1. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor has filed this appeal challenging the judgment in C.C.No.13/2009 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, whereby the respondent herein, the sole accused, was acquitted by the Special Court.

2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State and the learned Senior counsel Sri B.Raman Pillai appearing for the Respondent/accused. Perused the verdict under challenge and the evidence available.

3. The prosecution case is that at about 2 p.m on 18.12.2008 the accused, who had been working as Assistant Manager, Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation (`KCSC' for short), Taluk Depot, Chalakudy, as a public servant demanded and accepted Rs.4,000/- as illegal gratification from PW1 for issuance of cheques for the value of commodities supplied by him at various outlets of KCSC. Thus the respondent/accused alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act' for short hereafter).

4. The learned Special Judge recorded evidence and during trial, PW1 to PW12 were examined, Exts.P1 to P22 and M.O1 to M.O6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of defence, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked.

5. On analysis of the evidence, the learned Special Judge found that the accused, when demanded display charges from PW1, PW1 had taken advantage of the situation and handed over Rs.4,000/- to the accused on that count, and on this premise, PW1 cooked up a case to trap the accused on the guise of demand and acceptance of Rs.4,000/- as bribe, though the amount was paid as display charges which was permitted by the district KCSC. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge found that the appellant/accused was not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and thus, he was acquitted. The said verdict is under challenge in this appeal.

6. The main grounds urged to unsustain the verdict impugned could be found from grounds C, D, E and F in the grounds of appeal, which read as under:

                  “C) It is respectfully submitted that, prosecution could prove the factum of 'demand’ of illegal gratification through the oral evidence of PW1, and also through Exhibit P1 FIS and P2 Pre Trap Mahazar. Though, the Special Court categorically found that the prosecution has proved demand of illegal gratification on the side of the respondent/accused, discarded the same for reasons best known to it.

                  D) It is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent/ accused by adducing cogent, coherent and convincing evidence. The oral evidence consisting of PW1 the defacto complainant, PW2 the gazetted officer and PW11, the trap laying officer, so also Exhibit P1 FIS, Exhibit P2 Pre trap Mahazar, Exhibit P10 Recovery Mahazar together with the positive result of phenolphthalein test on the right hand of the respondent/accused. However, the Special Court failed to rely on the sterling quality evidence adduced by the prosecution on flimsy grounds.

                  E) It is respectfully submitted that, the Special Court found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent/accused. In that case no option is before the Special Court but to draw presumption under section 20 of the PC Act 1988, in which the Special Court failed for reasons not stated or explained, especially when the respondent/accused miserably failed to rebut the said presumption.

                  F) It is respectfully submitted that, the Special Court has vehemently and vigorously relied on the evidence of DW1 who was the Marketing Manager of Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation and Exhibit D6 furnished by DW1. It is pertinent to note that, Exhibit D6 is the letter issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of Civil Supplies Corporation, showing that display charge can be collected for goods supplied by branded companies. It is not in dispute that, PW1 is not a supplier of branded goods, he was supplying vegetables, which cannot be considered as a branded good. Though DW1 categorically stated that vegetables are not included in the branded items as stipulated in Exhibit P6, the Special Court turned a blind eye towards the evidence of DW1. PW4 a Senior Clerk working in Civil Supplies Corporation deposed before the Court in tune with Exhibit D6 and the oral evidence of DW1, the Special Court paid no attention towards the same.”

7. The learned Public Prosecutor reiterated the above grounds and argued that the ratio of Neeraj Dutta(Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi) v. State of Kerala [2022 7 KHC 647 : SCC OnLine SC 1724], rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, if applied to the facts of this case, the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe, as alleged by the prosecution, could be found and the view taken by the learned Special Judge in the negative would not sustain. Accordingly, the verdict impugned would require interference to record conviction.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor also placed decision of the Apex Court reported in [2024 KHC 6658 : 2024(7) KHC SN 17 : 2024 KHC OnLine 6658 : 2024 INSC 928 : 2024 KLT OnLine 2850 : 2025 CriLJ 385 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3469 : AIROnLine 2024 SC 800], State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha, where the Apex Court held that the two basic facts viz., 'demand' and 'acceptance' of gratification have been proved, the presumption under S.20 can be invoked to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under S.7 of the Act. However, such presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the same. In the present case, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, in respect of the 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the bribe amount from the complainant and recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the respondent. The said operation is preceded by recording of the demand in the tape recorder. In such circumstances, the respondent has to rebut the presumption by disproving the case of the prosecution either in the cross-examination of the prosecution side witnesses or by adducing material evidence that the receipt of Rs.2,000/- was not a bribe amount, but a legal fee or repayment of loan. However, he failed to do so and on the contrary, we find the prosecution to have proved the case beyond any doubt. We are conscious of the fact that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible and the Court below has acquitted the accused, the appellate Court would not be justified in setting aside the acquittal merely because the other view is also possible. In the present case, the recovery of bribe amount from the respondent having been proved, the explanation offered by the respondent in the absence of any concrete material, is clearly of the wall. Once the aspects of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the bribe amount having been established beyond doubt, in our opinion, no two views are possible in the matter, and thus the approach adopted by the High Court is perverse and liable to be interfered with.

