Kerala High Court
Raju K.Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2025
2025:KER:90775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 880 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2010 IN CC NO.239 OF
2008 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM /
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:
SAINALABDHEEN @ SINE S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN
(FORMER VILLAGEMAN), PUTHENPURAM VEEDU,
KARIKKODE, MANGADU, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SHRI.RESSIL LONAN
SHRI.MAHESH BHANU S.
SHRI.JOEL GEORGE KAMPIYIL
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
SMT.REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.RAJESH A, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.10.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.852/2010, THE COURT ON
24.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:90775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 852 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2010 IN CC NO.239 OF
2008 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM /
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAJU K.ABRAHAM (FORMER VILLAGE OFFICER)
S/O. BABYKUTTY, OMANALIL VEEDU, MYDAPAPARA,
AYLAPRA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.ANIL K.MUHAMED
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SHRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
SRI.RAJESH.A,SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
SMT. REKHA.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.10.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.880/2010, THE COURT ON
24.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:90775
CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010
3
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2025 These criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in C.C.No.239/2008 on the files of the Special Court, Kottayam, challenging the conviction and sentenced imposed against them as per judgment dated 12.04.2010.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the impugned verdict and the decisions placed by the learned senior counsel for the accused.
3. The prosecution case is that the 1 st accused, while 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 4 working as Village Officer, and 2nd accused, while working as Village man in Konny village, being public servants, entered into criminal conspiracy. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 26.02.2004, the 2nd accused demanded ₹500 from Sri.Saseendran for himself and for the 1st accused, and he accepted ₹200 from Sri.Saseendran on the same day, as illegal gratification for effecting mutation in respect of 11.5 cents of property in survey No.500/3/H/1/1 Konny village owned by Sri.Saseendran. The further case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused demanded the balance bribe of ₹300 from Sri.Saseendran on 26.02.2004 itself. The 2 nd accused again demanded bribe from Sri.Saseendran on 03.03.2004 at Konny village office for the same purpose and in pursuance of that, at 1:00 pm on 06.03.2004, at the office room of village office Konny, 1st accused accepted ₹200 and the 2nd accused 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 5 accepted ₹100 from Sri.Saseendran. Thereby they abused their official position and obtained undue pecuniary advantage for themselves. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) by the accused.
4. Acting on the final report, the special court took cognizance of the case and proceeded with trial. During trial, on the side of prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined, Exts.P1 to P17 and MO1 to MO12 were marked. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked on the side of the defence.
5. The learned Special Court on appreciation of the evidence found that the accused committed offences 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 6 punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as under Section 120B of IPC and sentenced him as under:
"In the result, both accused persons are convicted under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years each and fine Rs.15,000/-(fifteen thousand) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months each, convicted under Sec.13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years each and fine Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months each and convicted under Sec. 120-B IP.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year each. The sentences shall run concurrently. Both accused are entitled for set off from 06/03/2004 till 09/03/2004 under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.. M.O.1 series shall be returned to PW1 and 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 7 M.O.2 to 12 shall be destroyed, after the appeal period is over or after the disposal of appeal, if any."
6. The learned senior counsel appearing the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 mainly contended that there is no convincing evidence available in this case to prove the demand of bribe either by the 1 st accused or by the 2nd accused. It is pointed out that PW1 given evidence that he visited the village office on 03.03.2004 and met the Village Officer for the purpose of effecting the mutation. However, as per Ext.P11, the attendance register for the relevant period, which was tendered in evidence through PW6, it could be gathered that on 03.03.2004, the 1st accused was on casual leave. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 in this regard is incorrect. It is pointed out further that, in this case, as per the 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 8 prosecution allegation, the complainant, who was examined as PW1, deposed that he had put up an application for effecting mutation on 26.02.2004 before the Village Officer and he had remitted the fee for the same, for which receipt also was issued by the Village Officer and on the same day, the Village Officer and the Village Assistant (in fact, referred the Village Assistant, the 2nd accused, as the village man) demanded ₹500 for effecting mutation after tracing out the records. It is further pointed out that during evidence also, PW1 deposed about 'something was asked by the Village Officer' but in the Chief Examination, he did not state anything regarding any demand made by the 2nd accused. Therefore, the points pressed by the learned senior counsel for the accused is that there is no evidence to prove the demand of bribe by accused Nos. 1 and 2.
