[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.Ibrahim vs Dy.S.P.Vigilance & Anti Corruption ... on 21 January, 2026
2026:KER:5210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1670 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2013 IN CC NO.19 OF 2005 OF
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,KOZHIKODE.
APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
K.IBRAHIM
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARIKOOTAKARI POLICE STATION.
BY ADV.SHRI.P.V.ANOOP
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 DY.S.P.VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU UNIT-1, KANNUR
VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU UNIT-I, KANNUR-670
007.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH A,
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.01.2026,
THE COURT ON 21.01.2026, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NO.1670 OF 2013 2
2026:KER:5210
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026
The 1st accused in C.C.No.19/2005 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, is the appellant, who
assails judgment dated 19.11.2013 rendered in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st accused and
the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant records.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988'
hereinafter) as well as under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter), by the appellant/1st accused.
4. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2,
being public servants, while working as Sub Inspector of Police and
Police Constable, respectively, at Karikkottakkari Police Station,
abused their official position and hatched criminal conspiracy between
2026:KER:5210
themselves. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, they had
committed acts of criminal misconduct. It is alleged that at about
12.00 midnight on 02.05.2003, while PW1 was driving an
autorickshaw in which one Sheena, who was personally known to him,
was travelling from the Meditation Centre at Anapanthi to her house,
the 1st accused arrived in a police jeep driven by the 2 nd accused,
intercepted the autorickshaw, and directed PW1 to drop Sheena at her
house and thereafter to bring the autorickshaw to the Police Station,
alleging wickedness in the conduct of PW1. After PW1 dropped Sheena
at her house and while he was proceeding in the autorickshaw, the 1 st
accused, who was following him in the police vehicle driven by the 2 nd
accused, again stopped the autorickshaw and directed PW1 to meet the
2nd accused. When PW1 met the 2 nd accused, he demanded a bribe of
₹5,000 from PW1 for and on behalf of the 1 st accused. When PW1
stated that he had no cash with him, the 2 nd accused consulted the 1st
accused and reduced the bribe amount to ₹3,000, which was again
demanded from PW1. As PW1 reiterated that he had no cash with him,
the 1st accused seized the vehicle documents from PW1 and directed
2026:KER:5210
him to pay the amount on the next day before 5.00 p.m., threatening
that failure to do so would result in PW1 being taken into custody. On
04.05.2003, when PW1 met the 1st accused at his quarters and
informed him that he had no money, the 1 st accused directed PW1 to
keep the autorickshaw in his compound. The 2 nd accused, who was
present there, told PW1 that if the amount would not be paid, the 1 st
accused would not leave him alone, and directed PW1 to bring the
amount on the next day. Thus, the 2 nd accused demanded a bribe of
₹3,000 from PW1 for and on behalf of the 1st accused and thereby
abetted the commission of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act,
1988. Consequently, the 2nd accused committed offences punishable
under Sections 7 and 12 of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of
the IPC r/w Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act,
1988. Subsequently, the 1st accused repeated the demand for bribe
from PW1 at 7.00 p.m. on 06.05.2003 and again at 7.30 p.m. on
11.05.2003 when PW1 contacted the 1 st accused over the phone, he
threatened PW1 that a case would be registered against PW1 if the
amount would not be paid. In pursuance of the said demand, the 1 st
2026:KER:5210
accused demanded and accepted ₹3,000 from PW1 at 4.00 p.m. on
12.05.2003 at his quarters. Thereby, the 1 st accused obtained undue
pecuniary advantage by adopting corrupt and illegal means and
committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the IPC.
5. The Special Court proceeded with trial after framing charge
for the said offences. PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P31
as well as MO1 to MO4 were marked on the side of prosecution.
Exts.X1 to X2 were also marked. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to
D23 were marked on the side of the defence.
6. The learned Special Judge appreciated the evidence and
finally found that the 1st accused is guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, while
acquitting the 2nd accused. Accordingly, the 1st accused was sentenced
as under:
"In the result, A-1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month for the
offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
2026:KER:5210
1988. He is also sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month for the
offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. A-1 is entitled to get set off under
Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code regarding the
period of detention undergone by him, if any. The
substantial portion of the sentence shall run concurrently.
