2. Heard the learned counsel for the 1st accused, the
learned counsel for the 2nd and the 3rd accused, in detail.
3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 3
Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter).
4. The precise allegation of the prosecution is that
and personal interviews of the candidates took place.
5. The Special Court secured the presence of the
accused for trial and recorded evidence. The evidence
side of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.
6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court
"64. In the result, A1 and A2 are
sentenced to undergo Rigorous
imprisonment for one year each and to pay a
fine of Rs.2 lakh each in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for four months each
U/s.8 of the PC Act, 1988. A3 is directed to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
and to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine and in default
to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month U/s.8 of PC Act, 1988.
& 324 OF 2018 7 2025:KER:80945
65. A1 and A2 are directed to
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one
year each and liable to pay Rs.2 lakhs each
as fine and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for 4 months U/S.120B r/w
Section 8 of the PC Act.
66. A3 is directed to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to
pay Rs.50,000/- as fine and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month
U/s.120-B r/w section 8 of the PC Act. The
substantive sentences shall be run
concurrently. If fine is realised from A1 and
A2, Rs.6 Lakhs shall be paid as compensation
to PW1 U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C."
7. While differentiating the case of the 2 nd accused
from that of accused Nos.1 and 3, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the 2nd accused that, in this matter, the
evidence of PW1, supported by the evidence of PW5 and
PW8, is relied on by the Special Court to establish the
& 324 OF 2018 8 2025:KER:80945
involvement of the 2nd accused. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the 2nd accused that, as far as the 2nd
accused is concerned, PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel further that even
going by the evidence of PW1, the same does not anywhere
indicate that the 2nd accused either personally demanded or
accepted the amount, as alleged by the prosecution. It is
submitted further that the Special Court convicted and
sentenced the 2nd accused, based on presumptive
circumstances without any support of sufficient documents
or corroborative evidence. According to the learned counsel,
in order to substantiate offence under Section 8 of the PC
Act, 1988, the ingredients as dealt in paragraph No.6 of the
judgment of the Apex Court in Babji v. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in [(2018) 17 SCC 732] are to be
satisfied.
& 324 OF 2018 9 2025:KER:80945
8. The learned counsel for the 1 st accused read out
the evidence of PW5 and PW8 contending that the
ingredients for the offences, as pointed out by the learned
counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3, not proved. He also would
submit that when the evidence is insufficient to prove the
demand of illegal gratification and the accused provides a
plausible explanation under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) that
they were unaware of receiving excess money beyond lawful
fees, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. In
this connection, he placed decision of the Apex Court in
Mini v. CBI/SPE Cochin reported in [2025 ICO 1864],
with reference to paragraph No.12, the Apex Court held that
it is well settled that statement of the accused explaining the
incriminating circumstances is to be considered before
recording conviction and where the explanation is plausible and
& 324 OF 2018 10 2025:KER:80945
appropriately explains the incriminating circumstances, it
may be accepted.
9. The learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.2
and 3 contended that as far as the 3rd accused is concerned,
in the present case, the status of PW1 and PW2 is that of
interested accomplice witnesses, and therefore, their
evidence, in the absence of independent corroborative
evidence cannot be relied upon, solely to bring home the
guilt of the accused or to establish the necessary ingredients
of the offences alleged. It is further argued that the
prosecution has failed to produce cogent and credible
supporting evidence to substantiate the version of PW1 and
PW2. In light of the above, the learned counsel canvassed for
the acquittal of the 3rd accused on the submission that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt, as required under law.
& 324 OF 2018 11 2025:KER:80945
10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI
argued that insofar as the complicity of accused Nos.1 and 3
is concerned, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, corroborated by
the testimonies of PW19 and PW20, is available on record.
In addition, the evidence of PW8 has been relied upon by the
Special Court, to hold that circumstantial evidence
established the involvement of the 2 nd accused in the crime,
as part of a conspiracy hatched between them. In this regard,
the learned Special Public Prosecutor drew the attention of
this Court to the observations made by the Special Court,
which discussed the role of each of the accused in
furtherance of the common object of the conspiracy. It was
further submitted that the allegation against the 2 nd accused,
wherein accused Nos.1 and 3 are alleged to have acted in
concert, can be clearly inferred from the circumstantial
evidence. The Special Court found such evidence were
& 324 OF 2018 12 2025:KER:80945
sufficient to establish the nexus among the accused.