2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 9
7. Apart from that, he pointed out the non-conduct of pre-trap verification in this case. According to him, even though CW6, the Village Man, was cited as a witness on the side of the prosecution, he was not examined.
8. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, even though the prosecution suppressed the documents recovered as per Ext.P4, without producing the same before the Special Court, by examining DW1, the Special Village Officer, Ext.D3, i.e., Form A prepared on 26.02.2004 for the purpose of effecting mutation in respect of the property of PW1 was proved through DW1. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, since the application submitted by PW1, for effecting mutation, where there was subdivision of the property, was forwarded as 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 10 early on 27.02.2004, there is no grievance for the petitioner to pay bribe in the matter of mutation. Thus, the prosecution case otherwise is in the midst of doubts. The learned senior counsel would submit that the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt in this matter. In support of this contention, he has placed decision of the Apex Court in State by Lokayuktha Police Davanagere v. C. B. Nagaraj, reported in 2025 KHC 6519, where the Apex Court held as under:
"The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain - beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components - of payment and recovery can be held to have been 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 11 proved, the chain would not be complete. A penal law has to be strictly construed."
9. Similarly, another decision of the Apex Court in Sambasiva Rao M v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2025 KHC 6618, the Apex Court granted benefit of doubt to the accused after discussing the evidence as under:
"We say so, in view of three glaring contradictions in the prosecution evidence which cumulatively shake the foundations of the prosecution case and render its death knell. Having analysed the evidence threadbare and considered the entire evidential gamut, we find that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand of and acceptance of the bribe in the trap laid by PW12. This is, to be charitable to the investigative agency, at best a case of a botched-up trap with serious lapses committed by the investigative agency. The role of the SP and PW12 also calls for a detailed look, but in view of the fact that they are not before us, we refrain from further comment. At its worst, 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 12 this case is an example of fabrication and attempted frame-up. Whatever be the truth of the matter, the fact remains that in either scenario, benefit of doubt has to flow to the appellant. It would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the appellant in any view of the matter. In view of our foregoing discussion, we set aside the Impugned Judgment and restore the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court."
10. Another decision of the Apex Court in Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2025 KHC 7187 also has been placed by the learned senior counsel for the accused, wherein the apex court observed in paragraph No.15 as under:
"15.On an examination of the evidence, there is considerable doubt raised in our mind, which qualifies as reasonable doubt, as to whether there was acceptance of bribe amounts by both the accused. True, the officers of the trap team spoke about the handing over of the money by the complainant to the 1st accused who handed over half, to the 2nd accused; which amounts 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 13 were said to have been put by both the accused in their trouser pockets. PW 8 who led the trap team merely spoke of a recovery of the bribe amounts from the possession of the accused and the hands and trousers of the accused having positively reacted to the test solution. The said deposition is contrary to the statements made by the independent witnesses that some notes were found thrown on the floor. None of the officers spoke of any of the accused having taken out the notes and thrown it on the floor."
11. Another decision of this Court in Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000 KHC 1785 also has been placed to contend that prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise by proper proof of acceptance of the illegal gratification, the vital ingredient, necessary to be established to procure a conviction for the offences under consideration. Currency note in question 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 14 was not recovered from the person or from the table drawer, but when the trap party arrived was found only on the pad on the table and seized from that place only. Such recovery does not conclusively lead to inference of acceptance of bribe by accused.
12. Another decision of this Court in Hariharan P.A. v. State of Kerala reported in 2021(3) KHC 85 also has been placed to contend that the demand and acceptance are essential to prove the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and in the said case, this Court convicted the accused where no evidence forthcoming to see the demand.
13. Apart from that, the learned senior counsel placed decision of the Apex Court in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P., reported in 2024 KHC 6354, and the same discussed 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 15 the necessity of the convention that, in trap laying cases, the trap laying officer has to verify the factum of demand by the public servant for vitiating the trap proceedings.
