Kerala High Court

S.Navas vs State Of Kerala on 26 September, 2025

                                             2025:KER:72309

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 4TH ASWINA, 1947

                     CRL.A NO. 488 OF 2020

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.05.2020 IN CC NO.12

    OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,

                      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

          S.NAVAS,
          AGED 54 YEARS
          S/O.M.SHAMSUDEEN,
          FORMERLY SENIOR CIVIL POLICE OFFICER,
          RESIDING IN MANALIVEEDU, NEAR VALIYAPALLY,
          VAKKOM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695305


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE
          SRI.AJI GOPINATH
          SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
    1    STATE OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031

    2     DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          VIGILANCE AND ANTI -CORRUPTION BUREAU,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004

          SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
          SMT.S.REKHA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.09.2025, THE COURT ON 26.09.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                2025:KER:72309


CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020
                              2


                                                      CR
                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of September, 2025

This criminal appeal is at the instance of the sole

accused in C.C.No.12/2014 on the files of the Enquiry

Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The

respondents herein are the State of Kerala and the Vigilance

and Anti-Corruption Bureau, represented by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail.

Perused the relevant documents.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to

as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) by the accused. The precise

allegation is that the accused, while working as Senior Civil 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

Police Officer (Gr) T 9170 at Thumba Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram, being a public servant, demanded and

accepted ₹1,000/- as illegal gratification from PW1 on

23.11.2012, after making prior demand on 15.11.2012, as a

motive for the verification of the passport application of PW1.

4. On filing the final report at the instance of the

investigating officer, the Special Judge (Vigilance) took

cognizance of the matter and proceeded with trial. During trial,

PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P27 and MOs.1

to 15 were marked.

5. By enjoying the opportunity given to the

accused to adduce defence evidence, DW1 was examined and

Exts.D1 and D2 were tendered in evidence.

6. On consideration of the evidence in detail, the

learned Special Judge found that the accused committed

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly, convicted and sentenced

him as under:

"(a) Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable u/s.7 of P.C. Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

(b) Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable u/s.13(1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act 1988. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

(c) The substantive sentences u/s.7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) shall run concurrently.

(d) Accused is entitled to set off u/s.428 Cr.P.c. for the period of detention undergone by him in judicial custody in this case."

7. While impeaching the veracity of the

judgment of the Special Court, the learned counsel for the 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

accused/appellant argued at length for about 3 to 4 hours

mainly urging that in this matter, as per Ext.P2 series, alleged

to be recovered from the accused, also, it could be gathered

that earlier i.e., before 24.10.2012, the verification of passport

at the instance of PW1 was entrusted to the accused and he

had filed report on 24.10.2012, recommending that passport to

be issued to PW1. However, the prosecution allegation as of

now is that, again, the accused was assigned the duty of

conducting the verification, since it was reported that PW1 was

involved in one crime. The specific point argued by the learned

counsel for the accused/appellant is that as far as the

entrustment of Ext.P2 series documents, though alleged to be

recovered from the possession of the accused, there is no

convincing evidence. As per Ext.P12, as on 03.11.2012, the

duty of tapal was bestowed with one 'Nahas', another Civil

Police Officer, who was not examined. It is also pointed out 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

that in MOs 5, 6 and 7, the signature of PW1 also seen affixed.

However, PW1 and PW3 had given evidence that soon after the

trap, PW1 left the place and he did not participate in the post

trap proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the

appellant, without consistent and concrete version regarding the

procedure followed in allocation, distribution, despatch and

receipt of the verification process of the passport applications;

and particulars by the police, and if Manual of Office Procedure

(MOP) is not strictly adhered to by the concerned authorised

officials, it is not proper to cast culpability on charge of corruption

of the nature alleged upon anyone without cogent evidence.

Conviction based on mere assumptions and surmises is illegal.

8. As regards the ingredients to prove offences

punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC

Act, 1988, the learned counsel for the appellant produced

decision in A.Subair V. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 6 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

SCC 587.

9. It is argued by the learned counsel for the

appellant that evidence of witnesses participated in the trap

must be treated in the same way as that of an accomplice. In

this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in

Safia Beevi B.A. v. State of Kerala, reported in 2014 KHC

354, with reference to paragraph Nos.17 and 18 which read as

under:

"17. Decisions are aplenty to support the proposition that where on information that bribe has been demanded or solicited and a trap is laid to catch the public servant making the demand, the witnesses participated in the trap are not accomplices, since they have not the necessary criminal intention. But, they are partisan or interested witnesses and their evidence must be tested in the usual way, which may vary from case to case. (see Ramanlal Mohanlal Pandya v. The State of Bombay (AIR 1960 SC 961), Dalpat Singh and another v. State of 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

Rajasthan (AIR 1969 SC 17) and Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1973 SC 498)).