Therefore, the conviction and sentence as against the 2 nd
accused are well-founded and the same would require no
interference by this Court. That apart, it is pointed out by
the learned Public Prosecutor that the evidence of PW5, who
is none other than the brother of the 2nd accused to the effect
that he had telephoned PW1 and PW2 requesting them not to
disturb the 2nd accused by alleging her involvement in the
matter of illegal gratification from PW1 and PW2, was also
emphasised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor to
prove the guilt of the 2nd accused. It is further pointed out
that the Special Court relied on this evidence as well while
finding that the 2nd accused had committed the offences.
11. Adverting to the rival arguments, the points
arise for consideration are;
(i) Whether the Special Court was right in
& 324 OF 2018 13 2025:KER:80945
holding that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed
offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act,
1988?
(ii) Whether the Special Court was right in
holding that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed offence
punishable under Section 120B of the IPC ?
(iii) Whether the verdict would require
interference?
(iv) The order to be passed?
12. Point Nos.(i) to (iv)
While addressing the rival contentions, it is necessary
to consider the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who had applied
for the post of Cabin Crew in Air India and were subjected to
an interview on 30.01.2011 at Abad Hotel, Nedumbassery.
Apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW19 and PW20,
the persons who had accompanied PW1 and PW2,
& 324 OF 2018 14 2025:KER:80945
respectively, at the time when they handed over the money
pursuant to the demand made by accused Nos. 1 and 3, also
assume significance.
13. PW1 deposed that he worked at the Cochin
International Airport as Flight Co-ordinator attached with
Airawath Aviation company during the period 2010 to 2011
February. He deposed about the publication of
advertisement for the post of recruitment of Cabin Crew in
their website and newspaper. He also deposed that he had
applied for the said post. Ext.P2 series are the copy of
application form submitted by PW1 along with the related
documents. On 25.01.2011, a walk-in interview was
scheduled at Abad Airport Hotel, Kochi. The interview
proceedings started at 7 a.m. on that day. He had registered
for the interview and obtained a registration slip bearing
No.OBC 707. He was directed to appear for the group
& 324 OF 2018 15 2025:KER:80945
discussion and personal interview on 30.01.2011 at Abad
Hotel. Accordingly, he appeared on that day. The group
discussion was conducted first and he was selected for the
personal interview. The personal interview was also
completed on the same day. Two weeks after the personal
interview, he had received a telephone call claiming to be
from the Bombay Air India office, stating that he had been
selected and would be called for training without any delay.
When the recruitment advertisement was published in the
newspaper, the 1st accused, who was working at CIAL and
attached to Decor Aviation had approached PW1. PW1
identified the 1st accused before the Court. The 1st accused
informed PW1 that if he would pay Rs.4 Lakh to the 2 nd
accused, Smt. Savitha S. Kannan, who was working as Senior
Cabin Crew with Air India, he would get the job. It was also
stated that Smt.Savitha Kannan would influence the officers
& 324 OF 2018 16 2025:KER:80945
of Air India in Bombay. He did not give any reply. On
25.01.2011, when he came out of the hotel after registration,
the 1st accused was present there. He again reiterated the
same demand regarding payment of money to the 2 nd
accused for securing the job. On 30.01.2011, after the group
discussion, one officer loudly called out the names of the
candidates who had qualified in the group discussion. On
hearing that, the 2nd accused, Smt.Savitha Kannan,
approached him and enquired, "Are you the friend of Mr.