MO-1 series currency notes shall be returned to PW-1 and
MO-2 to MO-4 bottles shall be destroyed as valueless after
the expiry of the period of appeal. Bail bond executed by A-
1 stands cancelled."
7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st
accused, the 1st accused caught PW1 along with a girl at odd hours
of the night in an autorickshaw. Since, the news had spread in the
locality, PW1 got insulted. Because of this enmity, the entire case
had been foisted. Thus, the evidence of PW1 is not believable.
Suppression of an original complaint dated 03.05.2003 by PW1
also is highlighted while impeaching the veracity of the judgment
of the same court. It is also submitted that the Special Court
wrongly applied the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act,
2026:KER:5210
1988 in a case where the prosecution failed to prove the twin
ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
8. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor that the evidence available as that of PW1, supported
by the evidence of the decoy witness and the Investigating Officer
sufficiently established the pre as well as post trap proceedings
and also demand and acceptance of bribe by the 1 st accused from
PW1. In such a case, no interference with the impugned verdict is
warranted.
9. Having appraised the rival submissions, the points
arise for consideration are;
(i) Whether the Special Court was right in
holding that the appellant/1st accused committed
offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988?
(ii) Whether the Special Court was right in
holding that the appellant/1st accused committed
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section
2026:KER:5210
13(2) of the PC Act, 1988?
(iii) Whether the verdict would require interference?
(iv) The order to be passed?
10. Point Nos.(i) to (iv)
Before entering upon the merits of the rival
submissions and recording findings on the points framed for
consideration, it is necessary to have a careful scrutiny of the oral
and documentary evidence adduced in the case.
11. In this matter, the prosecution mainly relied on the
evidence of PW1. PW1 deposed that he had given a complaint
before the Vigilance authorities against the accused persons.
According to him, Ext.P1 was the statement given by him to the
Vigilance officials and as per this First Information Statement
given by him on 12.05.2003, FIR was registered. PW1 testified
further that on 02.05.2003 he had gone to the Meditation Centre
at Anapanthi for picking up his mother. While he was waiting
there, one Sheena, who was known to him, requested him to take
her to her house in his autorickshaw. While he was driving the
2026:KER:5210
autorickshaw with Sheena as a traveller, a police jeep came and
stopped his Autorickshaw. The Sub Inspector of Police of
Karikkottakkari Police Station and a policeman were present in
the police jeep. The Sub Inspector scolded him alleging that he
was taking Sheena for immoral activities. When PW1 gave the
address of Sheena, the Sub Inspector directed him to take her to
her house, and accordingly, he took Sheena to her house in the
autorickshaw under police escort. PW1 stated that thereafter the
Sub Inspector told him that if an amount of ₹5,000 would be
paid, he would avoid taking the autorickshaw to the Police
Station. He further stated that he did not know who was driving
the police jeep. According to him, the Sub Inspector had not asked
him to meet the driver of the vehicle and the driver had never
demanded him to pay ₹5,000 to the Sub Inspector. At that stage,
PW1 was declared hostile and permission was granted to the
Additional Legal Adviser to put questions to him as permissible in
cross-examination. In the cross-examination by the Additional
Legal Adviser, PW1 stated that when he informed the Sub
2026:KER:5210
Inspector that he had no cash with him, the Sub Inspector told
him that the amount had to be paid on the next day. He further
deposed that the Sub Inspector took photocopies of the
Registration Certificate and Driving License and also took
possession of the original Insurance Policy, Tax Receipt, and
Pollution Control Certificate. He stated that the Sub Inspector
threatened him that if the amount was not paid before 5.00 p.m.
on the next day, he would be taken into custody from the town in
the presence of the public. PW1 further stated that he had not
gone to meet the Sub Inspector on 04.05.2003. He deposed that
he came to know that on 06.05.2003 the Sub Inspector had come
to the town and enquired about him and accordingly, he contacted
the Sub Inspector on the night of 06.05.2003, when the Sub
Inspector told him that if ₹3,000 would not be paid, he would be
implicated in a criminal case. He further stated that on
08.05.2003 the Sub Inspector again came to the town and
enquired about him with autorickshaw drivers and nearby shop
owners. PW1 deposed that on 11.05.2003 he contacted the Sub
2026:KER:5210
Inspector over phone and was informed that if ₹3,000 would be
paid on the next day, all the problems would be settled. Since he
was not willing to pay any bribe, he had given a complaint to the
Vigilance officials on 12.05.2003. PW1 further deposed that two
gazetted officers came to the room of the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kannur Unit,
and were introduced to him. He entrusted six currency notes of
₹500 denomination to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The
numbers of those currency notes were noted down by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police in the presence of the official witnesses.