14. Repelling the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the accused, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case, as far as demand of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2 after having hatched to do so, is concerned, the evidence of PW1 to the effect that after filing the application for effecting mutation on 26.02.2004, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded ₹500 to expedite the proceedings, and intimated that there would be delay otherwise would suffice. Apart from that, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that PW1 deposed about the demand made by the 1st accused during chief examination and the 2nd accused during cross- examination, and thereafter, acceptance of the same by both of 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 16 them. Therefore, the recovery of the amount, as deposed by PW2 and PW6, would show that there was demand and acceptance.
15. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that in this case, there is no pre-trap verification and the same is not mandatory in all cases. According to him, non-conduct of pre- trap verification by itself could not be sufficient to wash away convincing evidence available to prove the guilt of the accused. Regarding non-production of the documents, recovered as per Ext.P4, particularly, Ext.D3, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that Ext.P15 register, showing preparation of Form A on 26.02.2004, was produced by the prosecution and therefore, non-production of other documents on the same fact could not be held as suppression of material evidence. It is also pointed out that even though CW6, the village man, cited as a 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 17 witness, he was not examined since the points to be proved by him was proved through other witnesses and therefore, his non- examination was not deliberate.
16. Having considered the rival contentions, the points arise for consideration are;
1. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988?
2. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988?
3. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC?
4. Whether the verdict would require interference?
5. The order to be passed?
2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 18 17. Point Nos.1 to 5 In the instant case, after 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. examination, accused Nos.1 and 2 were questioned and after questioning, the Village Officer put up a case that, at 4.00 pm on 25.02.2004, Sri.Saseendran submitted an application for mutation of his property. After examining the related documents in the village, he and the Village man went for site inspection, that on the next day, the applicant remitted the mutation fee of ₹10 and returned with the receipt and on the next day, the documents relating to the mutation were prepared and signed by him and he entrusted the same with the Village Assistant. The said documents were sent to the Taluk office on 27.02.2004. He was on leave on 03.03.2004. The applicant came to the village office on 06.03.2004 and enquired whether the mutation had been effected. He asked the Village man to 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 19 bring the 'pokkuvaravu register'. Village man brought the same. He asked whether mutation had been sanctioned and returned to the village office. The Village man verified the register and told that the documents had been sent to the Taluk office on 27.02.2004 and the same had not been returned yet. The complainant shook his right hand saying that it was a big help as the documents had been sent on 27.02.2004 itself. Then the complainant shook both hands of the village man and expressed his gratitude. complainant turned back, 4-5 persons entered into the room and forcibly held their hands. As indicated by the complainant, the Dy.S.P. took the notes from the book. Then the hands of himself and Village man were forcibly dipped in some solution and shirts were removed and then they were taken to the Dy.S.P. office and then to the Court. In the 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 20 proceedings on the application submitted by the complainant he did not demand any money or did not accept. He is innocent.
18. The contention of the 2nd accused is that he worked as Village man for 8 years in Konny village office before the date of incident in this case. On 25.02.2004 at 4:00 P.M, as directed by the 1st accused, he verified the documents of the property of Sri.Saseendran and entrusted the same with the Village Officer. They went for site inspection and returned. On 03.03.2004, the complainant came to the village office and he was informed that Village Officer was on leave and his application was sent to the Taluk office. On 06.03.2004, in the afternoon, Village officer asked him to bring 'pokkuvaravu' register and accordingly, he went to the Village Officer's room with the register. Sri.Saseendran was present in the room. He replied to the Village officer that the documents were sent to 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 21 Taluk office on 27.02.2004 and it was not returned with sanction. The complainant was shown the relevant pages in the register. Then Sri.Saseendran shook hands of the 1st accused. Then he shook his both hands expressing his pleasure and saying that it was a big help as the document was sent on 27 th day itself. Sri. Saseendran tried to place something inside the register and he withdrew the register. Then 4-5 persons entered into the office, held their hands forcibly. As pointed out by the complainant, the Dy.S.P., took the notes from the book. Then their fingers were forcibly dipped in solution and their shirts were removed, then they were taken to the Dy.S.P. office and then to the Court. He has no right or responsibility in taking any action on the application given by the complainant. He did not demand or accept money. He is innocent.
2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 22
19. Coming to the evidence available to establish the ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, found to be committed by accused Nos.1 and 2, it is necessary to discuss the same.