18. In this case, the material for establishing the demand of bribe by the appellant is the sole testimony of PW2. For the above mentioned reasons, his evidence cannot be accepted as natural or credible. It is established by the defence that he had oblique motives for fixing the appellant. Therefore, the unsupported testimony of PW2 cannot be safely relied on to accept the prosecution case that the appellant demanded bribe."

10. It is specifically pointed out by the learned

counsel for the accused/appellant that, inasmuch as the

essential ingredients required to prove the offences under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act,

1988 are concerned, the law is well settled. According to him,

demand and acceptance are sine qua non to constitute the

offence. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

placed decisions in Ramesh K.N. and Another v. State of

Kerala, reported in 2012 (1) KHC 488, State of Punjab v.

Madan Mohan lal Verma reported in (2013) 14 SCC 153,

B.Jayaraj V. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2014)

13 SCC 55, Safia Beevi B.A. v. State of Kerala, reported in

2014 KHC 354, P. Satyanarayana Murthy V. District

Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another,

reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, Rajesh Gupta v. State

through Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2022)

20 SCC 793, Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in

(2025) 4 SCC 624, and the judgment of the Apex Court in

State through Central Bureau of Ivnestigation v. Dr.Anup

Kumar Srivastava [Crl.A.No.1336/2017 (arising out of Special

Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10249 of 2014)] also to buttress his

points.

2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

11. Whereas it is submitted by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor that in this matter, initially, police

verification regarding the passport application submitted by

PW1 was entrusted to the accused and was completed on

24.10.2012. Thereafter, on noticing pendency of crime

No.1176/2006 as against the appellant as C.C.No.18/2006,

the Special Branch referred re-verification of the passport

application. As per Ext.P13(a), the re-verification was

conducted by the accused himself as on 15.11.2012. After

completing the re-verification, the accused demanded ₹1,000/-

from PW1 initially on 15.11.2012, and subsequently on

23.11.2012, demanded and accepted the same and the

amount was recovered from the possession of the accused.

She also would submit that as far as Ext.P2 series, the

verification of passport application containing the details of

PW1, including the photograph of PW1, is concerned, the 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

documents were recovered from the possession of the

accused. The said fact, along with Ext.P13(a), which would

show receipt of Ext.P2 series by the accused would establish

the fact that he had received Ext.P2 series for further

verification and at this juncture, he demanded the money

initially on 15.11.2012 and in continuation of the same,

demanded and accepted the same on 23.11.2012. Thus, the

necessary ingredients to prove the offences have been

established by the prosecution without any reasonable doubts

and in such a case, no interference in the impugned verdict is

called for.

12. Having addressed the rival contentions, the

points arise for consideration are :

1. Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the accused committed offence under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988?

2. Whether the finding of the Special Court, holding the 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

view that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 is correct?

3. Whether the verdict would require interference?

4. The order to be passed?

In the instant case, as regards the demand and

acceptance of ₹1,000/- at 11.35 am on 23.11.2012 by the

accused, evidence of PW1 was relied on by the prosecution

and the same was acted upon by the Special Judge. PW1,

Sri. Ratheesh, in his evidence testified that for going abroad in

search of a job, he had applied for a Tatkal passport, even

prior to passport verification he had obtained the Tatkal

passport and he went abroad and returned from there within

40 days. According to PW1, when he returned from abroad,

accused had contacted him over phone and told him that an

accident case was pending against him. Though he replied 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

that said case was not pending, accused again told him that

such a case was pending. Accordingly on 15.11.2012 at

around 5.45 pm while the accused was on duty at VSSC

Station Kadavu, PW1 met the accused and that the accused

took him to the Thumba Police Station and furnished the

details of the case number. Accordingly, PW1 met his lawyer

who had conducted the said accident case against him and

confirmed that said motor vehicle accident case was already

disposed of. When the said fact was intimated to the accused,

he demanded ₹1,000/- as bribe stating that accused had to

incur an expenditure of ₹700/- to make enquiry at the Traffic

Police Station in respect of the accident case against PW1

and only if ₹1,000/- would be paid he would report in the

passport verification report that no case was pending against

him. PW1 testified further that when he told his friend

Subramaniyan about the demand of bribe made by the 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

