1. The sole accused in C.C.No.85/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this appeal challenging conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court against her in the above case, as per judgment dated 26.06.2020.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondent - State of Kerala.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter), by the appellant/accused.
4. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as Sub Registrar at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayoor, and while holding the post of a public servant, demanded a sum of ₹5,000 as bribe from Sri.Bhaskaran Nair, a document writer, who was examined as PW1, as illegal gratification, as a motive or reward for the registration of six documents produced by him before the Sub Registrar. Pursuant to the said demand, the accused demanded and accepted ₹5,000 on 22.02.2014 and was caught red-handedly with the bribe money.
5. When the final report was filed before the learned Special Judge, who took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and proceeded with the trial. Before the commencement of trial, the prosecution sanction was challenged before this Court by filing Crl.R.P.No.186/2019, and the same was dismissed by this Court.
6. The Special Court ventured the matter. PW1 to PW18 were examined and Exts.P1 to P64 and MO1 to MO9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 was examined and Exts. D1 to D6 were marked on the side of the defence, apart from filing a written statement under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finally, the Special Court appreciated the evidence and found that the accused committed the above offences and accordingly, she was sentenced as under:
“a) She shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) and, in default of payment of the fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
b) She shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and, in default of payment of the fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
c) The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
d) Set off is allowed under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
e) MO1 series currency notes shall be released to PW1 and MO5 currency note shall be confiscated to State Exchequer, after the expiry of the appeal period. MOs.2 to 4 and MOs. 6 to 9 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period, being useless and valueless.”
7. The learned senior counsel Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, appearing for the appellant/accused, attempted to contend that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988; however, he did not succeed in establishing the said contention. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that in this case, the evidence of PW1, the complainant alone is available to prove the ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, as alleged by the prosecution. The learned senior counsel contended that in the decision in P.A.Hariharan v. State of Kerala reported in [2021 (3) KHC 85 : MANU/KE/1023/2021], this Court, following the law laid down by the Apex Court, and in Meena v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 5 SCC 21 : MANU/SC/0279/2000], the Apex Court held that in trap cases, the demand has to be proved by cogent and reliable corroborative evidence, and that mere evidence of the complainant alone is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that in this case, the prosecution succeeded in proving the twin ingredients viz., demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused as alleged by the prosecution and therefore, the verdict under challenge could not be interfered for any reasons. It is also pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that in Neeraj Dutta v. State reported in [AIR 2023 SC 330], the Apex Court categorically addressed the question of proof regarding demand and acceptance and the larger bench decision would highlight the fact that in cases where the de facto complainant turning hostile, then also, the prosecution can rely on attending circumstances alone to prove the demand. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions in Hariharan’s case (supra) as well as Meena’s case (supra) has no application in the present case.
9. Having appraised the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are;
(i) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988?
(ii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988?
(iii) Whether the verdict would require interference?
(iv) The order to be passed?
10. Point Nos.(i) to (iv)
In this matter, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 to find that the accused demanded and accepted ₹5,000 as bribe on 22.02.2014. Apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the decoy witness, as well as the evidence of PW19, the trap- laying officer, also was relied on by the Special Court while finding that the accused committed offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
11. First of all, I am inclined to address the ingredients which are necessary to constitute offences under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) r/w 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 offenceof 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.
12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [AIR 2023 SC 330], Neeraj Dutta v. State, where the Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C.Act to be said to be proved along with ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in paragraph No.68, it has been held as under :
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Act
iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and
(ii) of the Act
(e) 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.”
13. Thus, the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, is extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay bribe by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. The mode of proof of demand and acceptance is either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law.
14. 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.”
15. Going by the ratio of the larger Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta’s case (supra), demand and acceptance are the twin ingredients necessarily to be proved by the prosecution to fasten criminal culpability upon an accused. It is equally well settled by the said decision that, while discharging this burden, the prosecution can rely on the available evidence. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned senior counsel relying on the decisions highlighted by him contending that in the absence of corroboratory evidence as that of decoy witness in the matter of demand, the appellant/accused could not be punished, would not sustain. Therefore, this contention is repelled.