20. The prosecution has given heavy reliance on the evidence of PW1 to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2. PW1 deposed that, he had purchased 11½ cents of property in the year 1994 from one Shaila, and he submitted application for mutation on 26.02.2004 to the Village Assistant (actually, the Village man), Sri.Sainalabdheen at Konny village office. He remitted the fees and the receipt was given at the office itself. The Village officer, Raju Abraham, and the Village Assistant told him that there would be delay in effecting the mutation and the same would be effected without delay if he would give ₹500 to them.
2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 23 Accordingly, he gave ₹200 to the Village Assistant and he had accepted the same. Then both of them told him that the mutation would be effected if the balance amount would be paid. He further testified that on the same day itself, Village Officer and Village Assistant inspected the property and after their return to the village office, the Village Assistant prepared the records and asked him to give to the Village Officer. Accordingly, he gave the same to the Village Officer, and at that time, the Village Officer asked PW1 about the balance amount as said by the Village Assistant, when PW1 replied that the balance money was not with him as he did not have money at that time, the Village Officer told him that there would be delay. He again approached the Village Assistant and he was told to give the balance amount and to obtain the records. Village Assistant told him that out of ₹200 given to him, he gave ₹100 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 24 to the Village Officer. On 03.03.2004, he again went to the village office, he was not given with the records and the Village Officer told him that if the balance amount would be given papers could be given by hand. He approached the Village Assistant and he also told him the same. He had given a complaint at the vigilance office on 06.03.2004 and Ext.P1 is the complaint reduced into writing at the Vigilance office and he put signature therein. PW1 further stated that he produced 3 currency notes of the denomination ₹100 before the Dy.S.P., that the officers Sri.Venugopal and Sri.Mohanan were present at that time, that the Dy.S.P. and the said witnesses initialled on the notes.
21. The evidence of PW1 on the date of trap is that, when the trap team, along with him, reached the Village Office, the police men waited outside and he entered the room of the 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 25 Village Officer and given ₹200 to the Village Officer and ₹100 to the Village Assistant. Thereafter, he enquired the Village Officer whether the other things got ready and the Village Officer replied that those are ready and would be issued. According to him, both of them accepted the money and put the money in their pockets. According to PW1, he had given ₹200 to the Village Officer when the Village Officer demanded as to whether other thing brought. PW1 deposed further that when he had given ₹100 to the Village Assistant, he agreed to ready the documents. Thereafter, he came out and gave the signal as directed. Then the Vigilance party entered the room and recovered the money.
22. In the instant case, the prime contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that, there was no demand of bribe by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 26
2. On scanning the evidence of PW1, it could be seen that the prosecution alleges hatching of conspiracy in between accused Nos.1 and 2 in the matter of demand of ₹500 from PW1 for effecting mutation acting on the application submitted by PW1 on 26.02.2004 in respect of 11.5 cents of property purchased by PW1 from one Shaila in 1994. PW1 categorically deposed that the Village Officer, Sri.Raju Abraham and the Village Assistant, Sri. Sainalabdheen, who were at the dock, said to him that in order to effect mutation, there would be delay to search out the documents and both of them said to PW1 that if ₹500 would be paid to them, the mutation process would be expedited. PW1 has a specific version that on 26.02.2004, ie., on the date of application, he handed over ₹200 to the Village Assistant as demanded and was accepted by him. According to PW1, then the 2nd accused agreed to effect the mutation if he would reach 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 27 the office along with the balance amount. In continuation of the same, on the date of trap, when he entered the office of the Village Officer, he asked as to whether the other item ( മറ്റേത് ) was brought and he replied that the same was brought. Then the Village Officer demanded to give the same. Accordingly, he had paid ₹200 to the Village Officer and ₹100 to the Village Assistant and the Village Assistant agreed to ready the records on getting the money.
23. PW2 deposed that he was U.D. Clerk in Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta in the year 2004 and on 06.03.2004, as per the direction of the President, he went to assist in a vigilance case. He reached the vigilance office at about 10:15-10:30 A.M, Sri.Mohanan who was Clerk in District Medical Store was also present, the Dy.S.P. read over the complaint to them, that the complainant produced ₹300 before 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 28 the Dy.S.P. and he and the other witness and Dy S.P. initialled on the notes. PW2 and PW6 had identified the said notes as M.O.1 series.
