against her in the above case, as per judgment dated 26.06.2020.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the
representing the respondent - State of Kerala.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences
4. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as
Registrar. Pursuant to the said demand, the accused demanded and
5. When the final report was filed before the learned Special
with the trial. Before the commencement of trial, the prosecution
Crl.R.P.No.186/2019, and the same was dismissed by this Court.
6. The Special Court ventured the matter. PW1 to PW18
the side of the prosecution. DW1 was examined and Exts. D1 to D6
statement under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
succeed in establishing the said contention. At this juncture, the
accused, as alleged by the prosecution. The learned senior counsel
contended that in the decision in P.A.Hariharan v. State of
under challenge could not be interfered for any reasons. It is also
Dutta v. State reported in [AIR 2023 SC 330], the Apex Court
prove the demand. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions in
9. Having appraised the rival submissions, the points arise
10. Point Nos.(i) to (iv)
₹5,000 as bribe on 22.02.2014. Apart from the evidence of PW1 and
11. First of all, I am inclined to address the ingredients which
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The same are
12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision
of the Apex Court in [AIR 2023 SC 330], Neeraj Dutta v. State,
(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
2026:KER:3936
of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also
be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of
direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in
mind:
13. Thus, the legal position as regards to the essentials under
above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there is an
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
documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis
has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption
rebuttal presumption stands. The mode of proof of demand and
prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial
accused public servant. Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned,
of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said
14. In this context, it is relevant to refer the decision of this
Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025
wherein in paragraph No. 12, it was held as under:
(ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the
complainant or "primary evidence" of the complainant is
unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The
position of law when a complainant or prosecution
witness turns "hostile" is also discussed and the
observations made above would accordingly apply in
light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the
aforesaid discussion there is no conflict between the
judgments in the aforesaid three cases. Further in
Paragraph No.70 the Apex Court held that in the absence
of evidence of the complainant
(direct/primary,oral/documentary evidence) it is
permissible to draw an inferential deduction of
culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and
13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act based on other
evidence adduced by the prosecution. In paragraph
No.68 the Apex Court summarized the discussion. That
apart, in State by Lokayuktha Police's case (supra)
placed by the learned counsel for the accused also the
Apex Court considered the ingredients for the offences
punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
PC Act,1988 and held that demand and acceptance of
bribe are necessary to constitute the said offences.
2026:KER:3936
Similarly as pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Aman Bhatia's case (supra) the Apex court
reiterated the same principles. Thus the legal position as
regards to the essentials to be established to fasten
criminal culpability on an accused are demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. To put
it otherwise, proof of demand is sine qua non for the
offences to be established under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and dehors the proof of
demand the offences under the two Sections could not be
established. Therefore mere acceptance of any amount
allegedly by way of bribe or as undue pecuniary
advantage or illegal gratification or the recovery of the
same would not be sufficient to prove the offences under
the two Sections in the absence of evidence to prove the
demand."
15. Going by the ratio of the larger Bench decision in Neeraj
Dutta's case (supra), demand and acceptance are the twin
ingredients necessarily to be proved by the prosecution to fasten
criminal culpability upon an accused. It is equally well settled by the
said decision that, while discharging this burden, the prosecution
can rely on the available evidence. Therefore, the contention raised
2026:KER:3936
by the learned senior counsel relying on the decisions highlighted by
him contending that in the absence of corroboratory evidence as that of
decoy witness in the matter of demand, the appellant/accused could not
be punished, would not sustain. Therefore, this contention is repelled.