16. Now, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW19 along with other witnesses. PW1, Sri.Bhaskaran Nair, is the de facto complainant in this case. He deposed that he was a retired Village Officer and he had retired from service on 31.05.2002. After his retirement, he had obtained a scribe licence bearing Nos.DAD 374 and SAD 1380. He further testified that his office was situated at Chevayur, near the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur, and that he used to get most of the documents written by him registered at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur. According to him, the accused was known to him, as she had been working as the Sub Registrar at Chevayur. He identified the accused at the dock as Smt.P.K.Beena. He further deposed that he had lodged a complaint against the accused before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode. He deposed that the accused used to demand bribe from him and his clients for the registration of documents. His version further is that on 28.01.2014, five settlement deeds prepared by him were registered at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur. After the registration on the same day, the accused demanded a sum of ₹5,000 as bribe for the registration of the said five settlement deeds and for the registration of a flat. According to PW1, the accused demanded ₹2,000 for the five settlement deeds and ₹3,000 for the registration of the flat, which had already been registered on 24.01.2014. He stated that the accused had told him that if the said amount of ₹5,000 was not paid, she would not register the documents submitted by him. PW1 stated that his staff, Sandeepa (PW3), used to attend the Sub Registrar’s Office for registration work in many cases and that sometimes he himself would directly attend the office. He further deposed that after 28.01.2014, he personally attended the Sub Registrar’s Office on 18.02.2014. On that day, he submitted a document for registration and met the accused at about 3.00 p.m. to speak about the registration of four documents proposed to be registered on 22.02.2014. Those four documents consisted of one Partition Deed, one Assignment Deed, one Settlement Deed, and one Will. When he spoke about those four documents, the accused told him that if he failed to pay ₹5,000, being the balance bribe amount, she would not register those documents. PW1 further stated that later he came to know that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe from his clients in respect of documents registered during the period from 28.01.2014 to 18.02.2014. He deposed that on 01.02.2014, when a Partition Deed was registered, the accused demanded and accepted ₹4,000 directly from his client. He further stated that on 18.02.2014, a Partition Deed executed between Prakasan and Manikantan and a Settlement Deed executed between Manoj and his mother were registered and that the accused was the Sub Registrar at that time. He also stated that on 14.02.2014, two Settlement Deeds were registered, but on that day the charge of the Sub Registrar’s Office was with the Junior Superintendent, who did not demand any bribe. The parties to those two settlement deeds were Sri.Shaji Kumar and his wife, Smt. Swapna, and Sri.Madhu and his wife, Smt.Uma. PW1 deposed that as he was not willing to pay bribe for registration, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, on 21.02.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. and made an oral complaint. He stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police informed him that the genuineness of the complaint would be verified and directed him to come on the next day morning at 9.00 a.m. with ₹5,000, being the amount demanded by the accused. Accordingly, on 22.02.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., he appeared before the Vigilance Office and lodged Ext.P1 complaint. PW1 further deposed that the vigilance vehicle was stopped in front of the annex building of the Medical College Campus Higher Secondary School and, as instructed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he proceeded to the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur. When he reached there, his clients were waiting in the Sub Registrar’s Office for registration of the documents prepared by him after taking tokens. The documents had already been presented by his staff, Sandeepa (PW3). His clients had obtained token Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. He stated that the accused was sitting on the dais and that when his turn came, he proceeded to the dais. PW3 informed him that the first three deeds had been compared and placed before the accused and thereafter went to compare the deed covered by token No.5 with the filing sheet. At that time, only PW1, the accused, and the peon Jyothi were present in the room. PW1 stated that the accused then asked him in a low voice whether he had brought ₹5,000. He replied in the affirmative. Thereupon, the accused told him that after the registration she would go to the room behind, and that he could pay the amount then. He stated that her voice was so low that no other person could hear it. Thereafter, the deeds covered by token Nos.2, 3 and 4 were registered. In the meanwhile, PW3 returned with the settlement deed after comparison. The accused called the executant for registration, put the number on the deed, made entries in the filing sheet, and handed over the documents to be given to the peon. Thereafter, the accused alighted from the dais and went out through the door leading to the office hall and gestured PW1 to follow her. PW1 further deposed that he followed the accused, but could not find her in the office hall. He then peeped into the record room, whereupon the accused, who was hiding behind the door, called him by saying “sh… sh… Bhaskaran Nair”. When he entered the record room and approached her, the accused asked him to hand over the money quickly. PW1 then took the currency notes amounting to ₹5,000 from his pocket and handed them over to the accused. After receiving the amount, the accused moved towards the north-western side of the record room. PW1 came out of the room and informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police over mobile phone about the acceptance of the bribe and the direction in which the accused had moved. He stated that the accused accepted the bribe amount at about 11.45 a.m. Thereafter, he came out of the Sub Registrar’s Office. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and his party entered the Sub Registrar’s Office. At that time, the accused, PW3 Sandeepa, Sreejith and Jyothi, the peon, were present in the Sub Registrar’s Office.