accused, he advised to report the same to Vigilance and

accordingly, on 22.11.2012 he had gone to the Vigilance

office, Thiruvananthapuram along with said Subramaniyan and

lodged Ext.P1 First Information Statement to the Dy.S.P,

Vigilance viz., PW10 who in turn directed him to reach the

office on the next day with the sum of ₹1,000/- intended to be

given to the accused as bribe. Accordingly, on 23.11.2012 at 8

am, PW1 reached at the Vigilance Dy.S.P office with ₹1,000/-

which consisted of one currency note of ₹500/- denomination

and five currency notes of ₹100/- denomination. The Vigilance

Dy.S.P viz., PW10 noted down the serial numbers of the said

currency notes; that at the time of entrustment of the amount

to the Dy.S.P, two independent witnesses were also present

there at the office of the Dy.S.P. PW1 has further testified that

as per the direction of Dy.S.P, phenolphthalein demonstration

was done by a Police official on a ₹10/- currency note.

2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on all the

six currency notes entrusted by PW1 to Dy.S.P; that after

smearing phenolphthalein powder, the said notes were

entrusted back to him with a direction to give to the accused

on demand. Thereafter, the trap team proceeded to Thumba

Police Station. On reaching Thumba Police Station, it was

learnt that accused was posted for picket duty at Valiya Veli.

When PW1 contacted the accused over phone, accused

asked PW1 to meet him at Valiya Veli Library wherein

accused was on picket duty. Accordingly, the trap team and

PW1 proceeded to there and reached Valiya Veli Library at

around 11.30 am. The Home guard Sreekantan Nair viz., PW2

was seen standing outside the Library building and on enquiry

made to him about accused Navas, PW2 told that Sri.Navas

(accused) was inside the Library. Accordingly, PW1 went

inside the Library and met the accused. PW1 deposed further 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

that on seeing him, accused asked him as to whether he had

brought the cash to which PW1 answered in the affirmative and

handed over the tainted currency notes i.e., ₹1,000/- to the

accused. Accused received the amount with his right hand and

kept the same in his purse. According to PW1, when he came

out from the Library and shown the pre-arranged signal by

rubbing his face with the handkerchief. Soon the Vigilance team

quickly entered inside the Library. He had identified Ext.P2

series documents as his passport verification application and

connected records recovered from the accused.

14. PW3, the Unit Inspector of Vigilance, Police

Unit, Trivandrum, who was a member of the trap team, testified

that on 23.11.2012 after the pre-trap formalities including

phenolphthalein demonstration, smearing of phenolphthalein

powder on the currency notes produced by PW1 and

preparation of Ext.P5 entrustment mahazar by PW10, the trap

team led by PW10 proceeded for laying trap and they reached 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

at St. Thomas Library, Valiya Veli and waited there at 11.40

am. After a short while, PW1 came out from the Library and

shown the pre-arranged signal; that the trap team quickly

entered into the sit out of the Library building; that in the sit out

the Home guard viz., PW2 was seen; that accused was seen

handing over something to PW2. The trap team intercepted

the accused and revealed their identity. phenolphthalein test of

the hands of the Vigilance team was conducted to make sure

that they were phenolphthalein free. There was no colour

change to the liquid. MO4 marked was the said liquid which

was bottled, sealed and labeled. Thereafter the right and left

hand of the accused were dipped in the liquid. The liquid

turned pink. MO5 was the liquid in which the right hand of the

accused was dipped and MO6 was the liquid in which the left

hand was dipped. Accused took out one purse from his pant

pocket. The independent witness Devaprasad viz., PW4 took 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

out M08 series currency notes viz., cash of ₹900/- found in the

said purse. When the said currency notes were dipped in the

sodium carbonate liquid, the liquid and the currency notes

turned pink. The said liquid was bottled, sealed and labeled

and given the marking as 'G'. M07 was the said bottle.

According to PW3, when the right hand of the Home guard

viz., PW2 was dipped in the sodium carbonate liquid, the liquid

turned pink. The said liquid was bottled, sealed and labeled

and given the marking 'I'. MO 10 was the said bottle. When

the one currency note of ₹100/- denomination which the

accused had handed over to PW2 was dipped in the sodium

carbonate liquid, the liquid turned pink. The said liquid was

bottled, sealed and labeled and given the marking as 'J'.

