STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR vs M.H SHABEER
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026/20TH KARTHIKA,
1948
CRL.A NO. 2217 OF 2024
CRIME NO.8/2013 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2024 IN CC NO.306
OF 2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI ROY THOMAS MUVATTUPUZHA, SR.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED :
M.H SHABEER
S/O HASSAN RATHER, MALIAKKAL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKEKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, (FORMER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PAIPRA), PIN - 686661
BY ADV SRI.K.D'SOUZA PHILIP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.11.2026, THE COURT ON 11.11.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
2
CR
JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 11 day of November, 2026
This appeal has been filed by the State of Kerala,
represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor,
challenging judgment in C.C.No.306/2016 on the files of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance),
Muvattupuzha dated 29.04.2024, whereby the sole
respondent/accused in the said case was acquitted. The
respondent herein is the accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State of Kerala/appellant and the learned
counsel appearing for the accused/respondent in detail.
Perused the verdict under challenge and the relevant
records.
3. The parties in this appeal will be referred as
' prosecution ' and ' accused ', for easy reference hereafter.
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
3
4. Here, the prosecution allegation is that the
accused, while working as Agricultural Officer at
Krishibhavan at Paipra, demanded 1,00,000/- (Rupees one ₹
lakh only) as illegal gratification on 22.07.2013 and
24.07.2013 from PW1 (Sri.A.M.Mershid), in order to give a
report to the District collector favoring him to transport and
deposit red earth for illegal filling of paddy land. The further
case is that, again on 25.07.2013, the demand was repeated
and accordingly, PW1 agreed to pay the same in two
installments. The prosecution case further is that thereafter,
at 4.20 p.m. on 26.07.2013, the accused accepted 50,000/- ₹
(the first installment) and he was nabbed red-handed. This is
the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the PC Act' for short) by the accused.
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
4
5. The learned Special Judge recorded evidence
after framing charge for the said offences, confined to that of
PW1 to PW15, Exts.P1 to P25 and MO1 to MO6 on the side
of the prosecution and DW1 and DW2 on the side of the
defence.
6. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Special
Judge summarized his finding in paragraph No.21 of the
judgment, relying on one answer given by PW1 during his
cross-examination, and held that the prosecution failed to
prove the allegations, and thus by upholding the case of the
defence that the appellant was falsely implicated by PW1, the
accused was acquitted by enlarging benefit of doubt.
7. It is pointed out by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor that, in the instant case, going through the
evidence of PW1, supported by PW2, the decoy witness, and
PW14, the Investigating Officer, the ingredients for the
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
5
offences alleged by the prosecution to be found without any
iota of reasonable doubts and the learned special Judge
approached the matter in a hyper-technical manner to
segregate only one sentence extracted during cross-
examination of PW1, which also would, in no way, suggest
that there was no demand on the date of trap, to record
acquittal. He also pointed out that since the ingredients to
prove commission of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act to be found from the prosecution
materials, the learned Special Judge went wrong in recording
acquittal by enlarging the benefit of doubt, in a case wherein
the offences against the accused were proved beyond
reasonable doubts. According to the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, merely because of the fact that PW1 is a person
having criminal antecedents, the same itself is not a ground
to discard his evidence in toto, when the prosecution
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
6
case as to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
by the accused to be found from the positive phenolphthalein
test. Therefore, the verdict is liable to be interfered with.
8. Zealously opposing these contentions, the learned
counsel for the accused argued that in this case, there is no
evidence to show demand of bribe by the accused at any
point of time, and the evidence given by PW1, as extracted in
paragraph No.21 of the judgment, would speak of the same.
It is pointed out that even though when the hands of the
accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the same
showed pink colour change because there was attempt on
the part of PW1 to entrust the money on his hands forcefully
and at this juncture, his hands came into contact with the
hands of PW1 (which showed positive test result), the said
aspect alone would not suffice the requirement of the twin
ingredients, viz., demand and acceptance of bribe by the
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
7
accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused,
none of the grounds, including the specific grounds ‘C’, ‘D’
and ‘E’, raised in the appeal memorandum are reasons to
interfere with the well-considered verdict rendered by the
learned Special Judge on evaluating the evidence. According
to him, the specific case of the defence is that since PW1 is a
person having involvement in 27 criminal cases and had also
been declared as a proclaimed offender, his evidence
regarding demand and acceptance of bribe would require
sufficient corroboration, to be acted upon. Apart from that,
PW3, who alleged to have accompanied PW1, turned hostile
to the prosecution insofar as the demand and acceptance of
the bribe were concerned. Therefore, he had submitted that
the well-considered verdict of the Special Court would warrant
no interference to reverse the same.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, points
arise for consideration are:
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
8
1. Whether the Special Judge went wrong in
finding that the accused/respondent did not
commit the offence punishable under Section 7
of the PC Act?