He stated that a demonstration of the phenolphthalein test was
conducted using a ₹10 note. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder
was smeared on the entrusted currency notes and the same were
returned to him with specific direction to hand over the notes to
the Sub Inspector only, if there was demand from the 1 st accused.
Ext.P2 mahazar was prepared at the Vigilance Office, and he
signed the same. PW1 deposed that they reached near the quarters
of the Sub Inspector at about 4.00 p.m. He went to the quarters of
2026:KER:5210
the Sub Inspector, who asked him whether he had brought the
amount. PW1 replied that he had brought ₹3,000 and handed
over the currency notes to the Sub Inspector. According to PW1,
the Sub Inspector received the amount and kept it on the desk
near the cot on which he was sitting. PW1 further stated that
thereafter he came out of the quarters and gave the pre-arranged
signal by rubbing his head. The Vigilance party then entered the
quarters of the Sub Inspector. Subsequently, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police called PW1 inside and asked him
whether the Sub Inspector had received any amount. PW1
narrated the incidents that occurred inside the quarters.
According to PW1, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the
official witnesses found the currency notes given by him near the
suitcase of the Sub Inspector. Thereafter, the Sub Inspector was
arrested and the trap party returned by about 6.30 p.m. He
further stated that the Vigilance officials questioned him and
recorded his statement. PW1 reiterated that the Sub Inspector had
demanded bribe from him and that he was not willing to pay any
2026:KER:5210
bribe.
12. When PW1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the
2nd accused, PW1 stated that he could identify the Sub Inspector
and the policeman based on the difference in their uniforms. He
further stated that the driver of the police jeep and the policeman
inside the jeep had not demanded any amount from him and had
not asked him to pay any amount to anybody.
13. Apart from PW1, prosecution examined PW2, an
official witness and a gazetted officer, who had been working as
Special Officer (RBI) at the Kannur District Industries Centre at
the relevant time and who participated in the pre-trap and post-
trap proceedings. PW2 deposed that on 12.05.2003, while he was
working as Special Officer (RBI) at the Kannur District Industries
Centre, he went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kannur Unit, as per
the instructions of the General Manager of the District Industries
Centre. When he reached the said office, CW3 Balan, who was
working as Assistant Education Officer, was also present there.
2026:KER:5210
PW1 was also present in the office at that time. PW2 stated that
the Deputy Superintendent of Police explained to them the details
of the complaint given by PW1. He deposed that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police received six currency notes of ₹500
denomination handed over by PW1 and recorded the numbers of
those currency notes. After putting a mark "V" on the notes, the
same were identified as MO1 series. According to PW2, a
demonstration of the phenolphthalein test was conducted using a
₹10 currency note. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was
smeared on MO1 series notes entrusted by PW1 and the same
were re-entrusted to PW1 with instruction to hand over the same
to the accused only if there was demand by the 1 st accused. PW2
deposed that Ext.P2 mahazar was prepared incorporating the
details of the procedures conducted in the Vigilance Office and
that the said mahazar was signed by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, PW2 himself, CW3, and PW1. PW2 further stated that the
Vigilance party reached near the quarters of the Sub Inspector at
about 3.45 p.m. PW1 was sent to the quarters of the Sub Inspector
2026:KER:5210
with instructions to give a pre-arranged signal by rubbing his head
if the Sub Inspector would receive the amount. The remaining
members of the trap party waited outside the quarters. PW2
deposed that upon receipt of the signal, the trap party entered the
quarters of the Sub Inspector. At that time, the 1 st accused was
standing near the door on the eastern side of the room. PW2
stated that when the 1st accused saw the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, he appeared perplexed and rubbed his hands on the lungi
worn by him. The Deputy Superintendent of Police directed him
not to do so. PW2 stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police
introduced the members of the trap party to the 1 st accused and
asked him whether he had received any amount from Saji, (PW1).