MO11 was the said currency note of ₹100/- denomination. He

had further testified that Ext.P6 mahazar was in his

handwriting and it was prepared at the instruction of Dy.S.P, 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

that Ext.P2 series passport application and connected records

were seized from the accused by Dy.S.P as per Ext. P6

mahazar. MO12 was the purse of the accused. In M012 purse,

apart from the trap money, there was another currency note

₹500/- denomination and three currency notes of ₹10. MO15

series are the said cash of ₹ 530/-. MO13 Identity card and

certain visiting cards were also there in the said purse. MO14

was the Nokia mobile phone which was seized from the

accused. Accused was arrested by Dy.S.P at the spot and the

arrest was reported to Thumba Police Station.

15. PW4 Devaprasad, Thahasilar(RR),

Thiruvananthapuram was the independent decoy witness in

the trap team whose assistance was sought by the Dy.S.P,

Vigilance for laying trap. According to PW4, as per the

direction of District Collector, on 23.11.2012 he had reached at

the office of the Dy.S.P, Vigilance at 8 am; that Additional 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

Tahasildar Hariharan Nair had also reached there, that on

reaching there the Dy.S.P told him that trap is laying based on

a complaint of PW1 Ratheesh. He had further testified that he

had seen PW1 Ratheesh at the Dy.S.P office and Dy.S.P

introduced them each other. He had also deposed about the

demonstration of phenolphthalein conducted on a ₹10/- note

at the Dy.S.P office and also testified about the smearing of

phenolphthalein powder on the decoy currency notes and

entrustment of the said notes to PW1 Ratheesh and the

preparation of Ext.P5 entrustment mahazar by the Dy.S.P.

The evidence tendered by PW4 would show that the trap team

reached at St. Thomas Library at around 11.30 am. He further

deposed that when PW1 showed the pre-arranged signal, the

trap party quickly advanced to the sit out of the Library; that

PW2 Home guard was seen in the sit out; that accused was

seen handing over one currency note of ₹100/- denomination 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

to the Home Guard. PW4 also spoken about the

phenolphthalein test done on the both hands of the accused.

According to him, on conducting phenolphthalein test, both the

hands of the accused turned pink;that the liquid also turned

pink. When hands of the Home Guard viz., PW2 Sreekantan

Nair were subjected to phenolphthalein test, hands and the

liquid turned pink. Further version of PW4 is that, accused

took out a purse from his pocket and shown it to Dy.S.P ; that

as per the direction of Dy.S.P, PW4 opened the said purse

and took out the decoy money viz.,one currency note of ₹500/-

denomination and 4 currency notes of ₹100/- denomination.

The serial numbers of the said 5 currency notes exactly tallied

with the serial numbers noted in Ext.P5 entrustment mahazar.

The decoy money of ₹900/-seized from the accused and the

one currency note of ₹100/- seized from PW2 were subjected

to phenolphthalein test; that the dipped portions of the said 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

currency notes turned pink. PW4 has further testified that from

the bag of the accused, Ext.P2 series documents were seized

by Dy.S.P. He deposed further that he was a witness to the

recovery mahazar prepared by PW10, marked as Ext.P6.

16. Now the evidence of PW2, the Home Guard

who was on duty on 23.11.2012 at St.Thomas Library, Valiya

Veli along with the accused Navas assumes significance.

According to PW2, on 23.11.2012, he was on duty at Valiya

Veli picket post along with accused Navas, that on that day

immediately after reaching there for duty in the morning,

accused went inside the Library Hall by saying that he wanted

to take rest. At about 9.30-10 am, the nephew of the accused

had reached there. Thereafter accused along with his nephew

went out by a bike and after a short while they came back.