9. Similarly another 3 Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in [2021 KHC 6046 : 2021 KHC OnLine 6046 : AIR 2021 SC 718 : 2021 (2) SCC 735 : 2021 CriLJ 1652 : 2021(1) KLT OnLine 1126], State of Gujarat v. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave, also placed to contend that the first appellate court was required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the trial court while acquitting the accused and failure to re-appreciate the evidence on record would affect the case of either the prosecution or the accused.

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused placed the decision reported in [2024 KHC 6354 : 2024 KHC OnLine 6354 : 2024 INSC 503 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 468 : 2024 KLT OnLine 1876 : 2024 CriLJ 3102 : AIROnLine 2024 SC 452 : AIR 2024 SC 3356 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1689 : 2024 (10) SCC 489], Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P with reference to paragraphs 18, 29, 30, 31, 54-56 to contend that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to prove the demand of illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance, by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Reiterating the legal position, the learned Senior Counsel also placed decision of the Apex Court reported in [2025 KHC 6895 : 2025 INSC 1263 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3241 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291 : AIR 2025 SC 5313 : AIROnLine 2025 SC 1025], Somaraju P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The following decisions also were placed by the learned Senior Counsel for reference of this Court:

                  (i) [2000 KHC 1785 : AIR 2000 SC 3377 : 2000 (5) SCC 21 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 878 : 2000 CriLJ 2273], Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra;

                  (ii) [2022 KHC 6211 : 2022 (1) KLD 546 : 2022 KHC OnLine 6211 : 2022 (4) SCALE 1 : AIR 2022 SC 1134 : 2022(1) KLT OnLine 1089 : 2022 CriLJ 1238 : 2022(4) SCC 574 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 213 : 2022 (2) SCC (Cri) 193], Shanthamma K. v. State of Telangana and

                  (iii) [2006 KHC 42 : 2006 (1) SCC 401 : AIR 2006 SC 836 : JT 2006(1) SC 101 : 2006(1) SCC (Cri) 401 : 2006 CriLJ 804 : 2006 (38) AIC 114 (SC) : 2006 (101 Cut LT516 : MANU/SC/8010/2006], T.Subramanian v. State of T.N.

11. In this case, repelling the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Senior Counsel for the accused submitted that, in the instant case, even if the evidence of PW1 that the accused accepted Rs.4,000/- at 2.55 p.m on 18.12.2008 is accepted, the documents produced as Exts.D3 to D5 would show that there was payment of Rs.1,000/- towards display charges by PW1 and others to the Civil Supplies Corporation. Further, Ext.D6 issued by the KCSC also would show that there was practice of collecting display charges from suppliers of FMCG to meet expenses of Civil Supplies Corporation. Therefore, the learned Special Judge is right in holding that Rs.4,000/-alleged to be paid as bribe by the prosecution supported by the evidence of PW1 was the amount paid towards display charges and therefore the foundation of the trap itself is not truthful. According to the learned Senior Counsel, PW1 deposed to the effect that the money handed over to him by the Dy.S.P was accepted by the accused by using his right hand, counted and verified the same and put it into his shirt's pocket. But PW1 had denied his previous statement stating that he did not count the same. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/accused, PW1 cannot be believed in the above context and for other reasons, since PW2, who is the Investigating Officer, also denied having given such a statement. In view of the rival submissions, the following points arise for consideration:

                  (i) Whether the Special Court is right in holding that the accused/respondent did not commit the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act?

                  (ii) Whether the Special Court went wrong in holding that the accused/respondent did not commit the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act?

                  (iii) Is it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment in any manner?

                  (iv) The order to be passed?

