prepared at the time of production of those documents. He had produced the service book of the accused, and the same was taken back by him after executing Ext.P8 receipt. Ext.P9 was the attendance register of the office for the year 2007, which he had produced. There was an entry on page 5 of Ext.P9 showing that the accused had signed the attendance register, and the said entry was marked as Ext.P9(a). On page 6 of Ext.P9, there were entries regarding the electrical workers who had attended the office on 22.02.2007, and the said entry was marked as Ext.P9(b). Ext.P1 was the file produced by him. Ext.P10 was the service connection application register produced by him to the the Vigilance official. Ext.P11 was the office order register produced by him as per Ext.P8 mahazar. Ext.P12 was the SOP 27 service connection register produced by him as per Ext.P8 mahazar. On 23.04.2007, he had produced two documents before the Vigilance official. Ext.P13 was the mahazar prepared at that time. Ext.P14 was the copy of pages 10 and 11 of the O.H. priority register, which had been produced by him under Ext.P13 mahazar. Ext.P15 was the copy of page 95 of the service connection effecting register that had been produced by him as per Ext.P13 mahazar. Gopalakrishna Bhat and Anil Kumar, who were working in the Division Office, had produced documents to the the Vigilance official on 26.05.2007. Ext.P16 was the mahazar prepared at that time. The signature seen in Ext.P16 was that of Gopalakrishna Bhat who passed away. He did not know whether Anil Kumar was alive or not. Ext.P17 was the proceedings of the Chief Engineer dated 03.06.2005, which had been produced by them as per Ext.P16 mahazar. The said proceedings were issued in connection with the promotion of the accused as Grade I Lineman. There was entry on page 2 of Ext.P17, showing that the accused had been promoted as Grade I Lineman, which was marked as Ext.P17(a). Ext.P18 was the joining report prepared when the accused joined as Grade I Lineman at the Badiadka K.S.E.B. Office on 10.06.2005, which had been produced as per Ext.P16 mahazar. There were feeders in his section. Each feeder was under the charge of one Sub Engineer. Linemen worked under each Sub Engineer in the feeder under his control. The accused was working under Sub Engineer Babukuttan. The area where he was working includes Vidyagiri, and that was revealed from the entry on page 70 of Ext.P11, which was marked as Ext.P11(a). The work of the Lineman includes LT line maintenance, disconnection and providing domestic service connections under the supervision of the Overseer. According to him, for getting domestic connection, a booklet containing the application form had to be obtained from the K.S.E.B. Office by remitting Rs.25/- as fees. The wiring had to be carried out by an approved wireman. The completion report regarding the wiring, along with the ownership certificate, had to be submitted along with the application after remitting Rs.50/- as fees. The application was then entered in the service connection application register. After receiving the application, estimate had to be prepared by the Sub Engineer or Overseer within seven days. They would prepare the estimate after visiting the house and verifying the wiring carried out in the house and would submit the report to the Assistant Engineer. The Assistant Engineer would verify the same and issued an order to deposit the caution deposit based on the connected load. After remitting the caution deposit, entry would be made in the priority register, and the connection would be given according to the priority. Ext.P1 file revealed that PW1 had remitted Rs.25/- and had submitted the application along with the ownership certificate. There was entry on page 21 of Ext.P1 file showing that the application along with the receipt for payment of Rs.50/- had been received by his office on 24.01.2003, which was marked as Ext.P1(a). Page 19 of Ext.P1 revealed that the application had been entrusted to Sub Engineer Rajagopal Naik for preparing the estimate, and the said entry was marked as Ext.P1(d). Page 18 of Ext.P1 revealed that estimate for Rs.14,399/- had been prepared, and the same was marked as Ext.P1(e). The estimate was prepared under the normal O.H. priority for providing the connection after erecting four posts. The labour charge in the estimate was Rs.1,500/-. Sanction was given on 27.02.2003. On page 84 of Ext.P10, the name of PW1 and the details were recorded, which was marked as Ext.P10(a). There was also an entry showing that PW1 had remitted Rs.100/- as caution deposit on 27.06.2003. The consumer number given to PW1 was 9253. The same can be seen on page 42 of Ext.P12, which was marked as Ext.P12(a). Electricity connection was given to PW1 when the normal O.H. priority connections up to 31.12.2005 were being effected. Sub Engineer Babukuttan and the lineman working under him were entrusted with the work of providing the connection. The meter was issued by the Sub Engineer on 14.02.2007 and was received by the accused on 15.02.2007. After issuance of the meter, the lineman had to go to the spot along with the workers of the department to erect the posts and provide the connection as per the direction of the Overseer. Once the caution deposit had been remitted, the Board had to provide the connection at its own expense. Nobody was entitled to receive any other amount from PW1. After remitting the caution deposit, only the bill amount had to be remitted by PW1. The rent of the meter also would be included in the bill.