17. PW2, Sri.Radhakrishnan P.C., was examined as an independent witness. He deposed that he had been working as Technical Assistant Grade II in the District Medical Office, Kozhikode, during the year 2014. He stated that on 22.02.2014, at about 10.00 a.m., he appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, as directed by the District Collector. He further deposed that CW20, Sri.Arunan, was also present there and that PW1, Sri.Bhaskaran Nair, was present in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. PW2 stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced them to each other and informed them about the complaint lodged by PW1. PW1 then produced five currency notes of ₹1,000 denomination each before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who seized the same and noted their serial numbers in the Seizure and Entrustment Mahazar. PW2 stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CW20 and himself signed Ext.P2 Seizure and Entrustment Mahazar. PW2 further deposed that thereafter a police officer demonstrated the phenolphthalein test using a ₹10 currency note. The solutions used for the demonstration were collected in three bottles, which were tied, sealed and labelled. The labels contained the signatures of PW1, PW2, CW20 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He identified the said bottles as MOs.2 to 4 and the ₹10 currency note used for demonstration as MO5. PW2 stated that thereafter the currency notes amounting to ₹5,000 produced by PW1 were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and placed in the shirt pocket of PW1 by a police officer after ensuring that the pocket was empty. Before placing the currency notes, the hands of PW1 were washed as directed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police then instructed PW1 to hand over the currency notes (MO1 series) to the accused only on demand and, if the accused accepted the amount, to inform him over mobile phone. PW2 deposed that thereafter the trap party proceeded towards the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur, in two vehicles at about 11.00 a.m., while PW1 proceeded separately on his motorcycle. They parked the vehicles near the annex building of the Medical College Campus Higher Secondary School. PW1 also parked his motorcycle there and proceeded to the Sub Registrar’s Office after receiving further instructions from the Deputy Superintendent of Police. PW2 stated that at about 11.55 a.m., the Deputy Superintendent of Police received a phone call from PW1, whereupon the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the trap party proceeded to the Sub Registrar’s Office. When they reached there, the accused was sitting on the dais. The Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced himself and the members of the trap party to the accused. The accused stood up and appeared perplexed. The Deputy Superintendent of Police asked her to sit down, and two women police constables held her arms. PW2 further deposed that when the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked the accused as to where the bribe amount received from PW1 was kept, the accused denied having accepted any money. Thereafter, her right hand was dipped in sodium carbonate solution, which resulted in a colour change. The pink-coloured solution was collected in a bottle marked as MO6. Thereafter, her left hand was dipped in another sodium carbonate solution, which also showed a slight colour change, and the solution was collected in a bottle marked as MO7. PW2 stated that thereafter the accused was arrested. The accused informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police that she was in possession of ₹305. Her handbag and the Personal Cash Declaration Register were examined, and it was found that she had ₹305 with her. Though her body search was conducted by a woman police constable, no incriminating material was recovered. PW2 further deposed that thereafter a search was conducted for the trap money. Since the trap money was not found in the cabin of the accused, the record room was searched. The trap money was recovered from inside a register, kept between its pages and covered with a white paper. PW2 stated that he could not recollect the name or number of the register. The recovery was effected by a police officer, who handed over the currency notes to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who in turn handed them over to CW20. CW20 verified the currency notes and confirmed that they were the same notes entrusted to PW1, after comparing the serial numbers with the Mahazar. PW2 stated that the recovered MO1 series currency notes were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, which resulted in a colour change to the solution and the dipped portions of the notes. The solution was collected, sealed and labelled and marked as MO8. The white paper used to cover the currency notes was examined by sprinkling sodium carbonate solution, which also resulted in a colour change. The said paper was marked as ‘A’, sealed, labelled and seized as MO9. The register from which the currency notes were recovered was not examined further to avoid damage and was returned under a kychit. PW2 identified MO1 series currency notes as those entrusted to PW1 at the Vigilance Office and later recovered from the record room. He further deposed that the Attendance Register, the Personal Cash Declaration Register and attested photocopies of four documents prepared by PW1 were seized under Mahazar. He identified Ext.P3 as the Attendance Register, Ext.P4 as the Personal Cash Declaration Register, Ext.P5 as the copy of Document No.733/2014, Ext.P6 as the copy of Document No.734/2014, Ext.P7 as the copy of Document No.735/2014 and Ext.P8 as the copy of Will No.35/2014. Ext.P9 Recovery Mahazar was prepared at the spot, in which he, CW20 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police signed. Thereafter, the accused was subjected to medical examination and the party returned to the Vigilance Office.