2. Whether the Special Judge erred in finding that
the accused/respondent did not commit the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w.
13(2) of the PC Act?
3. Whether the impugned verdict would require
any interference by this Court?
4. The order to be passed.
10. Point Nos.1 to 4
Here, the crucial witness is PW1, who lodged Ext.P2
complaint before the Dy.S.P. The sum and substance of his
version is that he had engaged in loading earth to the
construction site during 2013. He used to take lorries for rent
on a daily basis. According to him, three among the above
lorries, belonging to Sri.Abdulla, Sri.Abuthahir and
Sri.Naseer, were seized by the Muvattupuzha Police and for
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
9
release of the said lorries from the police custody, he had
deposited ₹ 25,000/- each as fine. For this purpose, the
District Collector called for reports from the Police,
Agricultural Officer as well as the Village Officer. According to
him, Ext.P1 series would show that stringent conditions were
imposed for the release of the lorries and in this connection,
on 18.07.2013, the Agricultural Officer (the accused herein)
called him to see the place, as a report was called for by the
District Collector. Accordingly, he had shown the property of
one Rajan where the earth was unloaded and then the
accused stated that there was some risk in giving a
favourable report. Thereafter, PW1 met the accused at his
residence and then the accused demanded ₹ 1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) as illegal gratification and also warned
him that if he did not pay the amount, he would face dangerous
consequences. He further stated that thereafter, the accused
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
10
called to his mobile number 9447606187 on 23.07.2013 and
accordingly, he, along with PW3, reached the agricultural
office and met the accused. Then the accused reached the
courtyard of the office and asked about the money
demanded, he stated that the money should be paid on the
next day. He agreed to give a reply after thinking of the same
and in turn, he had met the Dy.S.P. (Vigilance), Ernakulam
and lodged Ext.P2 complaint. According to him, he had
reached the vigilance office at 10.00 a.m. on 26.07.2013 and
entrusted 50 currency notes of ₹ 1,000/- each in the presence
of two Gazatted officers and vigilance officers. He read out
the statement recorded as Ext.P2 and was introduced to the
Gazatted officers. Thereafter, phenolphthalein test was
demonstrated and phenolphthalein powder was smeared on
the currency notes he had entrusted and identified as MO1
series (50 currency notes of ₹ 1000/-). He identified MO2 and
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
11
MO3 as the solutions used for the phenolphthalein test.
According to him, MO1 series was entrusted on his hands
with request to give the same to the accused on demand.
The Dy.S.P. also gave direction to show signal as soon as the
accused would accept the same. Then he had shown a
signal by touching on his head. According to him, Ext.P3 is
the pre-trap mahazar prepared in this regard. He deposed
further that when the trap party reached near the Agricultural
Office, the accused was not found there. Thereafter, he
contacted the accused over the phone and the accused
informed him that he was attending a conference and asked
PW1 to come near the new bus stand, Muvattupuzha. He
had informed the same to the Dy.S.P. and moved towards the
new bus stand. Then he stayed near the auto stand and at
4.15 p.m., Shabeer Sir (the accused) reached in a car and
parked the car 50 meters away from him. Then he moved
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
12
towards the accused. Then he stand on the right hand side of
the door of the car and PW3 stand on the left hand side door
of the car. When the accused asked whether the money
demanded had been brought, he answered in affirmative and
handed over MO1 series to the accused. The accused
accepted the money and placed the same on the dashboard
of the car and in turn, he had shown the signal and the
vigilance vehicle reached near the car and arrested the
accused. Thereafter, he was brought to the reception of the
Kabani Bar, where the accused was subjected to
examination and he was directed to go back. During cross-
examination, multiple questions have been asked with a view
to shake his version and also suggesting that the accused
came into contact with the hands of PW1 when the accused
had shown his hands for giving shake hand and when PW1
attempted to place the money on his hand. It is true that,
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
13
during cross-examination, when a question was put to him to
18.07.2013 26.07.2013
the effect that “
നും നും ഇടയിൽ പ്രതിയുമായി പൈസ
(Q), he answered that “ 19-
സംബന്ധമായ സംസാരം ഉണ്ടായിട്ടുണ്ട ോ ാം
risk (A):” In
തീയതിതിയതി സ്ഥലം സന്ദർശിക്കാൻ വന്നപ്പോൾ അല്പം എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞു
fact, the aforesaid portion of the evidence was extracted by
the learned Special Judge in paragraph 21 of the judgment
as a reason for disbelieving the prosecution case.