17. The Chief Engineer Human Resources Management, K.S.E.B. Thiruvananthapuram, was examined as PW5 to prove the prosecution sanction. He testified that he had issued the prosecution sanction order to prosecute the accused who was working as lineman Grade I, Electrical Section office, Badiadka. Ext.P19 was the order issued by him bearing his signature. He had issued that order after verifying the case records and getting convinced that the accused was liable to be prosecuted. He was a competent authority to remove the accused from the service at the time of issuance of Ext.P19 order. The prosecution sanction is not under challenge.

18. PW6 deposed that while working as Inspector, VACB, Kasaragod, he had questioned PW5, who had issued the prosecution sanction order, and recorded his statement. PW7 deposed that, while he was working as the Village Officer, Neerchal, he had been holding the additional charge of Village Officer, Badiadka, from 07.06.2007 onwards. He had prepared the site plan of the K.S.E.B. Office, Badiadka, at the request of the VACB officials. Ext.P20 was the site plan prepared by him, and it bore his signature.

19. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 7 r/w Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) 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.”

20. 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, 1988 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 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.”

21. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C Act, 1988 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.

22. 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.”

23. 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.”

24. Going through the prosecution evidence discussed in detail, it could be seen that the accused worked as a Lineman Grade I, KSEB, Electrical Section Office, Badiadka, during the period of occurrence. The evidence of PW1 would categorically show that the accused had demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe for providing electricity connection and he had accepted Rs.1,000/- out of the same on 22.02.2007. Out of the remaining amount, Rs.200/- was given to the driver of the pick up van and thereafter, Rs.800/-was paid at 10 am on the date of trap, i.e., on 27.02.2007, out of which Rs.300/- was returned to PW1. On getting the money, the accused moved towards the STD booth and put up the currency note therein and the same was recovered among other notes put up by the accused in the STD booth.

25. In this case, though the case of the accused is that he did not accept any bribe amount, he has two versions. The first version is that he did not accept Rs.500/-and no money was recovered from him, since the recovery of the bribe money was from the STD booth. However, the positive Phenolphthalein test, as deposed by the independent witness as well as the Investigating Officer, would show that the accused had demanded and accepted the money, as deposed by PW1, and he himself had placed the same in the STD booth. The second contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused is that the money was accepted towards labour charges for providing electricity connection. However, this contention could not be accepted, as PW4, the then Assistant Engineer, KSEB, categorically deposed that, for getting domestic connection, PW1 had remitted the caution deposit, and the lineman, the accused herein, who was entrusted with the work of providing electricity connection, was not entitled to receive any other amount from the consumer, herein, PW1. Thus, it is well proved that the amount demanded and accepted by the accused, earlier and on the date of trap, was the amount demanded by him as illegal gratification. Therefore, the evidence of PW1, supported by the evidence of other witnesses discussed in detail, categorically establishes that the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act. In such a case, the learned Special Judge rightly found so.

26. Reading the decision of this Court in Parappurath Damodaran’s case (supra), the facts of the said case are totally different from the facts dealt with herein. Therein, the evidence extracted during trial was to the effect that the accused therein, a lineman on contract basis in KSEB, was permitted to collect an amount of Rs.750/-, and thus this Court found that the same was nothing, but legal remuneration. On the facts of the said case, the finding is correct. However, the ratio in the decision in Parappurath Damodaran’s case (supra) has no application in the instant case, where the accused was not permitted to collect any amount from PW1 to provide electricity connection. Therefore, the ratio therein cannot be applied in this case.

27. To sum up, it is held that the conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge does not require any interference. Coming to the sentence, in the instant case, the learned Special Judge ordered rigorous imprisonment for two years each and payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act. Apart from that, the learned Special Judge ordered rigorous imprisonment for one month each in default of payment of fine. In the interest of justice, I am inclined to modify the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

28. In the result, this criminal appeal stands allowed in part. Conviction imposed by the Special Judge is confirmed. The sentence imposed by the Special Judge is modified. Consequently, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act, while confirming the default imprisonment as such.

29. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently, and the default sentence shall run separately.

30. The order suspending the sentence and granting bail to the accused shall stand vacated and the bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled. Accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court to undergo the modified sentence forthwith, failing which, the Special Court shall execute the modified sentence without fail.

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