16. Now, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence of PW1, PW2 and
PW19 along with other witnesses. PW1, Sri.Bhaskaran Nair, is the de
facto complainant in this case. He deposed that he was a retired Village
Officer and he had retired from service on 31.05.2002. After his
retirement, he had obtained a scribe licence bearing Nos.DAD 374 and
SAD 1380. He further testified that his office
was situated at Chevayur, near the Sub
Registrar's Office, Chevayur, and that he used to get most of the
documents written by him registered at the Sub Registrar's Office,
Chevayur. According to him, the accused was known to him, as she
had been working as the Sub Registrar at Chevayur. He identified the
accused at the dock as Smt.P.K.Beena. He further deposed that he
had lodged a complaint against the accused before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau,
2026:KER:3936
Kozhikode. He deposed that the accused used to demand bribe from
him and his clients for the registration of documents. His version
further is that on 28.01.2014, five settlement deeds prepared by him
were registered at the Sub Registrar's Office, Chevayur. After the
registration on the same day, the accused demanded a sum of
₹5,000 as bribe for the registration of the said five settlement deeds
and for the registration of a flat. According to PW1, the accused
demanded ₹2,000 for the five settlement deeds and ₹3,000 for the
registration of the flat, which had already been registered on
24.01.2014. He stated that the accused had told him that if the said
amount of ₹5,000 was not paid, she would not register the
documents submitted by him. PW1 stated that his staff, Sandeepa
(PW3), used to attend the Sub Registrar's Office for registration work
in many cases and that sometimes he himself would directly attend
the office. He further deposed that after 28.01.2014, he personally
attended the Sub Registrar's Office on 18.02.2014. On that day, he
submitted a document for registration and met the accused at about
3.00 p.m. to speak about the registration of four documents
2026:KER:3936
proposed to be registered on 22.02.2014. Those four documents
consisted of one Partition Deed, one Assignment Deed, one
Settlement Deed, and one Will. When he spoke about those four
documents, the accused told him that if he failed to pay ₹5,000,
being the balance bribe amount, she would not register those
documents. PW1 further stated that later he came to know that the
accused had demanded and accepted bribe from his clients in respect
of documents registered during the period from 28.01.2014 to
18.02.2014. He deposed that on 01.02.2014, when a Partition Deed
was registered, the accused demanded and accepted ₹4,000 directly
from his client. He further stated that on 18.02.2014, a Partition
Deed executed between Prakasan and Manikantan and a Settlement
Deed executed between Manoj and his mother were registered and
that the accused was the Sub Registrar at that time. He also stated
that on 14.02.2014, two Settlement Deeds were registered, but on
that day the charge of the Sub Registrar's Office was with the Junior
Superintendent, who did not demand any bribe. The parties to those
two settlement deeds were Sri.Shaji Kumar and his wife, Smt.
2026:KER:3936
Swapna, and Sri.Madhu and his wife, Smt.Uma. PW1 deposed that as
he was not willing to pay bribe for registration, he approached the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Bureau, on 21.02.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. and made an oral
complaint. He stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police
informed him that the genuineness of the complaint would be
verified and directed him to come on the next day morning at 9.00
a.m. with ₹5,000, being the amount demanded by the accused.
Accordingly, on 22.02.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., he appeared before
the Vigilance Office and lodged Ext.P1 complaint. PW1 further
deposed that the vigilance vehicle was stopped in front of the annex
building of the Medical College Campus Higher Secondary School
and, as instructed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he
proceeded to the Sub Registrar's Office, Chevayur. When he reached
there, his clients were waiting in the Sub Registrar's Office for
registration of the documents prepared by him after taking tokens.
The documents had already been presented by his staff, Sandeepa
(PW3). His clients had obtained token Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. He stated
2026:KER:3936
that the accused was sitting on the dais and that when his turn came,
he proceeded to the dais. PW3 informed him that the first three
deeds had been compared and placed before the accused and
thereafter went to compare the deed covered by token No.5 with the
filing sheet. At that time, only PW1, the accused, and the peon Jyothi
were present in the room. PW1 stated that the accused then asked
him in a low voice whether he had brought ₹5,000. He replied in the
affirmative. Thereupon, the accused told him that after the
registration she would go to the room behind, and that he could pay
the amount then. He stated that her voice was so low that no other
person could hear it. Thereafter, the deeds covered by token Nos.2, 3
and 4 were registered. In the meanwhile, PW3 returned with the
settlement deed after comparison. The accused called the executant
for registration, put the number on the deed, made entries in the
filing sheet, and handed over the documents to be given to the peon.
Thereafter, the accused alighted from the dais and went out through
the door leading to the office hall and gestured PW1 to follow her.
PW1 further deposed that he followed the accused, but could not find
2026:KER:3936
her in the office hall. He then peeped into the record room,
whereupon the accused, who was hiding behind the door, called him
by saying "sh... sh... Bhaskaran Nair". When he entered the record
room and approached her, the accused asked him to hand over the
money quickly. PW1 then took the currency notes amounting to
₹5,000 from his pocket and handed them over to the accused. After
receiving the amount, the accused moved towards the north-western
side of the record room. PW1 came out of the room and informed the
Deputy Superintendent of Police over mobile phone about the
acceptance of the bribe and the direction in which the accused had
moved. He stated that the accused accepted the bribe amount at
about 11.45 a.m. Thereafter, he came out of the Sub Registrar's
Office. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and
his party entered the Sub Registrar's Office. At that time, the
accused, PW3 Sandeepa, Sreejith and Jyothi, the peon, were present
in the Sub Registrar's Office.