Point Nos.(i) to (iv)

12. Here the prosecution case would show two sets of allegations. The first allegation is that the accused demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- from PW1 at about 4.00 p.m on 15.12.2008 to issue cheque for the value of the commodities supplied by PW1 at various retail outlets at Chalakudy Taluk. The second one is regarding payment and acceptance of Rs.4,000/- on 18.12.2008. The crucial evidence witness in this case is PW1. PW1 deposed that during the period of occurrence he had been residing at Alapat. According to him, he was engaged in supply of vegetables to KCSC outlets and other shops during 2018. He used to supply vegetables to Iringalakuda, Ottanalloor, Ashtamichira under the KCSC, Chalakkudi and he had obtained approval from Depot Managing Committee (DMC) in this regard. According to him, he used to supply vegetables on Monday and Thursday. According to him, during the relevant period, the respondent/accused, by name Junaid, was the Assistant Manager of Chalakudy Civil Supplies Depot. Usually cheques for the goods supplied would be issued within 2, 3-5 days. When a question was put to him regarding any hazards to get it encashed, PW1 replied that the accused used to demand money for the same and he(PW1) used to give the same and the amount so demanded was bribe. According to him, at about 4 p.m on 15.12.2008 when he had reached the office to collect his cheque, the accused demanded Rs.2,000/- to hand over the cheque. In order to ensure receipt of the cheque, he had paid the amount as Junaid said that if he would not pay the amount, there would be difficulty in getting the cheque and thereby he obtained the cheque on payment of Rs.2,000/-. According to him, at that time, he had to get the remaining cheque for the vegetables supplied. Thereafter on 17.12.2008, he had reached the office at 2 p.m and met the accused to get the said cheque, then Junaid demanded Rs.4,000/- and he agreed to pay the same on the next day. His version further is that since he was not amenable to pay the amount demanded as bribe, he had reached the Vigilance Office and made a complaint. According to him, he made the complaint, as he could not run the business otherwise, as he had used money borrowed for interest to do the business. He testified further that he had lodged complaint on 18.12.2008 and he admitted Ext.P1 as the complaint so lodged and his signature therein. He testified that his complaint was recorded and read over to him and he had signed thereafter. According to him, when he lodged the complaint, the Dy.S.P and C.I were present therein. Thereafter, two gazetted officers were called and the gazetted officers enquired about the complaint and he had given answer in the affirmative. He deposed about the conduct of phenolphthalein test using Sodium Carbonate solution. Thereafter, the Dy.S.P obtained 4 numbers of Rs.1,000/- notes and noted serial numbers of the same and he put tick marks on the water mark portion by using a blue pen. Though he did not mention who had smeared phenolphthalein on the said note, specifically he stated that somebody sitting there smeared phenolphthalein and thereafter the Dy.S.P had given direction to hand over the currency notes when the accused would demand the same and to call the Dy.S.P thereafter. He also deposed that he had put his signature in the pre-trap mahazar prepared at the Vigilance office and it was tendered in evidence as Ext.P2. He deposed that the numbers of currency notes were stated in Ext.P2. According to him, after preparation of the mahazar, they started from the vigilance office at 1.30 p.m in two vehicles and reached at about 2.45-2.50 hours in front of the depot office situated close to the railway station in Chalakudy. Then he was dropped 200 meters away from the office. Thereafter he reached the office and he entered into the office, and the accused was available inside his cabin. Then he had demanded the cheque from the accused. Thereafter he had handed over Rs.4,000/- to the accused from his pocket and he identified the 4 notes so given to the accused as the same got marked as M.O1 series. He deposed further that the accused accepted the same by his right hand and put it into his left pocket. On receipt of M.O1 series, the accused agreed to give the cheque and soon he came outside and called the Dy.S.P stating that he had given the money to the accused at 2.55 p.m while standing at a distance of 50 meters away from the office. Then the Dy.S.P, policemen and gazetted officers reached therein and he showed them the accused inside the cabin. He agreed that the name of his concern is “Rainbow vegetables”. As directed, he had produced 4 receipt books and he identified the same as Ext.P3 series, 4 in numbers, and according to him from there all papers were not signed. During further cross examination, he stated that the terms for supply of vegetables were accepted by the DMC and the accused was also a member of the DMC. Regarding the evidence given by PW1 that while accepting money by the accused he called in the mobile phone of the Dy.S.P, PW1 deposed that he disclosed the same for the first time before the court and the same would be available in Ext.P2 mahazar. During further cross examination, PW1 deposed that he had engaged in supply of vegetables to various shops in Chalakudy depot before 6 years of the date of occurrence and he used to supply onion, garlic, potato, small onion etc. During the relevant period accused was the manager and before his joining 3 to 4 Managers had worked there. He had emphatically denied the suggestion that Rs.4,000/- recovered from the accused was obtained by him towards display charge.