Thereafter accused asked PW2 change for one currency note

of ₹500/-. Since change for ₹500/- note was not available with 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

PW2, accused borrowed ₹100/- from PW2 and gave the same

to his nephew. Thereafter the nephew left from there. Accused

again went inside the Library hall. At around 11.30 am, one

person came there to meet accused Navas and enquired PW2

about Navas and when PW2 told him that accused was inside

the Library, the said person went inside the Library to meet the

accused. After a short while, the said person came out from

the Library building. Immediately thereafter, accused gave one

currency note of ₹100/ - denomination to PW2. At that

juncture, two persons viz., the vigilance officials standing in

front of the Library Hall, rushed near them; they caught hold of

accused Navas;that after verifying and checking the serial

number of the one currency note of ₹100/-which accused had

given to him, the Vigilance officials told him that the said

currency note was one among the notes form part of the trap

money. PW2 deposed about the phenolphthalein test 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

conducted by the Vigilance team at the spot. He also deposed

that when his hands and the one currency note of ₹100/-

denomination seized from him were dipped in a certain liquid,

the liquid turned pink. He testified further that when both the

hands of the accused and the tainted currency notes seized

from the purse of the accused were subjected to

phenolphthalein test, the liquid turned pink. He deposed

further that he had given Ext.P4 statement viz., 164 Cr.P.C

statement before the Judicial First Class Magistrate V,

Thiruvananthapuram regarding the incident and he admitted

his signature in Ext.P4.

17. According to PW5, Ext.P13(a) entry in the

distribution register of Special Branch Police would show that

9 passport verification applications had been received by the

accused who had deputed for tapal duty on 05.11.2012 from

Thumba Police Station; that the passport verification 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

application No.'16643' pertaining to PW1 Ratheesh was

collected by the accused from the Special Branch office had

not been entrusted to Thumba Police Station and Ext.P8(b)

would reveal the same. He has also testified that on

03.11.2012 and 04.11.2012 no Police personnel from Thumba

Police Station had been deputed for tapal duty to Special

Branch office. He stated further that he was acquainted with

the handwriting and signature of the accused; that Ext.P14

note book was a book maintained by the accused in which the

accused used to enter the details of the passport verification

application; that in Ext.P14, the name and address of the

complainant Ratheesh and the details of passport verification

were also seen written. Ext.P14(a) is the said entry. He would

also say that the accused had not entrusted Ext.P2 series

passport verification application of PW1 Ratheesh to Thumba

Police Station which was collected from Special Branch on 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

05.11.2012. According to him, Ext.P2 series documents would

reveal that passport verification of PW1 was done by accused

Navas; that it would also reveal that the said verification was

done subsequent to the issuance of the Tatkal passport.

18. PW7 the Sub Inspector of Police, Special

Branch, Thiruvananthapuram given evidence about the

procedure upon receipt of passport verification application from

the Passport office. According to him, on receipt of passport

verification applications from the Passport office, it would be

entered in the inward register maintained at Special Branch

office, Thiruvananthapuram and it would be given to the

concerned Section. Thereafter making necessary entries in the

distribution register, it would be kept ready for giving to the

respective Station House Officers; that the Police personnel

who come for tapal duty from the respective Police Station 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

would collect the same from the Special Branch office.

Ext.P17 was the inward register for passport application

maintained at the Special Branch office, Thiruvananthapuram.

According to him, Ext.P17 inward register for passport

application would show that passport verification application of

PW1 was received at Special Branch office from the Passport

office. Ext.P13 is the distribution register maintained at Special

Branch. Ext.P13 register would show that 9 applications

including application bearing No.'16643' in relation to PW1

Ratheesh was received at Special Branch office,

Thiruvananthapuram. He deposed further that it would reveal

that in the applications which were sorted out on 15.10.2012,

application bearing No:16643 in relation to PW1 Ratheesh

was also there; that Ext.P2(d)entries i.e., the entries on the

reverse side of first page of Ext.P2(a) application are in his

handwriting; that Ext.P18 is the copy of personal particular 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

form of PW1 Ratheesh attested by Assistant Commissioner of

Police. According to PW7, Ext.P13(a) would show that all the 9

applications entered therein were collected by the accused from

the Special Branch office, Thiruvananthapuram. PW7 deposed

spoken about the procedure after police verification; that after

obtaining police verification report from the concerned Police

Station, it would be entered in Ext.P13 distribution register and

thereafter it would be sent to Assistant Commissioner of Police

and from there to the Passport office.