However, the 1st accused denied receipt of any amount.
Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police called PW1, who
was waiting outside the quarters. PW1 narrated the incidents that
had occurred inside the quarters after he entered the room. PW2
further deposed that on verification of the place pointed out by
PW1, the currency notes were found near the suitcase placed on
2026:KER:5210
the desk inside the room. The fingers of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and the official witnesses were dipped in
sodium carbonate solution and no colour change was noticed, the
said sample solution was collected and marked as MO2. PW2
deposed further that thereafter the fingers of both hands of the 1 st
accused were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution and the
solution showed pink colour change. The said solution was
collected and marked as MO3. CW3 verified the currency notes
found on the desk and confirmed that they were MO1 series
currency notes. The said currency notes were dipped in sodium
carbonate solution and there was pink colour change. The sample
was collected and marked as MO4. PW2 further deposed that the
1st accused was arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
after preparing Ext.P4 arrest memo and Ext.P5 inspection memo.
Ext.P6 recovery mahazar was prepared detailing the incidents that
occurred inside the quarters of the 1 st accused, and the same was
signed by PW2, CW3, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and
other witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the office of
2026:KER:5210
the Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Vigilance party. PW2
finally identified the person arrested on that day as the 1 st accused
at the dock.
14. PW3 who had been working as Writer in the Office of
the Circle Inspector of Police, Iritty, at the relevant time. PW3
deposed that at the relevant time. He stated that on 20.05.2003,
he produced before the Vigilance officials the carbon copy of the
joining report of the 1st accused. The said document was marked
as Ext.P8 and was seized under Ext.P7 mahazar. PW3 further
deposed that as per Ext.P7, the 1st accused had taken charge as
Sub Inspector of Police, Karikkottakkari Police Station as on
03.01.2003. PW4, who had been working as Head Constable at
Karikkottakkari Police Station at the relevant time. According to
him, on 12.05.2003, he was put in charge of station duty. He
further deposed that he saw the 1 st accused leaving the Police
Station for patrol duty in the police jeep at about 9.45 a.m. The
vehicle was driven by the 2nd accused, as there was no regular
driver attached to the Police Station at that time. According to
2026:KER:5210
PW4, the Superintendent of Police had authorised the 2 nd accused
to drive the police vehicle in the absence of a driver. PW4 further
deposed that after some time, the 2 nd accused returned to the
Police Station with the police jeep, but the 1 st accused did not
return. He stated that later in the afternoon he came to know that
the 1st accused was arrested by the Vigilance Police for allegedly
demanding and accepting illegal gratification of ₹3,000. PW4
further stated that on 23.05.2003, he handed over the General
Diary of the Police Station from 30.03.2003 onwards, which was
marked as Ext.P11, and the posting order of the 1st accused, which
was marked as Ext.P10, to the Vigilance Circle Inspector.
According to PW4, the said documents were seized as per Ext.P9
mahazar. During cross-examination by the counsel for the 1 st
accused, PW4 stated that he had worked along with the 1 st accused
for about three months. He also stated that he did not know
whether the number of suo motu registered cases had increased
after the 1st accused took charge of the Police Station.
15. PW5, who had been working as a Police Constable at
2026:KER:5210
Karikkottakkari Police Station at the relevant time, testified that
on 02.05.2003, while he was working as a Police Constable at
Karikkottakkari Police Station, he went along with the 1 st accused,
who was the Sub Inspector of the said Police Station, for patrol
duty at about 11.30 p.m. He stated that the police jeep was driven
by the 2nd accused. PW5 further deposed that when they reached
near St.Jude Church, they saw an autorickshaw stationed on the
roadside near the river shore, and a girl was found inside the
autorickshaw. On questioning, they were informed that the
persons had come for meditation. PW5 deposed that the Sub
Inspector directed that the girl be taken to her house in the
autorickshaw, and the police jeep accompanied the autorickshaw.
PW5 stated that after the girl was dropped at her house, the 1 st
accused directed that the autorickshaw be taken to the Police
Station. While the autorickshaw was proceeding towards the
Police Station, the 1st accused stopped the vehicle and seized the
documents of the autorickshaw. He further stated that the 1 st
accused spoke to the autorickshaw driver, and that the 2 nd accused
2026:KER:5210
also spoke to the autorickshaw driver. After some time, the
autorickshaw was released. PW5 deposed that he did not know the
nature of the conversation between the Sub Inspector, the 2 nd
accused, and the autorickshaw driver.