18. PW3, Smt.Sandeepa, who was a staff member of PW1 also was examined by the prosecution. She deposed that she was holding a scribe licence bearing No. SAD 1722. She stated that the accused was known to her, as she had been working as the Sub Registrar, Chevayur. PW3 further deposed that on or about 02.02.2014, subject to her memory, she went to the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur, for the registration of a Partition Deed executed between Sri. Madhu and his brother, Sri. Shajikumar. She stated that prior to the registration, the accused demanded a sum of ₹4,000 as bribe from her. When her clients enquired as to why they had to pay the amount, PW3 informed them that if the bribe amount was not paid, the accused would cause difficulties by citing one reason or the other. On that day, the document was registered. PW3 stated that thereafter the accused enquired whether the client had paid the amount to her. PW3 replied that she would pay the amount after collecting it from the client. She further deposed that she thereafter received ₹4,000 from Sri.Shajikumar and kept the amount with her. On the same day, in the afternoon, she visited the Sub Registrar’s Office with an application for Encumbrance Certificate. She stated that the application for Encumbrance Certificate was required to be initialled by the Sub Registrar before remitting the prescribed fee before the Junior Superintendent. PW3 deposed that on that day, the accused refused to put her initials on the application for Encumbrance Certificate since PW3 had not paid the bribe amount. Consequently, PW3 returned to her office. Thereafter, she again went to the Sub Registrar’s Office and paid ₹4,000 as bribe in connection with the registration of the deed executed by Sri. Madhu. According to PW3, the accused accepted the bribe amount and thanked her. PW3 further stated that on the next day, when she again approached the accused with the application for Encumbrance Certificate, the accused put her initials on it and PW3 remitted the prescribed fee before the Junior Superintendent. She deposed that the accused used to return documents presented from PW1’s office by citing one reason or the other if bribe was not paid and that if bribe was paid, there would be no hurdles in the process of registration. PW3 also deposed that she and PW1 were reluctant to pay bribe for getting their work done. She stated that her monthly salary was ₹5,000 and that for obtaining an Encumbrance Certificate from the Sub Registrar’s Office for her clients, she would get only ₹40 per transaction. She stated that under such circumstances, she was constrained to pay bribe for getting the work done.
19. According to PW4, Sri.Shajikumar, he had been working as a Zonal Manager in KTC and that he was related to PW1, being the brother of PW1’s son-in-law. He stated that a Partition Deed executed between himself and Sri.Madhu was registered on 01.02.2014 and that the said document was prepared by PW1. PW4 further deposed that at the time of registration of the document, PW1 was not present in the Sub Registrar’s Office and that the registration was facilitated by PW3, Smt.Sandeepa. He stated that on that day, the accused, Smt.Beena, was working as the Sub Registrar. He further stated that there was a conversation between the accused and PW3 at the time of registration. PW4 deposed that PW3 thereafter informed him that the accused had demanded a sum of ₹5,000 as bribe. He stated that he personally met the accused and enquired as to why she was demanding an additional amount of ₹5,000. According to PW4, the accused asked him to speak to PW3. He then spoke to PW3, who informed him that the registration would be completed only if a sum of ₹5,000 was paid as ‘mamool’ (bribe). PW4 further deposed that he informed PW3 that he had only ₹4,000 with him. He stated that the registration of the document was completed on that day. Thereafter, PW3 had a discussion with the accused and, after the said discussion, PW4 entrusted ₹4,000 to PW3 to be paid to the accused as ‘mamool’ (illegal gratification).
20. Smt.Jyothish Prabha, who got examined as PW5, deposed that she had been working as an Office Attendant at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur, during the relevant period and that the accused was the Sub Registrar at that time. She stated that on the day of the trap, she was discharging duty in the chamber of the Sub Registrar. PW5 further deposed that there were two Office Attendants in the Sub Registrar’s Office, namely herself and one Peter Damian, and that one Office Attendant used to attend chamber duty while the other attended treasury duty, with the duties being interchanged on alternate days. She stated that on the day of the trap, i.e., 22.02.2014, she reached the Sub Registrar’s chamber at about 10.20 a.m. PW5 stated that she returned the documents which had already been registered to the concerned parties and that thereafter the registration proceedings commenced at about 11.00 a.m. She further deposed that she issued five tokens after writing the names of the parties and the token numbers on a white paper. She stated that she wrote the token numbers on the concerned documents using a pencil. PW5 also deposed that she used to issue tokens to the parties as per the instructions received from the Sub Registrar from time to time and that on that day, she had issued the tokens prior to the arrival of the accused.