19. The categorical version of PW5 and PW7 is

that on 05.11.2012 accused who was on tapal duty from

Thumba Police Station collected the passport verification

application bearing No.'16643' of PW1 Ratheesh from the

Special Branch office. Both PW5 and PW7 are consistent in

their version that it was the accused who collected the said

passport verification application from the Special Branch office 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

on 05.11.2012 and accused has put his signature in Ext.P13

distribution register while receiving 9 passport applications on

05.11.2012 including the passport verification application of

PW1 Ratheesh. The evidence tendered by PW5 and PW7

coupled with the entries in Ext.P13 register would show that the

passport application bearing No.'16643' of PW1 Ratheesh was

received by accused on 05.11.2012. Further, the said

application sorted out at the Special Branch office on

05.11.2012 was received by the accused along with 8 other

applications who was on tapal duty on 05.11.2012 Ext.P8

Ext.P2 series passport verification application of PW1 was not

received there for the second time. The consistent version of

PW5, PW7 and PW10 are to the effect that Ext.P2 series

passport verification application and connected records were

seized from the accused on 23.11.2012 at the time of his arrest.

2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

The fact that Ext.P2 series passport verification application and

connected records were seized from the accused on 23.11.2012

at the time of his arrest itself would show that the accused was

entrusted to re-verify the passport application of PW1 and he

got custody of the same by following the MOP, and the

contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused that

MOP was not followed would not sustain. The evidence of PW5

and PW7 that it was the accused who collected the said

application from the Special Branch office on 05.11.2012. It is to

be borne in mind that seizure of Ext.P2 series passport

verification application of PW1 Ratheesh was specifically stated

in Ext.P6 recovery mahazar of contemporaneous nature

prepared by PW10 at the place of trap. Ext.P6 recovery

mahazar and Ext.P2 series applications were produced before

the court on the date of arrest of the accused i.e., on 23.11.2012

itself. The said fact fortifies the prosecution case that Ext.P2

series passport verification application which the accused 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

received from the Special Branch office was not entrusted to

Thumba Police Station instead he retained the said application

with him and thereafter contacted PW1 as alleged by the

prosecution. Nothing extracted during cross-examination of PW5

so as to disbelieve or doubt his version. PW7 and PW10 that on

23.11.2012 at the time of the arrest of the accused Ext.P2 series

documents viz., the passport verification application of PW1 and

connected records were seized from the bag of the accused. In

the back drop of the evidence discussed above, the contention

of the accused, that Ext.P2 series passport verification

application of PW1 was not seized from him on 23.11.2012,

could not be accepted as argued by the learned counsel for the

accused. That apart, the Police officials viz., PW5, PW7 and

PW10 need not give evidence against the accused who also is

the part of the corps, particularly when the accused has no case

that the said witnesses have any animosity or adverse interest

against him to perjure against him.

2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

20. As observed by the learned Special Judge,

under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden is on the

accused to explain as to how Ext.P2 series passport verification

application of PW1 reached his hands again after returning the

same on 24.10.2012. In this case, in fact the accused not

explained as to how Ext.P2 series application reached his hands

so as to recover the same from him. When the learned counsel

for the accused is apprised of this vital aspect, he had a strange

answer, it is the prosecution to prove the said aspect to sustain

the prosecution case. In fact, the prosecution proved the said

aspect and it is for the accused to explain or account possession

of Ext.P2 series otherwise. Indubitably, recovery of Ext.P2 series

from the possession of the accused is a strong piece of evidence

to negate the defence canvassed by the accused that he did

collect the application of PW1 Ratheesh from the Special Branch

Police. In this connection, the Special Judge relied on Section

114 of the Evidence Act, which provides that the court may 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have

happened regard being had to the common course of natural

events, human conduct and public and private business, in their

relation to facts of the particular case. Thus, the finding of the

Special Judge that on 23.11.2012, seizure of Ext.P2 series from

the accused evidently would make it clear that the accused

collected the said application from the Special Branch office and

he retained the same with him and thereafter contacted PW1

Ratheesh to get an illegal gratification.

21. Here, the accused attempted to justify receipt

of the tainted currency notes from PW1. In his statement of

defence filed before the court, accused stated that on

23.11.2012 when PW1 came to meet him at St.Thomas Library

for the payment of money, he was in the toilet and when he

came out from the toilet he saw some currency notes placed on

the folder of his purse and the Home Guard viz., PW2 told him

that it was PW1 Ratheesh who brought the cash and it was 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

under the instruction of PW2 the cash was placed on the table.

But PW2 Sreekantan Nair, during his cross examination, denied

this contention stating that he did not instruct to do so. PW1

Ratheesh who came to meet the accused and if any amount was

actually due from PW1 to DW1 Abin, naturally PW1 would give

the same directly to DW1 unless there were sufficient reasons to

pay the same to the accused who was the uncle of DW1, as

observed by the Special Judge. So, the story canvassed by the

accused, that while he was in the toilet, PW1 placed the tainted

currency notes on the folder of his purse kept on the table, could

not be accepted as the same is not digestable to prudence

eschewing the concrete evidence in support of the prosecution

case.