17. PW2, Sri.Radhakrishnan P.C., was examined as an
independent witness. He deposed that he had been working as
2026:KER:3936
Technical Assistant Grade II in the District Medical Office,
Kozhikode, during the year 2014. He stated that on 22.02.2014, at
about 10.00 a.m., he appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, as
directed by the District Collector. He further deposed that CW20,
Sri.Arunan, was also present there and that PW1, Sri.Bhaskaran
Nair, was present in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police. PW2 stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police
introduced them to each other and informed them about the
complaint lodged by PW1. PW1 then produced five currency notes of
₹1,000 denomination each before the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, who seized the same and noted their serial numbers in the
Seizure and Entrustment Mahazar. PW2 stated that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, CW20 and himself signed Ext.P2 Seizure
and Entrustment Mahazar. PW2 further deposed that thereafter a
police officer demonstrated the phenolphthalein test using a ₹10
currency note. The solutions used for the demonstration were
collected in three bottles, which were tied, sealed and labelled. The
2026:KER:3936
labels contained the signatures of PW1, PW2, CW20 and the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. He identified the said bottles as MOs.2 to 4
and the ₹10 currency note used for demonstration as MO5. PW2
stated that thereafter the currency notes amounting to ₹5,000
produced by PW1 were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and
placed in the shirt pocket of PW1 by a police officer after ensuring
that the pocket was empty. Before placing the currency notes, the
hands of PW1 were washed as directed by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police then
instructed PW1 to hand over the currency notes (MO1 series) to the
accused only on demand and, if the accused accepted the amount, to
inform him over mobile phone. PW2 deposed that thereafter the trap
party proceeded towards the Sub Registrar's Office, Chevayur, in two
vehicles at about 11.00 a.m., while PW1 proceeded separately on his
motorcycle. They parked the vehicles near the annex building of the
Medical College Campus Higher Secondary School. PW1 also parked
his motorcycle there and proceeded to the Sub Registrar's Office
after receiving further instructions from the Deputy Superintendent
2026:KER:3936
of Police. PW2 stated that at about 11.55 a.m., the Deputy
Superintendent of Police received a phone call from PW1, whereupon
the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the trap party proceeded to
the Sub Registrar's Office. When they reached there, the accused was
sitting on the dais. The Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced
himself and the members of the trap party to the accused. The
accused stood up and appeared perplexed. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police asked her to sit down, and two women
police constables held her arms. PW2 further deposed that when the
Deputy Superintendent of Police asked the accused as to where the
bribe amount received from PW1 was kept, the accused denied
having accepted any money. Thereafter, her right hand was dipped in
sodium carbonate solution, which resulted in a colour change. The
pink-coloured solution was collected in a bottle marked as MO6.
Thereafter, her left hand was dipped in another sodium carbonate
solution, which also showed a slight colour change, and the solution
was collected in a bottle marked as MO7. PW2 stated that thereafter
the accused was arrested. The accused informed the Deputy
2026:KER:3936
Superintendent of Police that she was in possession of ₹305. Her
handbag and the Personal Cash Declaration Register were examined,
and it was found that she had ₹305 with her. Though her body
search was conducted by a woman police constable, no incriminating
material was recovered. PW2 further deposed that thereafter a
search was conducted for the trap money. Since the trap money was
not found in the cabin of the accused, the record room was searched.
The trap money was recovered from inside a register, kept between
its pages and covered with a white paper. PW2 stated that he could
not recollect the name or number of the register. The recovery was
effected by a police officer, who handed over the currency notes to
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who in turn handed them over
to CW20. CW20 verified the currency notes and confirmed that they
were the same notes entrusted to PW1, after comparing the serial
numbers with the Mahazar. PW2 stated that the recovered MO1
series currency notes were dipped in sodium carbonate solution,
which resulted in a colour change to the solution and the dipped
portions of the notes. The solution was collected, sealed and labelled
2026:KER:3936
and marked as MO8. The white paper used to cover the currency
notes was examined by sprinkling sodium carbonate solution, which
also resulted in a colour change. The said paper was marked as 'A',
sealed, labelled and seized as MO9. The register from which the
currency notes were recovered was not examined further to avoid
damage and was returned under a kychit. PW2 identified MO1 series
currency notes as those entrusted to PW1 at the Vigilance Office and
later recovered from the record room. He further deposed that the
Attendance Register, the Personal Cash Declaration Register and
attested photocopies of four documents prepared by PW1 were
seized under Mahazar. He identified Ext.P3 as the Attendance
Register, Ext.P4 as the Personal Cash Declaration Register, Ext.P5 as
the copy of Document No.733/2014, Ext.P6 as the copy of Document
No.734/2014, Ext.P7 as the copy of Document No.735/2014 and
Ext.P8 as the copy of Will No.35/2014. Ext.P9 Recovery Mahazar
was prepared at the spot, in which he, CW20 and the Deputy
Superintendent of Police signed. Thereafter, the accused was subjected to
medical examination and the party returned to the Vigilance Office.
2026:KER:3936
18. PW3, Smt.Sandeepa, who was a staff member of PW1 also
was examined by the prosecution . She deposed that
she was holding a scribe licence bearing No.
SAD 1722. She stated that the accused was known to her, as she had
been working as the Sub Registrar, Chevayur. PW3 further deposed
that on or about 02.02.2014, subject to her memory, she went to the
Sub Registrar's Office, Chevayur, for the registration of a Partition
Deed executed between Sri. Madhu and his brother, Sri. Shajikumar.