21. One Sri.Sadanandan, was also examined and he deposed that he had been working as Junior Superintendent at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur, from July 2013 to August 2014. He stated that the accused was known to him and that he was present at the time when the accused was arrested. He further deposed that he witnessed the preparation of Ext.P10 Scene Mahazar by the Investigating Officer. PW6 stated that on the day of the trap, the vigilance party reached the Sub Registrar’s Office at about 12.00 noon. He further deposed that the factum of arrest of the accused was intimated to the District Registrar by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. As directed by the District Registrar, he took charge of the Sub Registrar’s Office at about 12.30 p.m. PW6 deposed that he produced Ext.P3 Attendance Register, Ext.P4 Personal Cash Declaration Register, and Volume No.780 Register before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He stated that he took charge of the post of Sub Registrar by making the necessary entries in Account ‘A’ Register. He identified Ext.P11 as the certified copy of the relevant pages of Account ‘A’ Register. PW6 further stated that the accused had registered documents up to Document No.35 and that thereafter he commenced registration from Document No.36. He deposed that the Personal Cash Declaration Register was maintained in the office. PW6 stated that on 23.01.2014, the Vigilance Police conducted a surprise check in the Sub Registrar’s Office and seized the Personal Cash Declaration Register after noticing certain corrections therein. He further deposed that thereafter Ext.P4 Personal Cash Declaration Register was opened. He identified Ext.P12 as the Personal Cash Declaration Register seized by the Vigilance Police. PW6 further deposed that the Vigilance Police noticed corrections and overwritings in respect of the entries made by the accused in Ext.P12 Personal Cash Declaration Register on 29.10.2013, 11.11.2013, 15.11.2013, 25.11.2013, 02.12.2013, 04.12.2013, 27.12.2013, 03.01.2014, 04.01.2014, 09.01.2014, 16.01.2014, 21.01.2014 and 23.01.2014.
22. The prosecution side examined PW10, Sri.Balakrishnan also. He deposed that on 18.08.2014, he produced the Account ‘A’ Register before the Investigating Officer and that the Investigating Officer seized the same under Ext.P13 Seizure Mahazar. He stated that Ext.P11 was the copy of the relevant pages of the Account ‘A’ Register. PW10 further deposed that he produced Exts.P5 to P8, which were the certified photocopies of four documents registered by the accused on the day of the trap. He stated that in none of those documents were the particulars relating to presentation, registration, and execution entered, nor had the Sub Registrar put her signature therein. He further deposed that thereafter he addressed the District Registrar seeking regularisation of those documents and that, as per the orders of the District Registrar, the said documents were regularised by him. PW10 stated that it was necessary to note the time of presentation of documents in the Account ‘A’ Register. He further deposed that no separate register was maintained in the Sub Registrar’s Office to record the exact time of presentation of documents and that therefore the time of presentation noted in the documents registered by the accused was only based on estimation. PW10 further deposed that PW5, Smt.Jyothish Prabha, had received the registration fees from the parties until PW6 took charge of the post of Sub Registrar. He stated that when he took charge, he verified and counted the cash kept in the cash box. He further deposed that when PW6 conducted registration while he was in charge of the Sub Registrar’s Office, the registration fees were collected by the Office Attendant. He stated that the Office Attendant used to count the cash at the end of the day’s work and entrust the amount to the Sub Registrar.
23. Ext.P14 sketch and plan, which were seized by the Investigating Officer under Ext.P15 Seizure Mahazar was tendered in evidence through Sri.Hanas, the Village Officer of Nellikode Village, examined as PW7.
24. PW8, Smt.Shijina who had been working as a Woman Civil Police Officer at the relevant time and she deposed that she was a member of the trap party and she fully supported the trap proceedings.
25. Sri.K.T.Bineesh, who was examined as PW9, deposed that he had been working as a Lower Division Clerk at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur. He stated that on the day of the trap, he reached the office at about 9.00 a.m. and met the Sub Registrar with an application seeking permission to avail a Provident Fund loan. According to PW9, the accused informed him that the application had to be verified, whereupon he returned to his seat. PW9 further deposed that on that day, PW3, Smt. Sandeepa, approached him for comparison of three documents. After comparing the said documents, he returned them to PW3. He further stated that thereafter PW3 again approached him with another document, which was also compared and returned to her. PW9 deposed that at about 12.00 noon, the Vigilance party arrived at the Sub Registrar’s Office, conducted the trap proceedings, recovered a sum of ₹5,000 and arrested the accused. He further stated that he used to compare documents as per the instructions of the Sub Registrars from time to time.