24. PW6, the then Dy.S.P., V.AC.B, Pathanamthitta deposed that at 9:30 A.M, on 06.03.2004 he recorded the statement given by PW1 and registered V.C. 01/2004 under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 34 of IPC and Ext.P1 (a) was the F.I.R. As per his requisition, the official witnesses Sri.Mohanan and Sri.Venugopal reached at the Vigilance office and the F.I.R. was read over to them.
25. PW6 further stated that phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the notes through Head Constable, another Head Constable touched the notes and when his fingers were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the fingers and the solution 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 29 turned pink and MO2 is the bottle containing the said solution. The notes were given back to PW1 with direction that the same should be given to the accused persons only if they demanded. PW1 and PW2 corroborated the said version. PW6 further said that Ext.P2 is the mahazar prepared by him regarding the things done at the vigilance office and PW2 deposed that he had signed in it. PW2 and PW6 deposed that they went to Konny village office at about 12:15 P.M., and upon reaching there, PW1 and one constable were sent to the village office. PW6 stated that policemen were deputed to relay the signal that would be given by PW1 after the accused persons accepted the bribe.
26. PW6 deposed further that after getting signal from the police men, he and the witnesses entered the village office. PW1 was standing in front of the office, and he introduced 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 30 himself to the Village Officer and the Village Assistant. PW1 deposed that the Village Officer and the Village Assistant were inside the room, that the Village Officer asked him about the balance amount, and that he replied he had brought it. He further stated that he gave ₹200 to the Village Officer and ₹100 to the Village Assistant, and that they placed the money in their shirt's pockets. He further testified that he and the witnesses dipped their fingers in sodium carbonate solution and that there was no color change and MO3 was the bottle containing the said solution. In another glass the solution was taken, and the fingers on the left hand of the accused were dipped in it, there was no color change and when the right hand fingers of the village officer were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the solution showed pink color change. The said solution was taken in a bottle, sealed, labeled and marked as 'C' and he and the 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 31 witnesses signed it. He identified MO4 as the bottle which contains the signature. He identified the 1 st accused in the dock as the said village officer. When he asked the village officer about the money he replied that he did not demand money and that PW1 placed the notes there and he showed a rough book. The witness Sri.Mohanan took the notes and on examination, it was found that the notes were the same notes entrusted with PW1 as per mahazar. When the corner of the notes were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the dipped portion and solution turned pink. MO5 was the bottle containing the said solution. 1st accused had additionally had ₹4,130 with him. His shirt was removed and on dipping the pocket portion in sodium carbonate solution, the said portion turned pink. MO6 was the bottle containing the said solution. MO11 is the shirt worn by 1st accused at that time.
27. PW6 further said that when the Village Assistant Sri.Sainalabdheen was questioned, he replied that he did not 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 32 demand money and he saw PW1 placing something inside a book and something fell down when he took the book. PW1 replied that he had given the money into the hands of the 2nd accused and it was put in the pocket of the shirt. A ₹100 rupee note in a wrinkled manner was found on the floor where the 2nd accused was standing. The witness Venugopal took it and on examination, it was found to be the same note given as per the entrustment mahazar. When the left hand fingers of the 2nd accused was dipped in sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink. MO7 was the bottle containing the said solution. Then the right hand fingers of the 2nd accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the same also showed pink colour change. MO8 was the bottle containing the said solution. When the corner portion of the ₹100 note was dipped in sodium carbonate solution, then the dipped portion and solution turned pink. MO9 was the bottle containing the said solution. The witness Sri.Mohanan conducted his body 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 33 search and there was other notes in his shirt. His shirt was removed and on dipping in sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink. MO10 was the bottle containing the solution and MO12 was the shirt worn by 2nd accused at that time.
28. In comity with the decisions argued by the learned senior counsel for the accused based on the decisions referred herein above, it is necessary to address the ingredients to prove the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 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 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 34 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 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 35 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".
29. 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 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 36 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.
2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 37
(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 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 38 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 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 39 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."
30. 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 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 40 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 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 41 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.