She stated that prior to the registration, the accused demanded a
sum of ₹4,000 as bribe from her. When her clients enquired as to
why they had to pay the amount, PW3 informed them that if the
bribe amount was not paid, the accused would cause difficulties by
citing one reason or the other. On that day, the document was
registered. PW3 stated that thereafter the accused enquired whether
the client had paid the amount to her. PW3 replied that she would
pay the amount after collecting it from the client. She further
deposed that she thereafter received ₹4,000 from Sri.Shajikumar
and kept the amount with her. On the same day, in the afternoon,
2026:KER:3936
she visited the Sub Registrar's Office with an application for
Encumbrance Certificate. She stated that the application for
Encumbrance Certificate was required to be initialled by the Sub
Registrar before remitting the prescribed fee before the Junior
Superintendent. PW3 deposed that on that day, the accused refused
to put her initials on the application for Encumbrance Certificate
since PW3 had not paid the bribe amount. Consequently, PW3
returned to her office. Thereafter, she again went to the Sub
Registrar's Office and paid ₹4,000 as bribe in connection with the
registration of the deed executed by Sri. Madhu. According to PW3,
the accused accepted the bribe amount and thanked her. PW3
further stated that on the next day, when she again approached the
accused with the application for Encumbrance Certificate, the
accused put her initials on it and PW3 remitted the prescribed fee
before the Junior Superintendent. She deposed that the accused
used to return documents presented from PW1's office by citing one
reason or the other if bribe was not paid and that if bribe was paid,
there would be no hurdles in the process of registration. PW3 also
2026:KER:3936
deposed that she and PW1 were reluctant to pay bribe for getting
their work done. She stated that her monthly salary was ₹5,000 and
that for obtaining an Encumbrance Certificate from the Sub
Registrar's Office for her clients, she would get only ₹40 per
transaction. She stated that under such circumstances, she was
constrained to pay bribe for getting the work done.
19. According to PW4, Sri.Shajikumar, he had been working
as a Zonal Manager in KTC and that he was related to PW1, being
the brother of PW1's son-in-law. He stated that a Partition Deed
executed between himself and Sri.Madhu was registered on
01.02.2014 and that the said document was prepared by PW1. PW4
further deposed that at the time of registration of the document,
PW1 was not present in the Sub Registrar's Office and that the
registration was facilitated by PW3, Smt.Sandeepa. He stated that
on that day, the accused, Smt.Beena, was working as the Sub
Registrar. He further stated that there was a conversation between
the accused and PW3 at the time of registration. PW4 deposed that
PW3 thereafter informed him that the accused had demanded a sum
2026:KER:3936
of ₹5,000 as bribe. He stated that he personally met the accused and
enquired as to why she was demanding an additional amount of
₹5,000. According to PW4, the accused asked him to speak to PW3.
He then spoke to PW3, who informed him that the registration
would be completed only if a sum of ₹5,000
was paid as 'mamool' (bribe). PW4 further deposed that
he informed PW3 that he had only ₹4,000 with him. He stated that
the registration of the document was completed on that day.
Thereafter, PW3 had a discussion with the accused and, after the
said discussion, PW4 entrusted ₹4,000 to PW3 to be paid to the
accused as 'mamool' (illegal gratification).
20. Smt.Jyothish Prabha, who got examined as PW5, deposed
that she had been working as an Office Attendant at the Sub
Registrar's Office, Chevayur, during the relevant period and that the
accused was the Sub Registrar at that time. She stated that on the
day of the trap, she was discharging duty in the chamber of the Sub
Registrar. PW5 further deposed that there were two Office
Attendants in the Sub Registrar's Office, namely herself and one
2026:KER:3936
Peter Damian, and that one Office Attendant used to attend
chamber duty while the other attended treasury duty, with the duties
being interchanged on alternate days. She stated that on the day of
the trap, i.e., 22.02.2014, she reached the Sub Registrar's chamber
at about 10.20 a.m. PW5 stated that she returned the documents
which had already been registered to the concerned parties and that
thereafter the registration proceedings commenced at about 11.00
a.m. She further deposed that she issued five tokens after writing the
names of the parties and the token numbers on a white paper. She
stated that she wrote the token numbers on the concerned
documents using a pencil. PW5 also deposed that she used to issue
tokens to the parties as per the instructions received from the Sub
Registrar from time to time and that on that day, she had issued the
tokens prior to the arrival of the accused.
21. One Sri.Sadanandan, was also examined and he deposed
that he had been working as Junior Superintendent at the Sub
Registrar's Office, Chevayur, from July 2013 to August 2014. He
stated that the accused was known to him and that he was present at
2026:KER:3936
the time when the accused was arrested. He further deposed that he
witnessed the preparation of Ext.P10 Scene Mahazar by the
Investigating Officer. PW6 stated that on the day of the trap, the
vigilance party reached the Sub Registrar's Office at about 12.00
noon. He further deposed that the factum of arrest of the accused
was intimated to the District Registrar by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. As directed by the District Registrar, he
took charge of the Sub Registrar's Office at about 12.30 p.m. PW6
deposed that he produced Ext.P3 Attendance Register, Ext.P4
Personal Cash Declaration Register, and Volume No.780 Register
before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He stated that he took
charge of the post of Sub Registrar by making the necessary entries
in Account 'A' Register. He identified Ext.P11 as the certified copy of
the relevant pages of Account 'A' Register. PW6 further stated that
the accused had registered documents up to Document No.35 and
that thereafter he commenced registration from Document No.36.