16. The prosecution sanction in this case was proved
through PW7, who had been working as Deputy Inspector General
of Police, Kannur Range, at the relevant time. PW7 deposed that
on 09.07.2004, while he was working as Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Kannur Range, he had issued Ext.P13
prosecution sanction order for prosecuting accused Nos.1 and 2 in
this case. He stated that he was the authority competent to
remove the accused persons from service. PW7 further deposed
that he issued Ext.P13 sanction order after perusing the case
records, applying his mind, and being satisfied that the accused
persons were liable to be prosecuted. When PW7 was cross-
examined by the counsel for the 1 st accused, PW7 denied the
suggestion that he had not complied with the essential formalities
before issuing the sanction order.
2026:KER:5210
17. PW8 is an official witness, who had been working as
Sub Inspector of Police at the Motor Transport Office, A.R. Camp,
Kannur, at the relevant time. PW8 deposed that while he was
working as Sub Inspector of Police at the Motor Transport Office,
A.R. Camp, Kannur, he produced the vehicle diary of the police
jeep bearing registration No. KL-01-D-3764 attached to
Karikkottakkari Police Station for the period from 01.05.2003 to
31.05.2003. The said document was marked as Ext.P15. PW8
further deposed that he also produced the authorisation order
issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kannur, permitting the 2 nd
accused to drive the departmental vehicle, which was marked as
Ext.P16. Both documents were seized under Ext.P14 mahazar.
18. PW9 deposed that while he was working as U.D. Clerk
at the District Police Office, Kannur, he produced the service book
of the 2nd accused before the Vigilance officials on 23.07.2003.
The same was seized under Ext.P17 mahazar. PW9 further
deposed that the original service book was returned to him after
executing Ext.P17(a) kychit and that Ext.P18 was the attested copy
2026:KER:5210
of four pages of the service book of the 2 nd accused. He further
stated that the service book of the 1 st accused had been sent to the
Superintendent of Police, Wayanad District, and therefore could
not be produced before the Vigilance officials.
19. PW10 is the trap laying officer, i.e., Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Kannur. PW10 deposed that on 12.05.2003, PW1 came to his
office and gave a statement regarding his complaint. The
statement was recorded and PW1's signature was obtained. Ext.P1
was the First Information Statement given by PW1. Based on the
said complaint, crime No. V.C.6/2003/Kannur was registered
under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, and Ext.P1(a) FIR was
registered by him. PW10 further deposed that requisitions were
sent to the District Education Officer, Kannur, and the General
Manager, District Industries Centre, Kannur, seeking the
assistance of gazetted officers. CW2 and CW3 reported at his
office. He introduced PW1 to them and explained the complaint.
PW10 stated that PW1 handed over six currency notes of ₹500
2026:KER:5210
denomination, which he received and recorded the serial numbers
thereof in the seizure mahazar and marked them with the letter
"V". The said currency notes were marked as MO1 series. A
demonstration of the phenolphthalein test was conducted using a
₹10 note. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on
MO1 series and the notes were entrusted to PW1 with instructions
to hand them over only if a demand was made by the 1 st accused.
Ext.P2 entrustment mahazar was prepared incorporating all these
details and was signed by PW1, the official witnesses, and PW10.
PW10 further deposed that the trap party left the Vigilance Office
at about 2.30 p.m. and reached near Karikkottakkari Police
Station at about 3.55 p.m. The vehicle was changed at Edoor
Junction, and thereafter they proceeded in an autorickshaw. PW1
was sent to the quarters of the Sub Inspector. At about 4.05 p.m.,
the pre-arranged signal was received, following which the trap
party entered the quarters through both entrances. PW10 stated
that the 1st accused was standing near the eastern door of his
quarters. On seeing PW10, the 1 st accused appeared perplexed and
2026:KER:5210
rubbed his hands on his lungi. He was instructed not to do so.