11. In this case, PW2 is the decoy witness. He was
the Gazetted officer worked as senior superintendent in the
Regional Archives at Ernakulam. He had witnessed the trap
procedures. He had identified the accused as the person who
had come in the red Wagon R car, spoken to by PW1. He
further stated that he had seen PW1 delivering the bunch of
currencies to the accused, who was sitting in the car.
According to him, after surrounding the car of the accused,
the DYSP (PW14) asked PW1 as to what had happened.
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
14
PW2 deposed further that PW1 described his visit to the
Krishibhavan, and receipt of 50,000 by the accused, and ₹
further demand of 50,000/-. The accused was taken out of ₹
the car thereafter. He deposed that the accused had said that
“money received has been placed in the dash of the car”.
The accused was taken to the reception counter of Kabani
Hotel situated nearby. Thereafter, phenolphthalein test was
conducted on both hands of the accused. The fingers of the
accused and sodium carbonate solution turned pink colour.
Then again PW14 had brought the accused to the side of the
car and on checking the car, he had found MO1 currencies
from the dashboard of the car. Those were the same
currencies entrusted to PW1 by PW14 at the office of PW14
which had been previously verified by him. Thereafter, again
the accused was taken to Kabani Hotel and MO1 currencies
were subjected to phenolphthalein test and the currencies
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
15
and sodium carbonate solution turned pink color and he had
also signed Ext. P16 mahazar prepared.
12. It is true that, PW3 turned hostile to the
prosecution. Apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the
other witnesses also gave evidence, supporting the
prosecution case. Among them, the evidence of PW4, PW7,
PW9 and PW14 are relevant and the same needs to be
discussed.
13. PW4 is the then Manager of Kabani Hotel, who
had no knowledge regarding the relevant facts. PW5 was the
Junior Superintendent in the District Collectorate who
delivered Ext.P10 file regarding the seizure of three lorries.
Those lorries were released on bond as per interim orders,
and reports were called for from the Police, Revenue
Divisional Officer, Agricultural Officer and the village officer.
Ext.P11 is the order of the District collector calling for a report
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
16
from the Mulavoor Krishibhavan.
14. PW7 is the inspector of Police who accompanied
PW14 to conduct the trap. He deposed that the accused
stated that he had placed the money on the dashboard of the
car. Though he did not see PW1 handing over the money to
the accused, he had witnessed PW1 was talking to the driver
of the car (the accused). He further stated that after the
arrest of the accused, as directed by PW14, he conducted
search at the residence of the accused. He had prepared
Ext.P14 search memorandum and Ext.P15 search list. PW8
is another inspector of Police who accompanied PW14. He
had given evidence that he saw PW1 handing over the
money to the accused. He also testified that the accused
stated that money had been placed on the dashboard. He
further testified that the money from the dashboard of the car
was taken by PW2. PW8 also testified that he had
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
17
conducted the pre-verification of Ext. P2 complaint.
15. PW9 was the sub inspector of Police who
assisted PW14 in the pre-trap procedures. PW10 was the
Agricultural Assistant working along with the accused. She
stated that Ext.P11 communication from the District collector
was received in the office on 17.07.2013 and the accused
had put his initial on that document. She testified that a
report was required to be submitted to the Assistant Director
of Agriculture on 26.07.2013, which she had informed the
same to the accused. She had prepared the report on the
previous day and placed the same on the table of the
accused. On 26.07.2013, she contacted the accused and
informed him about the necessity to submit the said report
on that day itself.
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
18
16. PW11 is the then village officer. He stated that
prior to the arrest, the accused came to his office and
enquired about Ext.P11. By the time, he had not received
the said order which was addressed to him also. He testified
that though the accused had requested phone number of
PW1, he did not give it. Though PW11 claimed that he did not
have the phone number of PW1 in his mobile phone,
subsequent statements made by him revealed that at the
time accused requested for phone number of PW1 he was
having the same but had refused to give the same to the
accused.