He deposed that the Personal Cash Declaration Register was
maintained in the office. PW6 stated that on 23.01.2014, the
2026:KER:3936
Vigilance Police conducted a surprise check in the Sub Registrar's
Office and seized the Personal Cash Declaration Register after
noticing certain corrections therein. He further deposed that
thereafter Ext.P4 Personal Cash Declaration Register was opened.
He identified Ext.P12 as the Personal Cash Declaration Register
seized by the Vigilance Police. PW6 further deposed that the
Vigilance Police noticed corrections and overwritings in respect of
the entries made by the accused in Ext.P12 Personal Cash
Declaration Register on 29.10.2013, 11.11.2013, 15.11.2013,
25.11.2013, 02.12.2013, 04.12.2013, 27.12.2013, 03.01.2014,
04.01.2014, 09.01.2014, 16.01.2014, 21.01.2014 and 23.01.2014.
22. The prosecution side examined PW10, Sri.Balakrishnan
also. He deposed that on 18.08.2014, he produced the Account 'A'
Register before the Investigating Officer and that the Investigating
Officer seized the same under Ext.P13 Seizure Mahazar. He stated
that Ext.P11 was the copy of the relevant pages of the Account 'A'
Register. PW10 further deposed that he produced Exts.P5 to P8,
which were the certified photocopies of four documents registered
2026:KER:3936
by the accused on the day of the trap. He stated that in none of those
documents were the particulars relating to presentation,
registration, and execution entered, nor had the Sub Registrar put
her signature therein. He further deposed that thereafter he
addressed the District Registrar seeking regularisation of those
documents and that, as per the orders of the District Registrar, the
said documents were regularised by him. PW10 stated that it was
necessary to note the time of presentation of documents in the
Account 'A' Register. He further deposed that no separate register
was maintained in the Sub Registrar's Office to record the exact time
of presentation of documents and that therefore the time of
presentation noted in the documents registered by the accused was
only based on estimation. PW10 further deposed that PW5,
Smt.Jyothish Prabha, had received the registration fees from the
parties until PW6 took charge of the post of Sub Registrar. He stated
that when he took charge, he verified and counted the cash kept in
the cash box. He further deposed that when PW6 conducted
registration while he was in charge of the Sub Registrar's Office, the
2026:KER:3936
registration fees were collected by the Office Attendant. He stated
that the Office Attendant used to count the cash at the end of the
day's work and entrust the amount to the Sub Registrar.
23. Ext.P14 sketch and plan, which were seized by the
Investigating Officer under Ext.P15 Seizure Mahazar was tendered in
evidence through Sri.Hanas, the Village Officer of Nellikode Village,
examined as PW7.
24. PW8, Smt.Shijina who had been working as a Woman
Civil Police Officer at the relevant time and she deposed that she was
a member of the trap party and she fully supported the trap proceedings.
25. Sri.K.T.Bineesh, who was examined as PW9, deposed that
he had been working as a Lower Division Clerk at the Sub Registrar's
Office, Chevayur. He stated that on the day of the trap, he reached
the office at about 9.00 a.m. and met the Sub Registrar with an
application seeking permission to avail a Provident Fund loan.
According to PW9, the accused informed him that the application
had to be verified, whereupon he returned to his seat. PW9 further
deposed that on that day, PW3, Smt. Sandeepa, approached him for
2026:KER:3936
comparison of three documents. After comparing the said
documents, he returned them to PW3. He further stated that
thereafter PW3 again approached him with another document, which
was also compared and returned to her. PW9 deposed that at about
12.00 noon, the Vigilance party arrived at the Sub Registrar's Office,
conducted the trap proceedings, recovered a sum of ₹5,000 and
arrested the accused. He further stated that he used to compare
documents as per the instructions of the Sub Registrars from time to
time.