31. 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:
2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 42 "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 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 43 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."
2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 44
32. In the instant case, as per the evidence discussed, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to prove the demand of bribe by the accused persons on 24.02.2004 and on 06.03.2004. It is true that, PW1 deposed about the demand of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2 on 03.03.2004 also. But as per Ext.P11 attendance register, the 1st accused was on casual leave on that day. In this connection, it is relevant to note that when public servants, such as Village Officers, may usually present in the office, sometimes even they would be on leave. Otherwise, the date stated by PW1 may be a mistake. Otherwise eschewing demand on 03.03.2004 in the above context, then also, demand of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly on 26.02.2004 on the date of putting the application for mutation, and acceptance of the same after demand on 06.03.2004 to be read out from the evidence of 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 45 PW1. Regarding the phenolphthalein test conducted at the hands of the accused, recovery of the same from the shirt's pockets of accused Nos.1 and 2 and consequential colour change observed in MO1, MO3, MO4 etc. to prove the acceptance of bribe money by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively was found to be convincing and PW2, the decoy witness, also categorically stated so. It is true that recovery of the money from the 2nd accused was from the floor of the office since the same fell down from the note book where the 2 nd accused had placed the same. On identifying the ₹100 note recovered from the floor, which was alleged to have been accepted by the 2nd accused, it was verified and found to be the note described in the entrustment mahazar, as deposed by PW6 and PW2. PW6 and PW2 also deposed about dipping of the left hand and right hand fingers of the 2 nd accused in the 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 46 sodium carbonate solution and its colour change. MO7 and MO8 are the solutions so collected.
33. Coming to the first contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants/accused that as evident from Ext.D3 as well as Ext.P4, Form-A was prepared for mutating the property of PW1 on 26.02.2004 and forwarded the same on 27.02.2004 and therefore, there is no necessity to pay bribe thereafter on the date of trap on 06.03.2004, it has to be observed that the preparation of Form A on 26.02.2004 and forwarding, as evident from Ext.D3 and Ext.P4, are matters known to the accused persons or other officials of village office. As far as PW1, a third party, is concerned, unless he was not specifically informed of those steps, his impression would be that his application for mutation would be addressed by moving further steps only when the demanded bribe amount would be 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 47 given. In this matter, the evidence given by PW1 would indicate that PW1 bona fidely believed that only when he would pay the bribe, part of which was paid on 26.02.2004 itself and the balance paid on the date of trap, his application for mutation would not be materialised and accordingly, he had given the bribe on demand of the same. Therefore, Ext.D3 and Ext.P4 would not take away the case of the prosecution, supported by PW1 in the above line. Therefore, this contention is set at rest. Same is the position as regards to non-examination of DW1 on the prosecution side, since the purpose of his examination was satisfied by the prosecution otherwise.
34. Regarding non-conduct of pre-trap verification in the instant case, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, there was no pre-trap verification. It is true that pre-trap verification is a convention being followed with a view to avoid false implication of government officials based on flimsy allegations. However, when 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 48 there is an allegation and, without pre-trap verification, FIR was registered and consequently the trap was succeeded and the same was proved by evidence, non-conduct of pre-trap verification by itself would not affect the prosecution case in any manner. Therefore, this contention is also dispelled.
35. Thus on re-appreciation of evidence, what could be found is that there was demand by accused Nos.1 and 2 to pay ₹500 to effect mutation of the property of PW1, as part of conspiracy hatched between them and out of which ₹200 was demanded and accepted by the 2nd accused on 26.02.2004 itself. Thereafter, on the date of trap also, they demanded and accepted the money. Therefore, the Special Court is right in holding that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 and in such view of the matter, the conviction does not require any interference. Coming to the 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 49 sentence, I am inclined to modify the sentence to the statutory minimum, in the interest of justice.
36. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction imposed against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 is confirmed and the sentence stands modified.
1. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay fine of ₹10,000 each for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, both the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of ₹10,000 each for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, both the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 50
3. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
4. The sentences shall run concurrently. Both accused are entitled for set off from 06/03/2004 till 09/03/2004 under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
37. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to accused Nos.1 and 2 stands vacated, with direction to the accused to appear before the special court forthwith to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE nkr