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.

2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

The same are extracted as under:

Section 7:- Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. - Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government Company referred to in clause (C) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a public 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-

a) xxxxx

(b) xxxxx

(c) xxxxxx

(d) If he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Xxxxx (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

23. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5

Bench decision of the Apex Court in [AIR 2023 SC 330], 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), where the

Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance

under Section 7 of the P.C Act to be said to be proved along

with ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)

r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and in paragraph 68 it has been held

as under :

"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:

a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

evidence.

(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.

Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and

(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

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 the legal position as regards to the

essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C Act is

extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if

there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any

demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the

offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance

as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior

demand by the public servant. The presumption of fact with regard to

the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification

may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and

documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis

of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a

presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has

been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of

fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of

rebuttal presumption stands. The mode of proof of demand and

acceptance is either orally or by documentary evidence or the

prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial

does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the

accused public servant. Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned,

on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to

raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of

a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said

presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a

presumption in law.

25. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the latest

decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. V. State of 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

Kerala, reported in 2025 KHC 983. In paragraph No.12 of the

judgment, this Court observed the ingredients as under:

"12. Indubitably in Neeraj Dutta's case (supra) the Apex Court held in paragraph No.69 that there is no conflict in the three judge Bench decisions of this Court in B.Jayaraj and P.Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge Bench decision in M. Narasinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence" of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns "hostile"

is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases. Further in Paragraph No.70 the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence of the complainant 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

(direct/primary,oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. In paragraph No.68 the Apex Court summarized the discussion. That apart, in State by Lokayuktha Police's case (supra) placed by the learned counsel for the accused also the Apex Court considered the ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act,1988 and held that demand and acceptance of bribe are necessary to constitute the said offences. Similarly as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Aman Bhatia's case (supra) the Apex court reiterated the same principles. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials to be established to fasten criminal culpability on an accused are demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. To put it otherwise, proof of demand is sine qua non for the offences to be established under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

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."

26. In the instant case, the prosecution relies on

the evidence of PW1 to prove demand of ₹1,000/- by the accused

on 23.11.2012, after making prior demand on 15.11.2012. The

evidence of PW1 is fully in support of the prosecution

allegation as already discussed since the evidence of PW1

regarding demand and acceptance of ₹1,000/- by the accused

for the purpose of giving favourable passport verification report

of PW1 is established. That apart, the decoy who

accompanied the trap team and PW1 also supported the pre

and post trap proceedings apart from the evidence of PW2, 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

the member of the trap team. The trap laying officer also

supported recording of Ext.P1 statement and registration of

FIR and consequential pre-trap proceedings and post trap

proceedings as well as recovery of MO1 series and Ext.P2

series from the possession of the accused.

27. PW10 was the Dy.S.P., VACB,

Thiruvanantahpuram, who registered Ext.P1(a) FIR and laid

trap. During cross-examination, nothing extracted to disbelieve

him.

28. That apart, telephone call in between PW1

and the accused prior to the trap also is established by

Ext.P20 call details, supported by Ext.P21 certificate under

Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Ext.P22 is the prosecution

sanction order No.D174049/BTC issued through PW9, the

District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram and he supported

issuance of Ext.P22 sanction order to prosecute the accused 2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

for the offences under Section 7 as well as under Section

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 on careful examination

of the prosecution materials placed before him and satisfying

that the prosecution was necessary.

29. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, it

could be gathered that in the instant case, the demand and

acceptance of ₹1,000/- by the accused on 23.11.2012 are

proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the Special

Court rightly entered into conviction of the accused for the said

offences and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for

the accused are found unsustainable. Therefore, the

conviction does not require any interference. Coming to the

sentence, taking note of the facts of the case involved and the

plea raised by the learned counsel for the accused to reduce

the sentence, I am inclined to modify the sentence.

2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

30. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part.

Conviction imposed by the special court for the offences

punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC

Act, 1988 is confirmed. The sentence is interfered and

modified as under:

1. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the PC Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ₹15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days.

2025:KER:72309

CRL.A.NO.488 OF 2020

The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and

the default sentence shall run separately.

The order suspending sentence and granting bail to

the accused stands vacated, with direction to the accused to

appear before the trial 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/-