26. PW10, Sri.Balakrishnan, was examined as a witness. He
deposed that he had been working as the Sub Registrar, Chevayur,
from 03.03.2014 onwards. He stated that on 11.08.2014, he
produced Ext.P12 Cash Declaration Register and Ext.P17 Office
Order Book before the Investigating Officer and that the
Investigating Officer seized the said documents under Ext.P16
Seizure Mahazar. PW10 further deposed that on 18.08.2014, he
produced Account 'A' Register, Volume No.135, before the
Investigating Officer and that the Investigating Officer seized the
2026:KER:3936
same under Ext.P13 Seizure Mahazar. He stated that the original
register was thereafter returned as per kychit and that Ext.P11 was
the certified copy of the relevant pages of the said register. PW10
stated that on 10.09.2014, he produced Exts.P19 and P20, being
certified copies of documents, before the Investigating Officer and
that the Investigating Officer seized the same under Ext.P18 Seizure
Mahazar. He further deposed that he produced Exts.P22 to P26,
being certified copies of five documents, which were seized by the
Investigating Officer under Ext.P21 Seizure Mahazar. PW10 also
deposed that he identified the signatures found in Exts.P27 to P34,
which were certified copies of documents. PW10 further stated that
on 06.03.2014, he addressed the District Registrar seeking
permission to make necessary entries in certain documents
registered by his predecessor, along with a list of documents
requiring regularisation. He deposed that based on the reply dated
11.03.2014 received from the District Registrar, he regularised the
said documents.
27. PW11, Smt.Prasanna testified that she had been working
2026:KER:3936
as an Upper Division Clerk at the Sub Registrar's Office, Chevayur,
from 03.10.2013 to 10.03.2014. She stated that she was present in
the office on the day of the trap. PW11 further deposed that she
copied the dockets on the reverse side of the documents registered
on 22.02.2014, bearing Document Nos. 732/2014 to 735/2014 and
Will No. 35/2014. She stated that the said work was completed
within one week of registration and that such procedure was
ordinarily followed in the Sub Registrar's Office, Chevayur. PW11
stated that she copied the dockets believing that the
accused would return and put her signatures on the documents. She
further deposed that in the meantime PW10 was transferred and that
she completed the pending work in haste. PW11 further deposed that
she wrote the time of presentation on the documents at intervals of
ten minutes starting from 10.00 a.m., after consulting PW6,
Sri.Sadanandan. She stated that the time of presentation was written
on the basis of estimation. She further stated that she first entered
the time in Book No.1 and thereafter in Book No.3, and that the time
was written on the documents as per Book No.1 and subsequently as
2026:KER:3936
per Book No.3. She admitted that the time was entered without
verifying the entries in the Account 'A' Register. PW11 further
deposed that as per Ext.P11(a) Register, Will No.35/2014 was
presented for registration as the third item, whereas she had shown
the said Will as Item No.5 in the certified copies and in the docket.
She stated that the reason for the said mistake was that the time was
written on the documents based on estimation and without verifying
the Account 'A' Register. PW11 further stated that the Investigating
Officer questioned her by showing the Account 'A' Register and the
certified copies and pointed out the said mistake to her.
28. PW12, Sri.Balan, was examined as a witness. He deposed
that he had been working as the Accounts Officer in the office of the
Regional Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Kozhikode. He
stated that he had accompanied the Inspector of Police, Sri.Ganesh
Kumar, during the surprise check conducted on 23.01.2014 at the
Sub Registrar's Office, Chevayur. PW12 further deposed that he
identified the accused in the dock. He stated that a Joint Inventory
was prepared during the surprise check, which was available at pages
2026:KER:3936
57 to 68 of File No. SC 73/2013/KKD. PW12 deposed that he had
noticed several irregularities, corrections and overwritings in respect
of the entries made by the accused in Ext.P12 Personal Cash
Declaration Register. In cross-examination, PW12 denied the
suggestion that the said inventory had been concocted in the
Vigilance Office.
29. Sri.Sujith got examined as PW13, affirmed that he had
been working as a Civil Police Officer and that he had accompanied
the trap party on 22.02.2014. He further supported the trap
proceedings.
30. PW14, Sri.Anujith, was examined as a witness. He
deposed that he had been working as a Clerk in the office of the
District Registrar at the relevant time. He stated that he was a
witness to Ext.P37 Seizure Mahazar, under which the Investigating
Officer seized Exts.P38 and P39 files from Sri. R. Madhu, the then
District Registrar. He further deposed that the said files were
maintained in the office of the District Registrar in connection with
the corrections made in the documents registered.
2026:KER:3936
31. PW15, Sri.Sreejith, was examined as a witness. He deposed
that he had been working as a Senior Assistant in Mathrubhumi
Daily. He stated that on 22.02.2014, at about 10.00 a.m., he went to
the Sub Registrar's Office, Chevayur, for the registration of a
document prepared by PW1. He stated that the Sub Registrar was not
present at the time of his arrival and that he waited outside the office.
PW15 further deposed that in the meantime the accused, who was
then working as the Sub Registrar, arrived at the office and took her
seat on the dais. He stated that he obtained token No.5 and that the
accused commenced the registration proceedings starting with token
No.1. PW15 stated that after the registration of the first document,
PW1 came to him and enquired whether he had obtained a token,
after which PW1 went into the chamber of the accused. He further
stated that when token No.2 was called, an elderly lady and some
others entered the chamber and that he continued to wait outside.
Thereafter, when his token number was called, he entered the
chamber. PW15 deposed that the accused examined him, made
certain entries on the document, and handed over the document to
2026:KER:3936
him with instructions to give it to the lady who was seated in front of
the dais. He stated that the said lady was engaged in work relating to
documents that had already been registered. He further stated that at
that time PW1 was standing near the dais. PW15 further deposed that
in the meantime PW1 went out of the chamber, followed by the
accused. The lady seated in front of the dais then asked PW15 to sit
down. Accordingly, he sat on the chair and affixed his signatures and
thumb impressions on the document. He stated that thereafter the
accused returned and took her seat on the dais. PW15 stated that
while he was counting the amount to be paid towards registration fee,
as directed by the lady seated in front of the dais, certain persons
entered the chamber and enquired with the accused regarding the
bribe amount. He stated that initially he could not understand who
the visitors were and that on seeing them he stood up from his seat.
One among the visitors introduced himself as the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and asked everyone present to remain
seated. PW15 stated that he remained in the chamber. PW15 further
deposed that the accused denied having accepted any bribe. He
2026:KER:3936
stated that thereafter he noticed a pink colour in the solution in
which the hands of the accused were dipped. He further stated that
the lady seated in front of the dais collected the registration fee from
him. PW15 stated that he left the chamber at about 12.30 p.m., with
the permission of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He further
stated that later he came to know that the lady seated in front of the
dais was the peon and that she was the person who collected the
registration fee from him.
32. Sri.V.M.Abdul Wahab, was examined as PW16. He
deposed that while he had been working as Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, he took over the
investigation on 25.02.2014. He stated that on the said date, he
prepared Ext.P10 Scene Mahazar. PW16 further deposed that he
submitted Ext.P40 report to rectify an error in the Recovery
Mahazar, which had occurred while recording the mobile number of
PW1. He stated that he seized Ext.P43, the order of the District
Collector granting assistance of a gazetted officer for the trap, under
Ext.P42 Seizure Mahazar. He further deposed that he submitted
2026:KER:3936
Ext.P43 report before the Court seeking return of certain documents
for the purpose of investigation and also submitted Ext.P44 report to
correct the initial of PW1 in the FIR. PW16 stated that he seized
Ext.P46 covering letter and the proforma containing particulars of
certain documents of the Sub Registrar's Office. He further deposed
that on 05.04.2014, he seized Ext.P14 site plan prepared by the
Village Officer, Nellikode, under Ext.P15 Seizure Mahazar. PW16
further deposed that he seized Ext.P48 series, being the particulars of
the scribe licences of PW1 and PW3, under Ext.P47 Seizure Mahazar.
He also seized Exts.P12 and P17 documents from PW10 under
Ext.P16 Seizure Mahazar. PW16 stated that on 11.08.2014, he seized
Ext.P50 Service Book, Ext.P51 Appointment Order and Ext.P52
Promotion Order of the accused under Ext.P49 Seizure Mahazar. He
further deposed that on 18.08.2014, he seized the Account 'A'
Register under Ext.P13 Seizure Mahazar and that Ext.P14 was the
attested copy of the relevant pages of the Account 'A' Register. PW16
further deposed that on 10.09.2014, he seized Exts.P19 and P20
documents from PW10 under Ext.P18 Seizure Mahazar. On
2026:KER:3936
14.10.2014, he seized Exts.P38 and P39 files from CW24, Sri. R.
Madhu, the then District Registrar, under Ext.P37 Seizure Mahazar.
PW16 stated that on 15.10.2014, he seized Exts.P22 to P26
documents from PW10 under Ext.P21 Seizure Mahazar. He further
deposed that he seized Exts.P27 to P32, being certified copies of
documents, after preparing Ext.P53 Seizure Mahazar. PW16 further
stated that on 28.10.2014, he seized Ext.P36 document from PW10
under Ext.P35 Seizure Mahazar and that on 01.11.2014, he seized
Exts.P33 and P34, being certified copies of documents, under
Ext.P54 Seizure Mahazar. PW16 further deposed that he examined
the material witnesses during the course of investigation. He also
stated that he examined CW41, Sri. B. Mohanan, IAS, who had
accorded the prosecution sanction, and that CW41 was no more at
the time of giving evidence.
33. PW19 Sri.Premdas M.P, was the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, who
laid the trap. He would say that, on 21-02-2014, PW1, Sri. Bhaskaran
Nair approached him at Vigilance Unit,Kozhikode and made an oral
2026:KER:3936
complaint against the accused. He asked PW1 to wait and conducted
a pre-trap verification through Civil Police Officer, Sri. Sapnesh. Sri
Sapnesh submitted a report and PW19 convinced the genuineness of
the complaint. He called PW1 and directed him to come on the next
day, that is on 22-02-2014 at 9 A.M., with ₹5,000, the amount
demanded by the accused as bribe. Accordingly, PW1 came on the
next day. PW19 recorded Ext.P1 First Information Statement (FIS)
and registered Ext.P1(a) FIR. He sent a requisition for witnesses for
the laying of trap to the District Collector. As per his requisition, the
District Collector has made available the services of PW2, Sri.
Radhakrishnan and CW20, Sri. M.B.Arunan, the gazetted officers.
They came to the Vigilance Office at about 10.00 A.M. He mutually
introduced the gazetted officers and PW1. He explained the
complaint to the gazetted officers. He seized 5 currency notes of
₹1,000 brought by PW1, as per Ext. P2 Seizure Mahazar. He
identified those notes as MO1 series. The hands of PW1 were dipped
in Sodium Carbonate Solution and there was no colour change. The
said solution was collected in a bottle, tied, sealed and labelled. He
2026:KER:3936
identified the bottle as MO2. He took one currency note of ₹10 from
his pocket and caused to touch the hands of PW1 on the currency
note and dipped his hands in Sodium Carbonate Solution. There was
no colour change. The said solution was collected in a bottle, tied,
sealed and labelled. He identified the bottle as MO3. Thereafter
phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency note and
caused to touch the hands of PW1 on the currency note. Thereafter,
when the hands of PW1 were dipped in Sodium Carbonate Solution
and there was colour change to the solution and the fingers. The said
solution was collected in a bottle, tied, sealed and labelled. He
identified the bottle as MO4 and the currency note as MO5.
Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on MO1 series
currency notes and those notes were put in the left pocket of the
shirt worn by PW1, after conducting a body search of PW1 through
the witnesses. He instructed PW1 that the currency notes shall be
given to the accused only on demand and to give signal, if the
accused accepts the amount. He gave proper instructions to the
member of the trap party and proceeded to Sub Registrar's Office,
2026:KER:3936
Chevayur. PW1 was on the wheels of his motor cycle and the others
proceeded in three department vehicles. They reached near MCH
Higher Secondary School at 11.05 A.M and parked their vehicles
there PW19 gave his official mobile number to PW1 for giving signal
through mobile phone, when the accused accepts the bribe amount.
PW1 was sent to the office of the accused and trap party waited
there.
34. PW18 examined in this case is the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, who
verified the investigation and submitted final report before this
Court.
35. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, it could be gathered
that he was having scribe licence bearing Nos.DAD 374 and SAD
1380 and he worked as a document writer near Sub Registrar Office,
Chevayur. According to PW1, for registering documents presented by
him, the accused demanded bribe on 28.01.2014 and subsequently
on 22.02.2014, he had accepted the same. Even though PW1 was
examined at length, nothing extracted to disbelieve the version of
2026:KER:3936
PW1 in the matter of demand and acceptance. Apart from that, the
decoy witness examined as PW2, and the Investigating Officer
examined as PW19, categorically supported that the other witnesses
also deposed the case of the prosecution. In fact, even though all the
witnesses examined by the prosecution were subjected to searching
cross examination, nothing material elicited to shake their versions.
Thus, the learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused failed to
unsettle the verdict impugned by finding lacuna in evidence.
36. On appreciation of evidence, it is crystal clear that the
evidence of PW1 is wholly reliable in the matter of demand and
acceptance of bribe by the accused on 22.02.2014 in continuation of
the earlier demand made on 28.01.2014. Even though DW1 was
examined and Exts.D1 to D6 documents tendered in evidence, the
learned senior counsel appeared for the appellant/accused did not
argue anything relying on the said evidence to unsettle the verdict
impugned. Therefore, no further discussion on that evidence is
required. Thus, the twin ingredients to prove the offences under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 have been
2026:KER:3936
established by the prosecution and in consideration of the said fact,
the Special Court rightly entered into conviction, finding that the
appellant/accused committed the said offences and the finding of
conviction does not require any interference.
37. Coming to the sentence, the minimum sentence for the
offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 w.e.f.
16.01.2014 is not less than three years, but which may extend to
seven years and also fine. Similarly, for the offence under Section
13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, the minimum sentence is less than four
years which may extend to ten years. In the instant case, the
occurrence was on 22.02.2014. Here, the learned Special Judge
imposed four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and seven years rigorous imprisonment
for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
In consideration of the argument made by the learned senior counsel
for the appellant/accused, I am inclined to modify the sentence to
the statutory minimum.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction
2026:KER:3936
imposed by the Special Court is confirmed. The sentence stands
modified as under:
1. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable
Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and also to pay a fine of ₹50,000 and in
default of payment of fine, the appellant/accused shall undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.
2. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of four years for the offence punishable
under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and to pay a fine
of ₹25,000 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant/accused
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
3. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the
default sentences shall run separately.
4. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the
appellant/accused stands cancelled and the bail bond executed by
the accused also stands cancelled. The accused is directed to
surrender before the Special Court, forthwith to undergo the
2026:KER:3936
modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to
execute the sentence, without fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and
compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