17. PW14 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who
led the trap team. According to him, on the basis of Ext.P2
complaint, he had registered Ext.P19 First Information Report
and he had laid the trap. He supported the evidence of PW1
and PW2 in particular. PW14 described the procedures
adopted as spoken to by the other accompanying officials. He
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
19
stated that after testing the hands of the accused in the
sodium carbonate solution at the reception counter of Kabani
Hotel, which showed positive result, he had returned to the
spot along with the accused to recover the money, based on
the information given by the accused that the money was kept
inside the dashboard of the car. As directed by him, PW2
opened the car, and got inside and recovered MO1
currencies, which were entrusted by him to PW1 on the date
of trap, after smearing phenolphthalein powder and after
noting its numbers. PW14 also conducted the investigation of
this crime and he testified in detail in this regard.
18. PW15 is the successor of PW14, who presented
the final report after getting approval from the Director of the
VACB.
19. Here, the prosecution case is that the accused
demanded bribe on four days, viz., 22.07.2013, 24.07.2013,
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
20
25.07.2013 and 26.07.2013. It was at 4.20 pm on
26.07.2013, the accused alleged to have accepted 50,000/-, ₹
MO1 series, from PW1 pursuant to demand made on that
day and at a place near the private bus stand Muvattupuzha,
as directed by the accused, while the accused was sitting
inside his car and MO1 series were recovered from the
dashboard of the car.
20. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients
required to attract the offences under Section 7 and Section
13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same are
extracted as under:-
Section 7:- Public servant taking gratification
other than legal remuneration in respect of an
official act. – Whoever, being, or expecting to be a
public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to
accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for
himself or for any other person, any gratification
whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a
motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
21
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
(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
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
22
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.
21. In this connection it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench
decision of the Apex Court in [AIR 2023 SC 330], Neeraj
Dutta Vs 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 and in
paragraph 68, it has been held as under :
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
23
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 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
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
24
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 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
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
25
demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal
gratification may be made by a court of law by way of
an inference only when the foundational facts have
been proved by relevant oral and documentary
evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis
of the material on record, the Court has the discretion
to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is
subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence
of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or
has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during
trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by
letting in the evidence of any other witness who can
again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary
evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by
circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor
does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused
public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is 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
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
26
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.”
22. Thus the legal position as regards to the
essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C
Act is extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of
demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver
without there being any demand from the public servant and
the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal
gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the
Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the
public servant. The presumption of fact with regard to the
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
27
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
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
28
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.
23. 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
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
29
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. Similarly as pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in Aman
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
30
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.”
24. In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in
[2026 INSC 365] in The State of Kerala v. K.A.Abdul
Rasheed , the Apex Court considered the decision [(2023) 4
SCC 731], Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and in
paragraph 13 the Apex Court held as under:
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
31
“13. We pause here to notice that the Constitution
Bench in Neeraj Dutta had specifically dealt with the efficacy
of the deposition of hostile witnesses. It referred with approval
to Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration wherein it was held:
“52. From the above conspectus, it emerges
clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a
witness is cross-examined and contradicted with
the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his
evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated
as washed off the record altogether. It is for the
Judge of fact to consider in each case whether
as a result of such cross-examination and
contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly
discredited or can still be believed in regard to a
part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the
process, the credit of the witness has not been
completely shaken, he may, after reading and
considering the evidence of the witness, as a
whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the
light of the other evidence on the record, that part
of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy
and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of
the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in
the process, the witness stands squarely and
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
32
totally discredited, the Judge should as a matter
of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.”
25. Here, according to the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, the prosecution evidence, particularly given by
PW1, the complainant, supported by PW2, the decoy
witness, and PW14, the Investigating-cum-trap laying officer,
categorically established the twin ingredients, viz., demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification (MO1 series) by the
accused beyond reasonable doubts. However, the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that the
reasons stated in paragraph No.21 of the judgment, relying
on the evidence given by PW1 during cross-examination that
the demand stated by PW1 in between 18.07.2013 and
26.07.2013 to be found as false and therefore, the first
ingredient, viz., demand, necessary to prove the offences
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act failed
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
33
to be established by the prosecution. The legal position
regarding the twin ingredients and the mode of proof thereof
have been stated above in detail.