26. PW10, Sri.Balakrishnan, was examined as a witness. He deposed that he had been working as the Sub Registrar, Chevayur, from 03.03.2014 onwards. He stated that on 11.08.2014, he produced Ext.P12 Cash Declaration Register and Ext.P17 Office Order Book before the Investigating Officer and that the Investigating Officer seized the said documents under Ext.P16 Seizure Mahazar. PW10 further deposed that on 18.08.2014, he produced Account ‘A’ Register, Volume No.135, before the Investigating Officer and that the Investigating Officer seized the same under Ext.P13 Seizure Mahazar. He stated that the original register was thereafter returned as per kychit and that Ext.P11 was the certified copy of the relevant pages of the said register. PW10 stated that on 10.09.2014, he produced Exts.P19 and P20, being certified copies of documents, before the Investigating Officer and that the Investigating Officer seized the same under Ext.P18 Seizure Mahazar. He further deposed that he produced Exts.P22 to P26, being certified copies of five documents, which were seized by the Investigating Officer under Ext.P21 Seizure Mahazar. PW10 also deposed that he identified the signatures found in Exts.P27 to P34, which were certified copies of documents. PW10 further stated that on 06.03.2014, he addressed the District Registrar seeking permission to make necessary entries in certain documents registered by his predecessor, along with a list of documents requiring regularisation. He deposed that based on the reply dated 11.03.2014 received from the District Registrar, he regularised the said documents.
27. PW11, Smt.Prasanna testified that she had been working as an Upper Division Clerk at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur, from 03.10.2013 to 10.03.2014. She stated that she was present in the office on the day of the trap. PW11 further deposed that she copied the dockets on the reverse side of the documents registered on 22.02.2014, bearing Document Nos. 732/2014 to 735/2014 and Will No. 35/2014. She stated that the said work was completed within one week of registration and that such procedure was ordinarily followed in the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur. PW11 stated that she copied the dockets believing that the accused would return and put her signatures on the documents. She further deposed that in the meantime PW10 was transferred and that she completed the pending work in haste. PW11 further deposed that she wrote the time of presentation on the documents at intervals of ten minutes starting from 10.00 a.m., after consulting PW6, Sri.Sadanandan. She stated that the time of presentation was written on the basis of estimation. She further stated that she first entered the time in Book No.1 and thereafter in Book No.3, and that the time was written on the documents as per Book No.1 and subsequently as per Book No.3. She admitted that the time was entered without verifying the entries in the Account ‘A’ Register. PW11 further deposed that as per Ext.P11(a) Register, Will No.35/2014 was presented for registration as the third item, whereas she had shown the said Will as Item No.5 in the certified copies and in the docket. She stated that the reason for the said mistake was that the time was written on the documents based on estimation and without verifying the Account ‘A’ Register. PW11 further stated that the Investigating Officer questioned her by showing the Account ‘A’ Register and the certified copies and pointed out the said mistake to her.
28. PW12, Sri.Balan, was examined as a witness. He deposed that he had been working as the Accounts Officer in the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Kozhikode. He stated that he had accompanied the Inspector of Police, Sri.Ganesh Kumar, during the surprise check conducted on 23.01.2014 at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur. PW12 further deposed that he identified the accused in the dock. He stated that a Joint Inventory was prepared during the surprise check, which was available at pages 57 to 68 of File No. SC 73/2013/KKD. PW12 deposed that he had noticed several irregularities, corrections and overwritings in respect of the entries made by the accused in Ext.P12 Personal Cash Declaration Register. In cross-examination, PW12 denied the suggestion that the said inventory had been concocted in the Vigilance Office.
29. Sri.Sujith got examined as PW13, affirmed that he had been working as a Civil Police Officer and that he had accompanied the trap party on 22.02.2014. He further supported the trap proceedings.
30. PW14, Sri.Anujith, was examined as a witness. He deposed that he had been working as a Clerk in the office of the District Registrar at the relevant time. He stated that he was a witness to Ext.P37 Seizure Mahazar, under which the Investigating Officer seized Exts.P38 and P39 files from Sri. R. Madhu, the then District Registrar. He further deposed that the said files were maintained in the office of the District Registrar in connection with the corrections made in the documents registered.