13. The learned Senior Counsel for the accused submitted that, during chief examination, PW1 did not speak anything regarding the demand of Rs.4,000/- by the accused at 2.55 p.m on 18.12.2008. But during cross examination in page No.13, PW1 deposed that when he had reached the office of the accused, the accused asked as to whether the amount was brought, he answered in the affirmative that and entrusted the money to the accused.

14. Apart from the evidence of PW1, the prosecution had examined other witnesses. PW2, examined in this case is the gazetted officer who accompanied the trap team.

15. The Dy.S.P, who laid trap was examined as PW11. According to him, while he was working as Dy.S.P, VACB, Thrissur, on 08.12.2008, PW1 approached him and made a complaint stating that Sri Junaid, the Assistant Manager, Civil Supplies Corporation, Chalakkudy Depot had demanded Rs.4,000/- as bribe at 2 p.m on 17.12.2008 for encashing the cheque for the goods supplied to him. PW11 recorded the statement of PW1 and identified the same as Ext.P1. Thereafter, he had conducted a pre-registration confidential enquiry through PC 4901 and on finding truth in the allegation, he had registered Crime No.VC 10/2008 under Section 7 of the PC Act and the said FIR got marked as Ext.P20. Thereafter, he deposed about securing the presence of two gazetted officers to complete the trial proceedings and preparation of pre-trap mahazar while entrusting Rs.4,000/- to the Dy.S.P for the purpose of arranging trap. He identified the pre-trap mahazar as Ext.P2. He deposed about the demonstration of phenolphthalein test by using Sodium carbonate solution and its pink colour change. He deposed further that he had put initials on M.O1series notes (Rs.4,000/-) and put the same on the pocket of PW1, after smearing Phenolphthalein powder, to be given to the accused once he demanded the same. Then the party started towards the office of the accused and reached near the over bridge at Chalakkudy Railway station and at 2.30 p.m, PW1 had been sent to the office. At 2.55 p.m, PW11 had received a call on his official mobile phone from the mobile phone of PW1, informing him of the acceptance of bribe by the accused. When they reached the office, PW1 informed him that the accused demanded and accepted Rs.4,000/- and put the same on the left pocket of his shirt. He deposed about the presence of Jayadev and other staff apart from the trap team at the office of the accused. His version further is that when the accused saw the vigilance team, he became perplexed and stated that he had accepted the money and put the same into his pocket. Thereafter, when the hands of the trap team members and PW11 were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution, the solution did not show any colour change and M.O2 was identified as the said solution. PW11 identified the signature therein. Thereafter, the right hand of the accused was dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution and the same showed colour change and the said solution was identified as M.O3 after identifying the signature of PW11 therein and the gazetted officers. Thereafter, Smt. Anitha, a Gazetted Officer, examined the left pocket of the shirt worn by the accused, as instructed by PW11, and found M.O.1 series, therein, viz., four currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/-each. It was noticed that the said notes were the very same notes entrusted to PW1, which would bear his initials. The said fact was also recorded in the recovery mahazar. Thereafter the notes were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution then the same also showed pink colour change and the said solution got identified as M.O4. Again when another solution of Sodium Carbonate solution sample was taken and the hands of Smt.Anitha were dipped therein, then also the solution showed pink colour change and the said solution got identified as M.O5. Thereafter, the other Gazetted Officer, Cicily, was asked to pour sodium carbonate solution over the left pocket of the shirt worn by the accused and the table. The pocket as well as the portion of the table over which the solution was poured also showed a pink colour change and the said solution identified as M.O6. Thereafter, after providing another shirt for the accused to wear, the shirt worn by him was also taken into custody. Then the accused was arrested by preparing Ext.P11 arrest memo and he also deposed about recovery of Rs.4,035/-from the accused, when the accused was not able to give answer for the same. He deposed about production of M.O1 to M.O6 before the court and also production of the accused before the court. He was cross examined to shake his version and, in fact, nothing extracted to disbelieve his version.