Baby?" (Baby is the 1st accused). She also stated that Baby
was present there and that they would meet again. He
identified Smt.Savitha Kannan before the Court. After the
interview, Baby Varghese again approached PW1 and
repeatedly stated that if he would pay Rs.4 Lakh, he would
arrange the job. On 01.02.2011, a fixed deposit in the name
of the mother of PW1 at the Kodungalloor Town Co-operative
& 324 OF 2018 17 2025:KER:80945
Bank was closed, and Rs.3,17,000/- was withdrawn. Using
this amount, the father of PW1 paid Rs.3,50,000/- to the 1 st
accused at the car parking area of CIAL. At that time, PW1
and PW19 were also present. After receiving the amount,
Baby Varghese assured them that PW1 would be called for
training in the first batch itself. He also asked them to pay
the balance of Rs.50,000/- within a short period. Thereafter,
they withdrew Rs.80,000/- from the fixed deposit account of
his mother. From that amount, Rs.49,900/- was deposited in
the account of one Mr.Rona Francis (PW3) as directed by the
1st accused. According to him, though he was directed to
deposit Rs.50,000/-, due to the absence of a PAN card, he
could deposit only Rs.49,900/-. The entire amount was paid
for securing the job in Air India. The 1 st accused had sent the
account number of PW3 via a mobile message. Ext.P3 was
the credit voucher showing the deposit of Rs.49,900/- by
& 324 OF 2018 18 2025:KER:80945
PW1 into the account of PW3. The said amount was
deposited on 12.02.2011. Pursuant to this payment, he had
contacted the 1st accused several times. On all such occasions,
the 1st accused assured him that he would get the job. During
February 2011, the father of PW1 fell ill, and PW1 resigned
from the airport. He was in need of money for his father's
treatment. Moreover, even after the lapse of six months, he
could not secure the job. Hence, he had demanded the
amount back from the 1st accused. The 1st accused deposited
Rs.1 Lakh in the account of PW1 in Federal Bank, Airport
Branch, in two instalments. At that time also, the 1 st accused
stated that the job would be ready soon. Thereafter, one
person named Sharma contacted him over the phone and
told him that the job would be ready within a short time.
Later, he lodged a complaint before the Vigilance Wing of the
Airport. They directed him to approach the CBI, and
& 324 OF 2018 19 2025:KER:80945
accordingly, Ext.P1 was given to PW23. He identified his
signature in Ext.P1. The balance amount had not been
received so far. Many of the persons working at the airport
had applied for the post of Airline Attendants. They had
discussed the matter among themselves. Accordingly, Baby
Varghese came to know about the application of PW1. He
had given statement to the Investigating Officer in this
regard. PW1 also stated that the 1st accused and he had
worked together for a short period before the money
transaction involved in this case. The 1 st accused was not
familiar to him earlier. He had acquaintance with the 1 st
accused only after the latter approached him in connection
with the demand of Rs.4 Lakh. According to PW1, he had not
given Rs.1 Lakh to the 1st accused on a credit basis. There was
no occasion to give Rs.1 Lakh to the 1 st accused. As the
amount was directly paid to the 1st accused, there were no
& 324 OF 2018 20 2025:KER:80945
documents showing the receipt of Rs.3½ Lakh. He denied
the suggestion that the amount withdrawn from his mother's
account was utilised for some purpose other than giving it to
the 1st accused.
14. PW2 deposed that during 2011-2012, he was
working at CIAL Airport. He had applied for the post of
Cabin Crew in Air India, and Ext.P4 series were the
application form and related documents. The interview was
conducted on 30.01.2011 at Abad Airport Hotel. After the
interview, he continued his employment at the airport. Two
or three days thereafter, one Mr.Syed, the 3 rd accused, who
was working as an Arabic Translator in Air India at CIAL had
approached him and enquired about the interview. He
identified the 3rd accused before the Court. According to
PW2, the 3rd accused was known to him earlier. The 3 rd
accused told him that if he would pay Rs.4.5 Lakh, he would
& 324 OF 2018 21 2025:KER:80945
get the job of Cabin Crew. It was also stated that the amount
was to be given through the 1st accused, who was working in
the dispatch section. Both PW2 and the 3rd accused
thereafter went to meet the 1 st accused. The 1st accused also
told him that if he would pay Rs.4.5 Lakh, he would get the
employment by influencing the officials of Air India. He
identified the 1st accused before the Court. PW2 told them
that he would inform them about the same after consulting
with his family members. Accordingly, he discussed the
matter with his family. PW2 stated that he had paid Rs.4.5
Lakh to the 3rd accused in two instalments. An amount of
Rs.2 Lakh was given to the 3 rd accused at his residence, at
that time, PW20 was also present with PW2. The second
instalment of Rs.2½ Lakh was handed over to the 3 rd
accused at a place near the airport, and on that occasion too,
PW2 was accompanied by PW20. After receiving the money,
& 324 OF 2018 22 2025:KER:80945
the 3rd accused assured them that he would arrange the
employment through the 1st accused, Baby Varghese.
According to PW2, Rs.2.40 Lakh was raised by pledging gold
ornaments and utilising the money available in the accounts
of his parents, while the remaining amount was contributed
by PW20. The amount had been withdrawn from the bank
during January 2011. Even after the lapse of seven to eight
months, the job was not arranged as promised by the 3 rd
accused. Whenever PW2 met the 3 rd accused, he enquired
about it, and the 3rd accused repeatedly assured him that the
job would be arranged soon. Thereafter, PW20 contacted the
3rd accused over the phone, and both of them went to the
house of the 3rd accused and demanded either to arrange the
job or to return the money. On that occasion too, the 3 rd
accused assured them that the job would be arranged and
further stated that if the job was not ready, the amount
& 324 OF 2018 23 2025:KER:80945
would be returned within one month. Subsequently, PW2
noticed the absence of the 3 rd accused at the airport and
made enquiries, through which he came to know that the 3 rd
accused was planning to move to Saudi Arabia. He informed
the same to his family members. Thereafter, PW2, along with
PW20 and one Mr.Asharaf, the brother of his father, went to
the house of the 3rd accused. On that occasion, the 3rd accused
told them that he would return the amount within three days
and handed over his passport and bank passbook as security.
After three days, the 3rd accused returned Rs.3 Lakh and
stated that the remaining amount would be paid within ten
days. Within ten days, Rs.1 Lakh was also returned. They did
not insist on the balance of Rs.50,000/-. After the
registration of this case, the 3 rd accused came to the house of
PW20 and returned Rs.50,000/-. At that time, he told them
that PW2 would be interrogated by the CBI officials and that
& 324 OF 2018 24 2025:KER:80945
nothing needed to be disclosed. During November and
December, PW2 received a telephone call informing him that
he would get the job soon. His mobile number was
9895698251, and Ext.P5 series were the application form
and copy of the identity card submitted for obtaining the
mobile connection. He further stated that he had received
telephone calls from mobile number 9310893626, which he
had saved under the name "Express." According to PW2, he
was informed that the money was to be paid to the Air India
officials. Exts.P6 and P6(a) contradictions were also brought
out in his witness, which would negate the involvement of
the 2nd accused.
15. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW2 as regards to
involvement of the 2nd accused, PW2 turned hostile to the
prosecution and PW2 did not disclose anything to show the
involvement of the 2nd accused in this crime. On perusal of
& 324 OF 2018 25 2025:KER:80945
the evidence of PW1, the same mainly confined to demand of
Rs.4 Lakh by the 1st accused to be given to the 2 nd accused,
who was working as Senior Cabin Crew with Air India in
order to get the job. That apart, PW1 stated that the 1 st
accused informed him that the 2nd accused would influence
the officers of Air India in Bombay to secure the job. In
addition to that, the evidence of PW1 would show that on
30.01.2011, after the group discussion, one officer loudly
called out the names of the candidates who had qualified the
group discussion and on hearing the same, the 2 nd accused
approached PW1 and enquired "Are you the friend of
Mr.Baby?" and she had stated further that Baby was present
there and they would meet again. Accordingly, PW1
identified the 2nd accused as Smt.Savitha S. Kannan. Apart
from this, the demand and acceptance of Rs.4 Lakh, as
deposed by PW1 by the 1st accused and nothing available to
& 324 OF 2018 26 2025:KER:80945
show the direct involvement or nothing available to show that
the 1st accused demanded and accepted Rs.4 Lakh for and on
behalf of the 2nd accused. It is true that when PW5, the
brother of the 2nd accused was examined as a witness, he
deposed that during the months of July and August, 2011, the
2nd accused contacted him over the phone and disclosed that
her name was being misused by some persons for making
monetary gains. Further, she told him to enquire about the
truth of such affairs. In fact, he was declared hostile to the
prosecution. He also deposed that he contacted PW1 over
phone. Relying on the above evidence, the Special Court
discussed the involvement of the 2 nd accused in this crime
and found that she also had committed the offences alleged.
16. Going through the judgment of the learned Special
Judge, the learned Special Judge given emphasis to the
evidence of PW1 stating that on 30.01.2011, after group
& 324 OF 2018 27 2025:KER:80945
discussion, when the names of the qualified candidates were
called, the 2nd accused reached near PW1 and enquired about
his relationship with Baby, the 1 st accused and also
identification of the 2nd accused by PW1 in the dock.
According to the learned Special Judge, the presence of the
2nd accused in the venue of group discussion assumes
significance, since no Cabin Crew was officially appointed in
connection with the interview process. The learned Special
Judge also found that during questioning of the 2 nd accused
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the 2 nd accused categorically
admitted her presence at the venue of interview and the
presence of hundreds of candidates at the site. In this
regard, the learned Special Judge relied on the evidence of
PW6, the then Manager of Air India Charters Limited,
Bombay, who had given evidence that no Cabin Crew was
deputed for the interview at Abad Hotel, Nedumbassery.
& 324 OF 2018 28 2025:KER:80945
According to the learned Special Judge, no other satisfactory
evidence forthcoming to prove the contention raised by the
2nd accused to justify her presence in the venue of the
interview. Moreover, PW6 has no reason to give false
evidence against the 2nd accused. Apart from the evidence of
PW1, the evidence of PW3, who is a friend of the 1 st accused,
was also relied on by the learned Special Judge and PW3
deposed that while receiving Rs.10,000/- from PW3, the 1 st
accused told him that the amount was for securing a job at
the airport and that the amount would be given to accused
Nos. 2 and 3 for that purpose.
17. The Special Court also relied on the evidence of
PW8, who was working as Public Relations Manager in Air
India at CIAL, to the effect that during January 2011, the 2 nd
accused approached him in his office and sought his help for
selecting her economically backward relatives, whereupon he
& 324 OF 2018 29 2025:KER:80945
expressed his reluctance and instructed her not to approach
him again with such illegal requests. The Special Court was of
the view that PW1 and PW2 were not relatives of the 2 nd
accused, then also, she had recommended PW1 and PW2 for
the job, and the same as a relevant factor to prove the
involvement of the 2nd accused and her nexus with accused
Nos.1 and 3. The Special Court also observed that even
though PW2 turned hostile as against the 2 nd accused, the
evidence of PW3 would show that the 3rd accused demanded
illegal gratification from him for securing the job of Airline
Attendants by influencing the officials of Air India. Apart
from that, telephone calls took place between one Mr.Sharma
and PW1, and PW2 deposed that he also received telephone
calls from a person speaking in Hindi and English, stating
that he would definitely get the employment. The Special
Court also pointed out that during questioning under Section
& 324 OF 2018 30 2025:KER:80945
313 of the Cr.P.C., the 2nd accused admitted that PW5 madev
telephone calls to PW1 and PW2.
18. It is well-settled law that, in order to fasten
criminal culpability against a person, the prosecution has the
duty to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The
evidence may be of three types, viz, i) absolute direct
evidence, ii) indirect or absolute circumstantial evidence,
which would form a chain to prove the guilt of the accused
and iii) direct evidence in part and circumstantial evidence in
part. In the instant case, as far as the involvement of the 2 nd
accused in the matter of demand of bribe from PW1 and PW2
is concerned, no direct evidence has come forth. It is
therefore necessary for the prosecution to prove the demand
and acceptance of the bribe by the 2 nd accused with the aid of
circumstantial evidence, which would form a complete chain
to establish her guilt, excluding any other hypothesis that she
& 324 OF 2018 31 2025:KER:80945
is guilty. To put it differently, the circumstances from which
the guilt of the accused is to be drawn should be fully
established, and the chain of evidence should be so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused. In this
connection, the decision of the Apex Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported
in [AIR 1984 SC 1622] is relevant, which was followed in a
large number of subsequent decisions on this point. When
applying the circumstantial evidence in this case, relied on
by the Special Court, it is discernible that the mere presence
of the 2nd accused on the date of the group discussion, after
the declaration of qualified candidates, her subsequent
meeting with PW1, the telephone call made by PW5 to PW1
and PW2, and the telephone call between PW1 and one
Sharma and PW2 with a person speaking English and Hindi,
& 324 OF 2018 32 2025:KER:80945
are all materials connected with certain admissions made by
the accused in her 313 examination, were the evidence in the
form of circumstantial nature relied on by the learned
Special Judge to find that the 2nd accused was also involved
in the demand and acceptance of bribe, after observing that
how PW5 came to contact PW1 and PW2 for the purpose of
explaining the innocence of the 2 nd accused was not seen
explained by the 2nd accused, and the same was treated as
cogent evidence to prove the involvement of the 2 nd accused.
In fact, this finding of the Special Court, attributing a liability
on the 2nd accused to explain the lacuna in the prosecution
evidence, is not permissible in law. In fact, the said evidence
if taken together would not make a complete chain to find
the guilt of the 2nd accused excluding any other hypothesis
that the 2nd accused is guilty, as per the settled law, as already
discussed.
19. In view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation
& 324 OF 2018 33 2025:KER:80945
to hold that the learned Special Judge went wrong in finding
the involvement of the 2nd accused in this crime. Therefore,
the conviction and sentence imposed against the 2 nd accused
are liable to be set aside.
20. Coming back, even though much has been argued
by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 3 to prove the
innocence of accused Nos.1 and 3 and also repayment of
money by the 3rd accused to the tune of Rs.4.5 Lakh to PW2,
as deposed by PW2 and PW20, mere repayment would not
absolve the 3rd accused of the criminal offence. As far as the
amount by the 1st accused from PW1 is concerned, the same
was not fully repaid, only Rs.50,000/- was repaid. The
learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 further contended
that, admittedly, PW1's salary was Rs.12 Lakh, while the
salary offered for the post of Cabin Crew was only
Rs.10,000/-, and therefore, paying Rs.4.5 Lakh as bribe to
& 324 OF 2018 34 2025:KER:80945
secure a job with a lower salary is highly improbable.
However, mere salary alone is not the sole criterion for
securing a job; accordingly, this argument is not of much
significance and is hereby repelled. Yet another argument
advanced by the learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 is
that the status of PW1 and PW2 is that of accomplices, and
therefore, their evidence requires corroboration with the aid
of other evidence. In the instant case, as already discussed,
as far as demand and acceptance of bribe from PW2 is
concerned, PW20, who accompanied PW2, has given
substantive evidence itself in support of the version of PW2.
Similarly, PW19 is the witness, who accompanied PW1 at the
time of demand and acceptance of bribe by the 1 st accused.
Thus, apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the evidence
of PW19 and PW20 is also available against accused Nos.1
and 3. Therefore, this contention is found to be untenable.
& 324 OF 2018 35 2025:KER:80945
21. Here, the learned Special Judge found that the
accused persons committed offences punishable under
Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the
IPC. Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 provides as under:
8. Taking gratification, in order, by
corrupt or illegal means, to influence public
servant.- Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees
to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person,
for himself or for any other person, any
gratification whatever as a motive or reward for
inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public
servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to
forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of
the official functions of such public servant to show
favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or
attempt 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
& 324 OF 2018 36 2025:KER:80945
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less
than three years but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine.