31. PW15, Sri.Sreejith, was examined as a witness. He deposed that he had been working as a Senior Assistant in Mathrubhumi Daily. He stated that on 22.02.2014, at about 10.00 a.m., he went to the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chevayur, for the registration of a document prepared by PW1. He stated that the Sub Registrar was not present at the time of his arrival and that he waited outside the office. PW15 further deposed that in the meantime the accused, who was then working as the Sub Registrar, arrived at the office and took her seat on the dais. He stated that he obtained token No.5 and that the accused commenced the registration proceedings starting with token No.1. PW15 stated that after the registration of the first document, PW1 came to him and enquired whether he had obtained a token, after which PW1 went into the chamber of the accused. He further stated that when token No.2 was called, an elderly lady and some others entered the chamber and that he continued to wait outside. Thereafter, when his token number was called, he entered the chamber. PW15 deposed that the accused examined him, made certain entries on the document, and handed over the document to him with instructions to give it to the lady who was seated in front of the dais. He stated that the said lady was engaged in work relating to documents that had already been registered. He further stated that at that time PW1 was standing near the dais. PW15 further deposed that in the meantime PW1 went out of the chamber, followed by the accused. The lady seated in front of the dais then asked PW15 to sit down. Accordingly, he sat on the chair and affixed his signatures and thumb impressions on the document. He stated that thereafter the accused returned and took her seat on the dais. PW15 stated that while he was counting the amount to be paid towards registration fee, as directed by the lady seated in front of the dais, certain persons entered the chamber and enquired with the accused regarding the bribe amount. He stated that initially he could not understand who the visitors were and that on seeing them he stood up from his seat. One among the visitors introduced himself as the Deputy Superintendent of Police and asked everyone present to remain seated. PW15 stated that he remained in the chamber. PW15 further deposed that the accused denied having accepted any bribe. He stated that thereafter he noticed a pink colour in the solution in which the hands of the accused were dipped. He further stated that the lady seated in front of the dais collected the registration fee from him. PW15 stated that he left the chamber at about 12.30 p.m., with the permission of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He further stated that later he came to know that the lady seated in front of the dais was the peon and that she was the person who collected the registration fee from him.
32. Sri.V.M.Abdul Wahab, was examined as PW16. He deposed that while he had been working as Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, he took over the investigation on 25.02.2014. He stated that on the said date, he prepared Ext.P10 Scene Mahazar. PW16 further deposed that he submitted Ext.P40 report to rectify an error in the Recovery Mahazar, which had occurred while recording the mobile number of PW1. He stated that he seized Ext.P43, the order of the District Collector granting assistance of a gazetted officer for the trap, under Ext.P42 Seizure Mahazar. He further deposed that he submitted Ext.P43 report before the Court seeking return of certain documents for the purpose of investigation and also submitted Ext.P44 report to correct the initial of PW1 in the FIR. PW16 stated that he seized Ext.P46 covering letter and the proforma containing particulars of certain documents of the Sub Registrar’s Office. He further deposed that on 05.04.2014, he seized Ext.P14 site plan prepared by the Village Officer, Nellikode, under Ext.P15 Seizure Mahazar. PW16 further deposed that he seized Ext.P48 series, being the particulars of the scribe licences of PW1 and PW3, under Ext.P47 Seizure Mahazar. He also seized Exts.P12 and P17 documents from PW10 under Ext.P16 Seizure Mahazar. PW16 stated that on 11.08.2014, he seized Ext.P50 Service Book, Ext.P51 Appointment Order and Ext.P52 Promotion Order of the accused under Ext.P49 Seizure Mahazar. He further deposed that on 18.08.2014, he seized the Account ‘A’ Register under Ext.P13 Seizure Mahazar and that Ext.P14 was the attested copy of the relevant pages of the Account ‘A’ Register. PW16 further deposed that on 10.09.2014, he seized Exts.P19 and P20 documents from PW10 under Ext.P18 Seizure Mahazar. On 14.10.2014, he seized Exts.P38 and P39 files from CW24, Sri. R. Madhu, the then District Registrar, under Ext.P37 Seizure Mahazar. PW16 stated that on 15.10.2014, he seized Exts.P22 to P26 documents from PW10 under Ext.P21 Seizure Mahazar. He further deposed that he seized Exts.P27 to P32, being certified copies of documents, after preparing Ext.P53 Seizure Mahazar. PW16 further stated that on 28.10.2014, he seized Ext.P36 document from PW10 under Ext.P35 Seizure Mahazar and that on 01.11.2014, he seized Exts.P33 and P34, being certified copies of documents, under Ext.P54 Seizure Mahazar. PW16 further deposed that he examined the material witnesses during the course of investigation. He also stated that he examined CW41, Sri. B. Mohanan, IAS, who had accorded the prosecution sanction, and that CW41 was no more at the time of giving evidence.