16. PW3, a police constable attached to V.A.C.B., Thrissur, who conducted the pre-verification enquiry on Ext.P1 complaint filed by the PW1, supported the pre-verification. PW4, the Senior Asst. during the period 2007-2010 at Chalakudy Depot Civil Supplies Corporation. PW5 Junior Asst. of the aforesaid depot during the relevant time and PW6 another Junior Asst. at the depot, had given categoric evidence that the accused held the post of Secretary at the relevant dates. PW4, who delivered Ext. P8 attendance register of the depot and signed arrest memo of the accused, deposed in support of the prosecution case.

17. PW4 deposed further that the accused was present at the office on 15th, 17th and 18th December, 2008 revealed from Ext.P8(a) (the relevant page of the attendance register) wherein on these days, the accused put his signatures and thus he was on duty on these days. PW6 testified that he had delivered Ext.P14 charge handing over report of the accused to PW12 as per Ext.P15 mahazar and he had put his signature thereon, in addition to the aforesaid fact. PW8, who submitted Ext.P12 minutes book of the DMC before Dy.S.P. as per Ext. P17, also given evidence that Junaid was the Asst. Manager during the period and his signatures bear on the DMC as area manager and Ext.P8(a) pages 15 to 17 would show the approval of DMC authorizing PW1 as supplier. Ext.P14, RTC also was tendered in evidence through PW12.

18. Here the prosecution case as deposed by PW1 is that, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.4,000/- as bribe on the date of trap for issue of cheque due to PW1 towards the vegetables supplied by him, in continuation of the previous demand which led to filing of Ext.P1 complaint. Further the prosecution has a case that, prior to that also the accused demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- as bribe for the issuance of cheque due to PW1. But the case of the accused is that PW1 had met the accused along with Rs.4,000/- towards display charges for the year 2018 and out of which Rs.1,000/- had been paid earlier. While receiving the said amount of Rs.4,000/- he was trapped. Thus the contention raised by the accused is that he had received Rs.4,000/- towards display charges on the date of trap due from PW1. In order to substantiate this contention, on the side of defence, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused given much reliance on the evidence of DW1, the staff of CSC supported by Exts.D3 to D6.

19. The evidence of DW1 is that from March, 2023, onwards she held the post of Marketing Manager, KCSC and worked in the office of Chairman & Managing Director. As ordered by the court, she had produced the original and copy of letter No. M14777/07 of the Chairman and Managing Director dated 22.10.2008, certified copy of which got marked as Ext.D6. According to her, reference No.2 in Ext.D6 is a letter dated 17.09.2008, and Ext.D6 is a letter issued in continuation of the said reference. According to her, as per this letter, it was directed to collect display charges after giving rack space to the suppliers. It was specifically stated that the direction was to collect display rent after renting out racks space from the consumer goods of fast moving suppliers. It is relevant to note that during cross examination, DW1 categorically had given evidence that among the consumer goods, `vegetables’ would not come under the category of goods and the category of goods under the head “fast moving consumer goods” would be available in the office. Apart from the same, the learned Senior Counsel for the accused had given emphasis to Ext.D3 a receipt showing collection of Rs.2,000/- towards display charges during Onam from Janani Trade Links and Vetturam Eximp and Sradha Speciality products, etc. Ext.D4 would show that display charges collected from some other concerns and also Ext.D5 showing collection of Rs.1,000/- as on 15.09.2008 towards the display charges during Onam 2008 from Rainbow Vegetables, Kallattumkara. Ext.D5 has been given much emphasis by the learned Senior Counsel to contend that Ext.D5 would show collection of display charges from Rainbow Vegetablesowned by PW1 at Kallattumkara. Going through the documents, viz., Exts.D3 to D5, the display charges obtained, in fact, ranged from Rs.500/-to Rs.2,000/- during Onam seasons. None of the documents would show that collection charge in excess of Rs.2,000/- collected during the relevant period. It is interesting to note that in the instant case, the case put up by the accused is that he had obtained Rs.4,000/- as the balance of display charges, out of which Rs.1,000/- had been already paid. The said case was emphatically denied by PW1.