PW10 introduced himself and asked the 1 st accused whether he
had received any amount from PW1. The 1 st accused denied the
same. PW1 was then called inside and he narrated the incidents
that occurred inside the quarters and stated that the currency
notes were kept on the desk near a suitcase. PW10 deposed that
on searching the said place, the currency notes were found. The 1 st
accused offered no explanation for their presence. The hands of
PW10 and the official witnesses were dipped in sodium carbonate
solution, which showed no colour change, and MO2 sample was
collected. Thereafter, the hands of the 1 st accused were dipped in
the solution, which turned pink, and MO3 sample was collected.
Portions of the currency notes were also dipped in sodium
carbonate solution, which turned pink, and MO4 sample was
collected. PW10 further deposed that the 1st accused was arrested
after preparing Ext.P4 arrest memo and Ext.P5 inspection memo.
Recovery mahazar was prepared and signed by the accused,
official witnesses, and PW10. The accused was produced before
2026:KER:5210
court along with Ext.P19 remand report. The seized properties
were produced before court on 13.05.2003 under Ext.P20
property list. Ext.P21 report was submitted for adding Sections
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. PW10 also deposed that he
seized photocopies of the driving licence, registration certificate,
permit, and original insurance policy and pollution control
certificate produced by the Head Constable of Karikkottakkari
Police Station under Ext.P22 mahazar, and the documents were
marked as Ext.P23 series. He further stated that these documents
were taken from PW1, by the accused. He identified the arrested
Sub Inspector as the 1st accused in this case.
20. PW11, who conducted the investigation in this case
while working as Inspector of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Kannur, supported the investigation.
21. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients which
are necessary to constitute offences under Section 7 as well as
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The same are
extracted as under:-
2026:KER:5210
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
servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit the
offence of criminal misconduct,-
a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx
(c) xxxxxx
2026:KER:5210
(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.
22. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench
decision of the Apex Court in [AIR 2023 SC 330], Neeraj
Dutta v. State, where the Apex Court considered when the
demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C.Act to be said
to be proved along with ingredients for the offences under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in
paragraph No.68, it has been held as under :
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
2026:KER:5210
summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by
the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish
the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections
7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution has to first prove the
demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent
acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can
be proved either by direct evidence which can be in
the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof
of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can
also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the
absence of direct oral and 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
2026:KER:5210
such a case, there need not be a prior
demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant
makes a demand and the bribe giver
accepts the demand and tenders the
demanded gratification which in turn is
received by the public servant, it is a case
of obtainment. In the case of obtainment,
the prior demand for illegal gratification
emanates from the public servant. This is
an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act
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
2026:KER:5210
demand by the public servant when
accepted by the bribe giver and in turn
there is a payment made which is received
by the public servant, would be an offence
of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and
(i) and (ii) of the Act
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the
demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal
gratification may be made by a court of law by way
of an inference only when the foundational facts have
been proved by relevant oral and documentary
evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis
of the material on record, the Court has the discretion
to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is
subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence
of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile',
or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence
during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be
proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness
who can 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
2026:KER:5210
accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned,
on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates
the court to raise a presumption that the illegal
gratification was for the purpose of a motive or
reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said
presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal
presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the
said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section
20 does not apply to Section 13(1) (d) and (ii) of the
Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law
under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from
presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as
the former is a mandatory presumption while the
latter is discretionary in nature."
23. Thus, the legal position as regards to the essentials
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, is
extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe,
if there is an offer to pay bribe by the bribe giver without there
being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply
accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of
acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need
2026:KER:5210
not be a prior demand by the public servant. The presumption of
fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of
an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an
inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by
relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence
thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the
discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or
not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the
accused and 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
2026:KER:5210
raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in
law.
24. In this context, it is relevant to refer the decision of this
Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025
KHC OnLine 983], in Crl.Appeal No.323/2020, dated
12.9.2025, wherein in paragraph No. 12, it was held as under:
"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
2026:KER:5210
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. 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
2026:KER:5210
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."
25. Now, the question arises for consideration is; whether
the prosecution is succeed in proving that the appellant/1 st
accused demanded and accepted the bribe money, for which, the
evidence as discussed hereinabove, is sufficient?
26. In this case, apart from generally challenging the
appreciation of evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st
accused submitted that there was no proper sanction to prosecute
the 1st accused. According to him, Ext.P13 sanction, proved
through PW7, was issued to prosecute accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly.