33. PW19 Sri.Premdas M.P, was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, who laid the trap. He would say that, on 21-02-2014, PW1, Sri. Bhaskaran Nair approached him at Vigilance Unit,Kozhikode and made an oral complaint against the accused. He asked PW1 to wait and conducted a pre-trap verification through Civil Police Officer, Sri. Sapnesh. Sri Sapnesh submitted a report and PW19 convinced the genuineness of the complaint. He called PW1 and directed him to come on the next day, that is on 22-02-2014 at 9 A.M., with ₹5,000, the amount demanded by the accused as bribe. Accordingly, PW1 came on the next day. PW19 recorded Ext.P1 First Information Statement (FIS) and registered Ext.P1(a) FIR. He sent a requisition for witnesses for the laying of trap to the District Collector. As per his requisition, the District Collector has made available the services of PW2, Sri. Radhakrishnan and CW20, Sri. M.B.Arunan, the gazetted officers. They came to the Vigilance Office at about 10.00 A.M. He mutually introduced the gazetted officers and PW1. He explained the complaint to the gazetted officers. He seized 5 currency notes of ₹1,000 brought by PW1, as per Ext. P2 Seizure Mahazar. He identified those notes as MO1 series. The hands of PW1 were dipped in Sodium Carbonate Solution and there was no colour change. The said solution was collected in a bottle, tied, sealed and labelled. He identified the bottle as MO2. He took one currency note of ₹10 from his pocket and caused to touch the hands of PW1 on the currency note and dipped his hands in Sodium Carbonate Solution. There was no colour change. The said solution was collected in a bottle, tied, sealed and labelled. He identified the bottle as MO3. Thereafter phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency note and caused to touch the hands of PW1 on the currency note. Thereafter, when the hands of PW1 were dipped in Sodium Carbonate Solution and there was colour change to the solution and the fingers. The said solution was collected in a bottle, tied, sealed and labelled. He identified the bottle as MO4 and the currency note as MO5. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on MO1 series currency notes and those notes were put in the left pocket of the shirt worn by PW1, after conducting a body search of PW1 through the witnesses. He instructed PW1 that the currency notes shall be given to the accused only on demand and to give signal, if the accused accepts the amount. He gave proper instructions to the member of the trap party and proceeded to Sub Registrar's Office, Chevayur. PW1 was on the wheels of his motor cycle and the others proceeded in three department vehicles. They reached near MCH Higher Secondary School at 11.05 A.M and parked their vehicles there PW19 gave his official mobile number to PW1 for giving signal through mobile phone, when the accused accepts the bribe amount. PW1 was sent to the office of the accused and trap party waited there.
34. PW18 examined in this case is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, who verified the investigation and submitted final report before this Court.
35. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, it could be gathered that he was having scribe licence bearing Nos.DAD 374 and SAD 1380 and he worked as a document writer near Sub Registrar Office, Chevayur. According to PW1, for registering documents presented by him, the accused demanded bribe on 28.01.2014 and subsequently on 22.02.2014, he had accepted the same. Even though PW1 was examined at length, nothing extracted to disbelieve the version of PW1 in the matter of demand and acceptance. Apart from that, the decoy witness examined as PW2, and the Investigating Officer examined as PW19, categorically supported that the other witnesses also deposed the case of the prosecution. In fact, even though all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were subjected to searching cross examination, nothing material elicited to shake their versions. Thus, the learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused failed to unsettle the verdict impugned by finding lacuna in evidence.
36. On appreciation of evidence, it is crystal clear that the evidence of PW1 is wholly reliable in the matter of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused on 22.02.2014 in continuation of the earlier demand made on 28.01.2014. Even though DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D6 documents tendered in evidence, the learned senior counsel appeared for the appellant/accused did not argue anything relying on the said evidence to unsettle the verdict impugned. Therefore, no further discussion on that evidence is required. Thus, the twin ingredients to prove the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 have been established by the prosecution and in consideration of the said fact, the Special Court rightly entered into conviction, finding that the appellant/accused committed the said offences and the finding of conviction does not require any interference.
37. Coming to the sentence, the minimum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 w.e.f. 16.01.2014 is not less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and also fine. Similarly, for the offence under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, the minimum sentence is less than four years which may extend to ten years. In the instant case, the occurrence was on 22.02.2014. Here, the learned Special Judge imposed four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. In consideration of the argument made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused, I am inclined to modify the sentence to the statutory minimum.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the Special Court is confirmed. The sentence stands modified as under:
1. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and also to pay a fine of ₹50,000 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant/accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.
2. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and to pay a fine of ₹25,000 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant/accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
3. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the default sentences shall run separately.
4. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the appellant/accused stands cancelled and the bail bond executed by the accused also stands cancelled. The accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court, forthwith to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and compliance.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |