Kerala High Court
Stanley Pigarez vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2025
2025:KER:66673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1511 OF 2018
CRIME NO.03/2007 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2018 IN CC NO.268 OF 2016 OF
COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:
STANLEY PIGAREZ,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH PIGAREZ, PUTHISSERY HOUSE, ARIPPALAM P.O.,
THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SRI.SARATH K.P.
SRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
SRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
SRI.AZAD SUNIL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VIGILANCE AND
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-
682031.
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH A., VACB
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S., VACB
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.08.2025,
ALONG WITH CRL.A.961/2022, THE COURT ON 08.09.2025, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 2 2025:KER:66673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 961 OF 2022
CRIME NO.3/2007 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2018 IN CC NO.268
OF 2016 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH A., VACB
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S., VACB
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1:
STANLEY PIGAREZ,
AGE 46/07, S/O.JOSPEH PIGAREZ, PUTHISSERY HOUSE,
ARIPPALAM P.O., THRISSUR (HEAD MASTER OLSAI LP
SCHOOL, KUNJITHAI), PIN - 680 688
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SRI.SARATH K.P.
SRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
SRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
SRI.AZAD SUNIL
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.08.2025 ALONG WITH CRL.A.1511/2018, THE COURT ON
08.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 3 2025:KER:66673
CR
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2025
Crl.Appeal No.1511/2018 is at the instance of the 1 st
accused in C.C.No.268/2016 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha and he assails
conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case
dated 21.11.2018.
2. Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 is at the instance of the
prosecution to enhance the sentence on the ground that
inadequate sentence was imposed in this case, without
considering the gravity of the offence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st
accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the
judgment under challenge and the relevant records including
the depositions of the witnesses.
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 4 2025:KER:66673
4. The prosecution case is that the 1 st accused, who
was working as the Headmaster of 'Our Lady Shepherd Anglo
Indian L.P. School' (hereinafter referred to as 'OLSAI L.P.
School'), Kunjithai, being a public servant, entered into a
criminal conspiracy with the 2nd accused, Lessly Bevero (now
no more), who was the Chairman and Corporate Manager of
the Central Board of Anglo Indian Education to demand an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Smt.Suharabi and from
Sri.Abdul Majeed, Kattisery House, Machanthuruth, who is the
husband of Smt.Suharabi, to appoint her as a permanent
Arabic Teacher in the said school. In pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy, the 1st accused, by abusing his official position as a
public servant, demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.
1,50,000/- from Sri.Abdul Majeed for the appointment of his
wife, named Suharabi, as a permanent teacher in Arabic. The
accused accepted the amount in four instalments on
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 5 2025:KER:66673
11.06.2005, 02.07.2005, 06.08.2005 and 12.08.2005. On this
premise, the prosecution alleges that the accused committed
offences punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC
Act, 1988' hereinafter), and Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.
5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1 st
accused that in this matter, the allegation is that the 1 st accused
demanded and accepted Rs.1,50,000/- from PW18, Sri.Abdul
Majeed, who is the husband of PW17, Smt.Suharabi, after
demanding the same from PW17 also, who was appointed as
Arabic Teacher in OLSAI L.P.School, Kunjithai. According to
the learned counsel for the 1 st accused, on going through the
evidence of PW17 and PW18, it could be gathered that a
complaint was lodged when Rs.1,50,000/- allegedly given by
PW18 was not used for the maintenance works of the school. It
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 6 2025:KER:66673
is pointed out that going by the evidence PW17 and PW18,
PW17, her husband (PW18) and PW2 went to the office of the
Board at Perumannoor for getting back the amount. The 1 st
accused and other persons were present there. PW17 did not
get back the money on that day. The Chairman told them that
they would inform the matter and accordingly, PW17 and
PW18 returned. After a few days, the 2nd accused called her and
directed her to reach his residence. Accordingly, PW17 and her
husband (PW18) went there. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were
present there. According to PW17, some amount (presumably
Rs.40,000/-) was given to them, but they did not accept the
same. Subsequently, PW2 informed PW17 that the 1 st accused
had come with an amount of Rs.40,000/-, and accordingly,
PW18 went near the residence of PW2. An amount of
Rs.40,000/- was handed over in cash by the 1 st accused and
four cheques for Rs.15,000/- each were issued in favour of
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 7 2025:KER:66673
PW2, by the 1st accused. It was further informed that the
balance amount of Rs.50,000/- had been credited to the
account of the Board, and hence, the same would not be
returned.
6. The point argued by the learned counsel for the 1st
accused is that the evidence would suggest that the amount was
received by the Management and the 1 st accused, being the
Headmaster, was compelled by PW17, PW18 and PTA
members to give Ext.P5 acknowledgment stating that he had
received the amount. It is pointed out further that since the
amount was received by the Management, the Headmaster
could not be fastened with criminal culpability and therefore,
the verdict under challenge would require interference.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly resisted the
contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the 1 st
accused/appellant and submitted that the evidence of PW17,
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 8 2025:KER:66673
PW18 and PW19, supported by the evidence of PW2,
categorically established the demand and acceptance of
Rs.1,50,000/- by the 1st accused. Thereafter, due to the
intervention of PW2 and in the presence of the 2 nd accused, an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was subsequently repaid, while
Rs.50,000/- was retained on the premise that the said amount
was paid to the Bank and Rs.1 Lakh was obtained by the 1 st
accused himself.
8. In this matter, acting on the evidence recorded as
that of PW1 to PW23 and Exts.P1 to Ext.P32 including Exts.D1
to D3 contradictions marked as that of PW17, where the 1 st
accused did not adduce any defence evidence independently,
the Special Court found that the 1 st accused committed offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act,
1988. Accordingly, the 1st accused was convicted for the said
offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 9 2025:KER:66673
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of
payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
9. Now, the question arise for consideration are;
(i) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that
the 1st accused/appellant committed offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988?
(ii) Whether the verdict would require interference?
(iii) The order to be passed?
Point Nos.(i) to (iii)
10. In this case, the prosecution case emanated on the
basis of Ext.P22 complaint lodged by PW16 and PW16 deposed
about lodging of Ext.P22 complaint. The crucial witnesses
given evidence in support of demand and acceptance of
Rs.1,50,000/- by the 1st accused are PW17 and PW18,
supported by the evidence of PW19. PW17 examined in this
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 10 2025:KER:66673
case is Smt.Suharabi, who was appointed as Arabic Teacher
and working as Arabic Teacher in OSLAI L.P.School, Kunjithai
from 01.06.2005. She deposed that she joined the said school
on 01.06.2005, and that her appointment was made pursuant
to a discussion between her and the 1 st accused regarding the
creation of a post of Arabic Teacher, as there were originally
seven Muslim students who wanted to study Arabic, and on
admitting four more Muslim students to create the post of an
Arabic Teacher. Accordingly, she put up an application before
the 1st accused and an interview was conducted at the school by
accused No.1/the Headmaster, accused No.2/the Chairman,
and PW5. There was only one applicant and accordingly, she
was appointed in the school and she joined the school on
01.06.2005. After a few days of her joining, the 1st accused
demanded Rs.1,25,000/-, stating that the amount was required
for giving to the Board members and for constructing a
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 11 2025:KER:66673
compound wall for the school. PW17 informed the matter to
her husband PW18, and when PW18 contacted the 1 st accused
over phone, the 1st accused initially demanded Rs.1,25,000/-
and then enhanced the amount to Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter,
they arranged Rs.50,000/- from their friends and the people of
the locality and the said sum was paid as the first instalment.
Subsequently, Rs.25,000/- each was paid on two occasions.
Thereafter, on demand, Rs.50,000/- more also was paid. The
evidence of PW17 is that the money was paid by PW18, her
husband and the demand was made by the 1 st accused to her.
During cross-examination, PW17 categorically stated that
money was given by her husband (PW18) and demand was
made to her. Regarding Ext.P5, the 1 st accused answered that it
was obtained under compulsion. When a suggestion was made
that the 1st accused did not demand or accept any money, PW1
denied it and reiterated that the 1 st accused had demanded the
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 12 2025:KER:66673
money. During re-examination, the legal advisor sought the
permission of the court to put questions under Section 154 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and when PW17 was questioned,
she stated that Rs.40,000/- was returned back by the 1 st
accused at the Board office.
11. Another crucial witness in this case is PW18, the
husband of PW17, Smt.Suharabi. He deposed that he had been
working as Cleric of the Elayakovilakom Juma Masjid,
Mattanchery. According to him, PW17 was working as Arabic
teacher in OLSAI L.P.School, Kunjithai, since 1 st June 2005.
His evidence is that when PW17 went to the school for
admitting their second son in the school, the 1 st accused, who
was the Headmaster of the school told her that seven Muslim
students were there who want to study Arabic and if four more
students were admitted, the post of an Arabic Teacher could be
created. Accordingly, PW17 and PW18 admitted four students
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 13 2025:KER:66673
from their relation in the school, as instructed by the 1 st
accused. An interview was conducted at the school at Kunjithai
by accused No.1, the Headmaster, accused No.2, the Chairman,
and PW5 towards the end of the month of May. PW18 deposed
that PW17 attended duty from the month of June onwards.
After some days, the 1 st accused demanded money from PW17,
stating that it was to be given to the members of the Board and
for constructing compound wall for the school. PW17 informed
the matter to him and when he contacted the 1 st accused over
phone, he demanded Rs.25,000/- more and informed him that
altogether Rs.1,50,000/- was required. Pursuant to the said
demand, they borrowed money from their friends and the
people of the locality and Rs.50,000/- was given as the first
instalment. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.25.000/- each were
given on two occasions. Subsequently, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) was also given. The amounts were given
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 14 2025:KER:66673
on 11.06.2005. 02.07.2005. 06.08.2005 and 12.08.2005. On
three occasions, the amount was given by PW18 and the uncle
of PW17, named Shahul Hameed at the residence of the 1 st
accused near Mathilakom. The last instalment of Rs.50,000/-
was given at the residence of PW18 at Machanthuruth.
According to PW18, the 1st accused came to his residence and
obtained this amount of Rs.50,000/-. PW18 deposed further
that when no work was conducted at the school, the people of
the locality raised an issue. PW17 and PW18 demanded back
the amount. On 02.09.2005, PW18 filed Ext.P10(a) complaint
before the 2nd accused. On the basis of the complaint, the 2 nd
accused and members of the Board came to school for enquiry.
The 1st accused admitted the receipt of Rs.1,50,000/-. Ext.P5 is
the acknowledgment written by the 1 st accused on 06.09.2005.
Later, the 1st accused agreed to return an amount of
Rs.40,000/- in cash and to give four cheques for Rs.15,000/-
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 15 2025:KER:66673
each. Accordingly, the 1st accused gave an amount of
Rs.40,000/-. He gave four cheques through PW2. When the 1 st
accused handed over an amount of Rs.60,000/- to PW2, the
above cheques were returned. PW18 produced Ext.P5 before
the Vigilance Inspector. He affixed his signature in Ext.P20
Mahazar regarding the same. PW18 identified Ext.P4
complaint filed by PW17. PW18 admitted that the P10(a) was
prepared by him. According to him, when they went to the
office of the Board, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with PW5 were
present, and the decision to return the amount was taken
there.
12. PW2 is a friend of PW18. He deposed that PW17 is
the wife of PW18. During the period 2001-2004, PW2 was the
member and President of the PTA of OLSAI L.P.School,
Kunjithai. According to PW2, PW18 approached him and told
him that the Headmaster obtained an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 16 2025:KER:66673
from him in connection with the appointment of his wife as
Arabic Teacher in the school. Since PW18 requested for his
help, he contacted the Administrative Board. When he
contacted the members of the board, they informed him that
the board was aware of the payment of Rs.50,000/- only, and
that they were unaware of payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1 st
accused was the Headmaster of the school and the Chairman
was Lessly Bevero. When PW2 called the 1st accused, he replied
that lakhs of rupees ought to have been given for the seat, and
he informed him further that there was no problem regarding
the job, and that there was guarantee for the same.
13. PW2 deposed that PW18 told him that the amount
was obtained for sanctioning the post and for approval of the
appointment. According to PW2, at the time of demand,
Rs.50,000/- was meant for the Board and the Board was not
responsible for Rs.1 Lakh. PW2 further deposed that PW2,
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 17 2025:KER:66673
PW17 and PW18 went to the office of the Board at
Perumannoor and understood that Rs.50,000/- was for the
Board and that the Board was not responsible for the
remaining amount of Rs.1 Lakh demanded and accepted by the
1st accused. PW2 supported the payment of Rs.40,000/- at his
residence and stated that the balance amount of Rs.60,000/-
retained by the 1st accused was paid by way of four cheques,
with an undertaking to pay the same within two months, so
that the cheques would be returned.
14. PW3 examined in this case is the member of the
Administrative Committee of OLSAI, L.P. School. He deposed
about decision of the Board meeting on 16.09.2005 to appoint
PW17. According to PW3, the Board found that the
Headmaster obtained Rs.1,50,000/- for the appointment of the
teacher (PW17) and Rs.50,000/- remitted to the account of the
Board.
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 18 2025:KER:66673
15. PW4 examined in this case is the another member of
the Administrative Committee of the Central Board of Anglo
Indian Education. Ext.P3(a) is the communication issued by
the 2nd accused appointing the Enquiry Committee and
Ext.P3(f) is the finding of the committee signed by PW4.
According to PW4, the 1st accused was found guilty for having
received Rs.1,50,000/- and remitted Rs.50,000/- to the Board.
PW4 further deposed that as per the statement given by the
teacher, the amount was demanded and accepted by the
Headmaster (A1).
16. PW5 testified further that when he enquired to the
2nd accused, he informed him that only Rs.50,000/- was
obtained by the Board. PW5 deposed that Smt.Suharabi
handed over Ext.P4 letter dated 03.09.2005 to the 2 nd accused
stating about the payment of amount and requesting for
confirmation of the post. The PTA meeting of the school was
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 19 2025:KER:66673
convened at the office of the Board at Perumannuur. Apart
from PW5, the Board members and accused Nos.1 and 2 were
present. After the PTA meeting, PW5, accused Nos.1 and 2 and
the board members discussed the aforesaid issue. The 2 nd
accused informed that it was the 1 st accused who received the
amount, and that the Board received only Rs.50,000/-(Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only). The 1 st accused informed that only that
much amount was received and informed that they could
enquire it directly.
17. By giving emphasis to the statement of PW17 during
cross-examination, wherein a suggestion was put to PW17 that,
in order to get back Rs.60,000/- from the 2 nd accused, the 1st
accused stood as a guarantor, to which PW17 answered, "might
be" and based on the answer given by PW17 to another question
to the effect that, in order to obtain the money from the 2nd accused,
the 1st accused, being a believable person, had issued cheques,
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 20 2025:KER:66673
to which PW17 answered, 'Yes', the learned counsel for the 1 st
accused argued that the evidence tendered by PW17 during
cross-examination in the above line would indicate that the
money was demanded and accepted by the 2 nd accused, though
it was routed through the 1st accused.
18. It is the well settled principle of evaluation of
evidence that the deposition of a witness to be taken as a whole
without segregating stray sentences in isolation. On perusal of
the evidence of PW17 during cross-examination, even though
PW17 given reply, as argued by the learned counsel for the 1 st
accused that when another suggestion was made to the effect
that the 1st accused never demanded or accepted money from
PW17 and he helped to get back the money from the 2 nd
accused, PW17 categorically answered that the money was
demanded by the 1st accused. During chief examination, PW17
categorically stated that the 1 st accused demanded
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 21 2025:KER:66673
Rs.1,50,000/- and the money was given by her husband,
PW18. PW18 supported demand and acceptance of
Rs.1,50,000/- by the 1st accused and the evidence of PW18 in
this regard not at all shaken. Thus, overall evaluation of the
evidence of PW17 in no way would suggest that the money was
demanded by the 2nd accused and demand was not by the 1 st
accused.
19. On scrutiny of the other evidence, it could be gathered
that in the instant case, as per the evidence given by PW4 and
PW5, the members of the Director Board of the school, only
Rs.50,000/- was paid to the Board and Rs.1 Lakh was taken
personally by the 1st accused. PW2 also supported this evidence.
In such scenario, it could not be held that the evidence of PW17
would go to show that the money was demanded by the 2 nd
accused and the 1st accused never demanded the money.
20. In this matter, the evidence of PW18, as discussed
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 22 2025:KER:66673
hereinabove would indicate that the 1st accused initially
demanded Rs.1,25,000/- for disbursing the same to the Board
members and for constructing a compound wall for the school.
Thereafter, when PW18 contacted the 1st accused, the 1st
accused stated that an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- would be
required. Accordingly, the 1st accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/-,
which was paid in instalments on 11.06.2005, 02.07.2005,
06.08.2005 and 12.08.2005 and accepted by the 1st accused.
21. Regarding Ext.P4, the undertaking given by the 1 st
accused to PW17 is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor
pointed out that Ext.P4 would show that the money was
demanded and accepted by the 1st accused and the 1st accused
agreed to repay the same. But the probative value of this
evidence is seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the
1st accused on the submission that Ext.P4 was obtained on
compulsion, as deposed by PW17. In fact, the 1st accused, who
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 23 2025:KER:66673
was the Headmaster of the school, had no occasion to give
Ext.P4 under compulsion if he had not demanded and received
the money offered to be repaid. The obtainment of Ext.P4 by
compulsion, as deposed by PW17, is to be understood in the
context that, since a persistent demand for repayment was
made, the 1st accused issued Ext.P4. In this connection, it is
held that even ignoring Ext.P4, the other evidence discussed in
detail categorically established that the 1 st accused demanded
Rs.1,50,000/- from PW17 and PW18 and accepted the same
from PW18 and out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- was enjoyed by
him, though subsequently repaid.
22. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients
required to attract the offences under Section 7 and Section
13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The same are
extracted as under:-
Section 7:- Public servant taking
gratification other than legal
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 24 2025:KER:66673
remuneration in respect of an official act. -
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public
servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or
attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or
for any other person, any gratification whatever,
other than legal remuneration, as a motive or
reward for doing or forbearing to do any official
act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the
exercise of his official functions, favour or
disfavour to any person or for rendering or
attempting to render any service or disservice to
any person, with the Central Government or any
State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local
authority, corporation or Government Company
referred to in clause (C) of section 2, or with any
public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall
be punishable with imprisonment which shall be
not less than three years but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a
public servant. - (1) A public servant is said to
commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 25 2025:KER:66673
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.
23. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench
decision of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State reported
in [AIR 2023 SC 330], where the Apex Court considered
when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 26 2025:KER:66673
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
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 27 2025:KER:66673
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.
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 28 2025:KER:66673
(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
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 29 2025:KER:66673
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
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 30 2025:KER:66673
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."
24. Thus, it has to be held that the ingredients to attract
the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC
Act, 1988, are established beyond reasonable doubts.
Therefore, the conviction imposed by the Special Court does
not require any interference.
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 31 2025:KER:66673
25. Regarding the sentence, the Special Court sentenced
the 1st accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two)
years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment
of fine, the 1st accused was directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
26. In this matter, Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 has been
filed by the prosecution seeking enhancement of the sentence
on the ground that the punishment imposed on the 1 st accused
is inadequate, considering the gravity of the offence. Hence,
the learned Public Prosecutor pressed for enhancement of
sentence. Going through the sentence imposed, I am inclined
to hold that in consideration of the facts involved, the sentence
can be reduced to the minimum possible and as such,
Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, Crl.Appeal No.1511/2018 stands allowed in
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 32 2025:KER:66673
part by confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence
as under:
The 1st accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, the 1 st accused shall undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act,
1988.
Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 stands dismissed.
The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the 1 st
accused stands cancelled and the bail bond executed by the 1 st
accused also stands cancelled. The 1 st 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 of
CRL.A.NOS.1511 OF 2018
& 961 OF 2022 33 2025:KER:66673
the Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and
compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