It was contended that a separate sanction, based on the
prosecution records and reflecting due application of mind by the
sanctioning authority, ought to have been obtained. Therefore,
for want of proper sanction, the entire prosecution is vitiated and
the said benefit shall go to the appellant/1st accused.
27. Repelling this contention, the learned Special Public
2026:KER:5210
Prosecutor submitted that this contention is strange and there is
no mandate in law that separate sanction to be obtained
individually for each accused when more than one accused is
involved in one crime. According to the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, in the instant case, Ext.P13 sanction was issued by
PW7 after verifying the prosecution records after satisfying that
the appellant as well as the 2nd accused were liable to be
prosecuted. However, on appreciation of the evidence, the learned
Special Judge acquitted the 2nd accused for want of evidence.
28. While addressing the said contention, the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st accused found is
to be not digestible. It is true that Section 19(1) of the PC Act,
1988 prohibits the taking of cognizance of offences punishable
under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed
by a public servant, except with the previous sanction. Section
19(1)(a) to (c) deal with the authority competent to sanction. In
the instant case, the sanction obtained appears to be under
Section 19(1)(b) of the PC Act, 1988, since the accused was
2026:KER:5210
employed in connection with the affairs of the State and are not
removable from their office only with the sanction of the
Government. It is true that Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988
deals with situations not covered under Section 19(1)(a) and (b) of
the PC Act, 1988. On perusal of Ext.P13 sanction on par with the
evidence of PW7, it could be seen that the sanctioning authority
applied its mind, based on the prosecution records and granted
sanction to prosecute accused Nos.1 and 2 and the said sanction is
in no way found to be illegal. Even otherwise, Section 19(3)(a) of
the PC Act, 1988 specifically provides that 'no finding, sentence or
order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a
court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the
absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the
sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of
that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned
thereby' and this provision operates as an exception to the general
provisions under Section 19(1)(a) to (c) of the PC Act, 1988. In
view of Section 19(3)(a) of the PC Act, 1988, an appellate court is
2026:KER:5210
not expected to reverse or alter any finding, sentence or order on
the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction,
unless the court is of the opinion that a failure of justice has been
occasioned. In the instant case, no failure of justice could be
noticed. In fact, there is no failure of justice and the sanction
issued and proved through PW7 is found as proper, since the
sanction was issued after verifying the prosecution records by due
application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority.
29. Coming to another argument raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant/1st accused, it was contended that since
the appellant/1st accused caught PW1 along with a girl at odd
hours of the night in an autorickshaw and the said incident
became known in the locality, PW1, feeling insulted, became
inimical towards the accused and he foisted a false case, in fact,
this contention appears to be not sustainable, where the
categorical evidence of PW1 would show demand and acceptance
of bribe by the accused, in view of the evidence discussed in detail.
On re-appreciation of the evidence of PW1 with that of PW2 and
2026:KER:5210
PW10 supported by other evidence discussed in detail, the
prosecution succeeded in proving that the appellant/1 st accused
demanded and accepted MO1 series notes as illegal gratification
from PW1, to avoid implication of him in a case. Thus, none of the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st
accused could sustain, and the verdict of the trial court is found to
be sustainable.
30. In view of the above, the conviction entered by the
Special Court, after properly appreciating the evidence, does not
call for any interference. The learned counsel for the appellant/1 st
accused argued that leniency may be shown in the matter of
sentence by reducing the same to the minimum possible. This
argument appears to have force. Therefore, I am inclined to
modify the sentence to the statutory minimum, in the interest of
justice.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction
imposed by the Special Court finding commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act,
2026:KER:5210
1988, is confirmed. The sentence stands modified as under:
1. The appellant/1st accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a
fine of ₹10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the
PC Act, 1988, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. The appellant/1st accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine
of ₹10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)
r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. Set off provided under Section 428 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is allowed.
4. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and
the default sentences shall run separately.
5. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the
appellant/1st accused stands cancelled and the bail bond executed
by the appellant/1st accused also stands cancelled. The
2026:KER:5210
appellant/1st accused is directed to surrender before the Special
Court, forthwith to undergo the modified sentence, failing which,
the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and
compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