20. The evidence of DW1 is that vegetables would not come under the category of items for which display charges to be collected. It is true that as per Ext.D5, Rs.1,000/- had been collected from Rainbow Vegetables as on 15.09.2008. But Ext.D5 is silent for what type of goods the said amount was collected. Since DW1 had given evidence that display charges would not be collected for vegetables, this display charge may be for some other items. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that PW1 is the best person to speak about, for what purpose Ext.D5 was issued. Thus this aspect should have been ascertained from PW1 by confronting Ext.D5. By excluding this course of action, the accused restricted the explanation of PW1 to come out in evidence, as he might be fully aware that the said display charge was for some other items as DW1 categorically deposed that display charges should not be collected for vegetables. If that be so, PW1 was not liable to give Rs.4,000/- as display charges. Thus it appears that the learned Special Judge went wrong in finding that PW1 taken advantage to foist a case of trap while handing over Rs.4,000/-to the accused towards display charges in a crooked way by twisting the display charges Rs.4,000/- as permitted by Ext.D6 to the Civil Supplies Corporation. In paragraphs 74 to 76 of the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge observed as under:

                  “74. Merely receiving the amount would not invoke the offence. The counsel for the accused having much rich experience to conduct this case took the defence that this was received by the accused towards display charges as directed by Civil Supplies Corporation. He examined DW1 and produced Ext.D6 to prove the same. The Ext.D6, the booklet of Civil Supplies Corporation contemplating the direction or instruction to the officers to collect display charges from suppliers of the branded company.

                  75. That means, this is a legal act to collect display charges. Collection of display charges would not invoke any offence. Whereas, Civil Supplies Corporation, nothing is brought out in the investigation that there was a counter to receive display charges or other mode of payment. Therefore, collection of the amount by the accused and kept inside his pocket alone would not invoke the offence. Why he kept inside his pocket would not arise since immediately Vigilance team entered in his chamber. Therefore, the partial portion of the version appears to be probable.

                  76. He is not a supplier of branded company and he is only a vegetable supplier. But Civil Supplies Corporation indulging in Government business operation might collect amount from other suppliers as well. It is not illegal though improper. Therefore, it would not invoke any offence. He never consciously received the amount as suborn to be the outcome of the evidence let in this case. The probability of handing over the money towards bribe as well display charge is equally probable.”

21. Here as far as the demand and acceptance of Rs.4,000/- by the accused is proved by the evidence of PW1 supported by Ext.P1 and other evidence discussed in detail. As regards the receipt of Rs.4,000/- which was proved based on the positive Phenolphthalein test, the accused also has no dispute. His specific case is that Rs.4,000/- was accepted by the accused towards display charges.

22. Having gone through the discussion to address the defence case, this Court is of the view that the learned Special Judge had not properly evaluated the evidence, particularly, that of DW1, though she had categorically stated that the display charges would not be collected for vegetables. Further collection of display charges by the head officer directly and keeping the same in his pocket is not at all the procedure for collecting display charge, if any. Most importantly, no document was produced by the accused to show assessment of Rs.4,000/- towards display charges and demand for the same in writing. Be it so, the defence taken by the accused that, Rs.4,000/- was received towards display charges is not at all established by the defence in any manner, by the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities.

23. 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, 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.

24. 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.”

25. 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.

26. 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.”

27. It is true that denial of Rs.4,000/- spoken by PW1 on the date of trap is an omission, as argued by the learned Senior Counsel. But the prosecution allegation supported by the evidence in its entirety, including the previous demand which led to filing of Ext.P1 complaint, the prosecution succeeded in proving the ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, by the respondent/accused. Thus on re-appreciation of evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the accused had demanded Rs.4,000/- as bribe for encashment of cheques for the amount entitled by him for supply of vegetables in terms of the approval of DMC. Therefore, this Court is inclined to reverse the said finding.

28. Accordingly, the impugned verdict is set aside. The finding of the learned Special Judge that the accused did not commit the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act is set aside.

29. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The verdict impugned is set aside. The respondent/accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and he is convicted for the said offences.

30. The respondent/accused appeared and the judgment is pronounced in his presence finding that he had committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and accordingly, he was convicted for the said offences. The respondent/accused was heard on the sentence to be imposed upon him. He stated that he has two girl children and that his wife had passed away. He also stated that, though the marriage of the first daughter had been solemnised, the second daughter is studying and her marriage yet to be solemnised. Further, his presence for completing the studies of his daughter is necessary. In such view of the matter, leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence.

31. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused also canvassed leniency in the sentence, highlighting the grounds urged by the respondent/accused.

32. 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.

33. Having appraised the rival submissions, including the version given by the respondent/accused, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed against the respondent/accused as under:

                  (i) The respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 two months.

                  (ii) The respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty 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.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court concerned for information and execution of the sentence after expiry of one month from today, since his sentence has been suspended and he has been released on bail for a period of one month.