22. The ingredients of the offence as settled by the
Apex Court in Babji's case (supra) as under:
5. In order to establish the offence Under Section
8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act it must be
proved:
(i) That the Accused accepted or
obtained, or agreed to accept, or
attempted to obtain, from someone;
(ii) For himself or for some other person;
(iii) Any gratification whatever;
(iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by
corrupt or illegal means any 'public servant'
to do or forbear to do any official act or to
show favour or render any service to any of
the persons specified in the section.
23. Here, the evidence of PW1 and Pw2 supported by
& 324 OF 2018 37 2025:KER:80945
the evidence of PW19 and PW20 and other evidence would
show that accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded and accepted bribe
from PW1 and PW2 respectively on the premise of handing
over the same to the 2nd accused, ensuring the job offered. It
is found by this Court that the evidence available is not
sufficient to find the complicity of the 2 nd accused, the
payment of Rs.4.5 Lakh back to PW2 by the 3 rd accused and
Rs.50,000/- by the 1st accused to PW1 would show that they
have demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from
PW1 and PW2 respectively, as deposed by them and
supported by the evidence of PW19 and PW20 on the
premise of giving the same to the 2 nd accused as a motive or
reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means or to show
favour or render any service to any person specified in the
Section. In paragraph No.6 of the decision in Babji's case
(supra), the Apex Court held that in order to constitute an
& 324 OF 2018 38 2025:KER:80945
offence under Section 8 of the Act, three things are essential.
In the first place there must have been the solicitation or
receipt of the gratification. Secondly, such gratification
must have been asked for or paid as a motive or reward for
inducing a public servant to do an act or do a favour or
render some service as stated under Section 8 of the Act.
Since evidence not available to show that the accused Nos.1
and 3 handed over the money to the 2 nd accused, the
available evidence would suggest that the illegal gratification
was demanded by accused Nos.1 and 3 to be paid as a motive
or reward for inducing a public servant do an act or to do a
favour and in pursuance of the said demand, they accepted
the same. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 supported by PW19
and PW20 categorically would establish that accused Nos.1
and 3 demanded and accepted the amount. That apart, the
evidence discussed would show the repayment of Rs.4.5
& 324 OF 2018 39 2025:KER:80945
Lakh by the 3rd accused back to PW2 and Rs.50,000/- by the
1st accused to PW1. Thus, the ingredients for the offence
under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, as part of conspiracy
hatched in between accused Nos.1 and 3 could be gathered.
Therefore, the finding of the Special Court that accused Nos.1
and 3 committed offences punishable under Section 120B of
the IPC and Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, is only to be
confirmed.
24. Coming to the sentence, the Special Court
sentenced accused Nos.1 and 3 as extracted hereinabove. On
a perusal of the sentence, it could be gathered that the
learned Special Judge committed an error by imposing
simple imprisonment for default sentence after imposing
rigorous imprisonment as substantive sentence. Therefore,
the imprisonment would require modification by unifying
the same.
& 324 OF 2018 40 2025:KER:80945
25. Since the minimum sentence provided for the
offence under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, before
amendment of Section 8 w.e.f. 16.01.2014 was 6 months, I
am inclined to modify the sentence.
26. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part.
Conviction and sentence imposed against the 2 nd accused are
set aside and the 2nd accused is set at liberty forthwith.
27. The conviction imposed against accused Nos.1 and
3 are upheld while modifying the sentence as under:
Accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 9 months each and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,50,000/- each for the offence punishable under
Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. For the
offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC, accused
Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
& 324 OF 2018 41 2025:KER:80945
for a period of 4 months each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, accused
Nos.1 and 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month each. If the fine is realised, Rs.4,00,000/- shall be
paid to PW1.
The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and
the default sentences shall run separately.
The orders suspending sentence and granting bail to
accused Nos.1 to 3 stand cancelled and the bail bonds
executed by accused Nos.1 to 3 also stand cancelled. Accused
Nos.1 and 3 are 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
& 324 OF 2018 42 2025:KER:80945
and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
& 324 OF 2018 43 2025:KER:80945
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL
CERTIFICATE FOR THREE YEAR UNITARY
LL.B ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-04-
2025 IN WP (C). 44000/2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : NIL