26. In this case, PW1 given evidence that in order to
give him a favourable report, the accused inspected the site
on 18.07.2013 and he stated that there was some risk in
giving a favourable reply. But according to PW1, when PW1
met the accused thereafter, the accused demanded
Rs.1,00,000/- as illegal gratification and also warned him
that, if he did not pay the amount, he would face dangerous
consequences. Again, the accused called PW1, on his
mobile phone on 23.07.2013 and repeated the demand, and
when PW1 reached the Agricultural office and met the
accused, he again demanded the money on 25.07.2013.
Thereafter, on 26.07.2013, he had demanded the money as
part of trap and accepted the same. His statement given
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
34
before the investigating officer, marked as Ext.P2, would also
substantiate the demand, which led to registration of FIR. Here,
when a complex question was asked to PW1, suggesting a period
to the effect that, in between 18.07.2013 and 26.07.2013,
whether any talk regarding the money was there? PW1 given
answer stating that, on 19.07.2013, it was stated by the
accused that there was some risk. But PW1 did not state that
there was no demand either on 18.07.2013 or on 23.07.2013
or on 26.07.2013, and his evidence at the most would show
that there was no talk regarding the money on 19.07.2013.
Therefore, the above evidence alone is quite insufficient to
disbelieve the evidence given by PW1 regarding the demand
spoken to by PW1, after lodging Ext.P2 complaint alleging
the same, which ended in red-handed arrest of the accused,
at the time, when he demanded and accepted bribe from
PW1. In addition to the evidence of PW1, PW2, the decoy
witness, though not specifically stated that the accused
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
35
demanded the money on the date of trap, also stated that
when the accused reached the bus stand in his car, the
accused spoken to PW1 and thereafter, he had seen PW1
delivering the bunch of currencies to the accused, who was
sitting in the car. Thus, the evidence of PW1 is fortified by the
evidence of PW2 and also that of PW14 who in turn,
recovered the currency, as stated by the accused, from the
dash board of the car. That apart, on phenolphthalein test
conducted on both hands of the accused, the same showed
pink color change to corroborate the acceptance as spoken
by PW1 and PW2. It is true that, PW3 turned hostile to the
prosecution, but his hostility by itself would not make the
evidence of PW1 and PW2 or the other witnesses as false.
PW4, the Manager of Kabani Hotel, also supported the
prosecution case. It is true that, admittedly, PW1 is a person
having involvement in multiple criminal cases. When a
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
36
witness who is the complainant in a case of trap is a person
having criminal antecedents, that by itself is not a reason to
disbelieve his evidence unless the same is found to be not
reliable because of any improbability or otherwise. In the
instant case, merely relying on the evidence given by PW1
during cross-examination that there was no talk about the
amount on 19.07.2013, the learned Special Judge jumped
into a conclusion that there was no demand of money by the
accused at any point of time, without evaluating the
evidence of PW1 in toto in juxtaposition with other evidence.
But on evaluation of the evidence of PW1 and other
witnesses, multiple demands prior to 26.07.2013 and also a
specific demand on 26.07.2013 to be found beyond
r easonable doubts from the evidence already discussed. That
apart, acceptance of MO1 series by the accused also is
proved by the prosecution. Be it so, the learned Special
Judge went wrong in finding that the accused
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
37
did not commit offences punishable under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act. The said finding is liable to
be set aside.
27. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The verdict
impugned is set aside. Consequently, the
accused/respondent herein is convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the
PC Act.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
38
th
Dated this the 11 day of November, 2026
28. The respondent/accused appeared as directed
and the judgment pronounced in open Court in his presence,
holding that he had committed offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC
Act, 1988. Accordingly, he was convicted for the said
offences.
29. The respondent/accused was heard on the
question of sentence to be imposed upon him. According to
him, he did not commit the offences and he is innocent. He
stated that PW1 threatened him to obtain the certificate. He
further stated that his son's marriage would be solemnised on
12.12.2026. Regarding the sentence, he canvassed leniency
to reduce the same to the minimum permissible.
30. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed leniency
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
39
in the matter of sentence, pointing out the seriousness of the
offences of corruption, found against the respondent by this
Court.
31. Considered the plea of the accused to reduce the
sentence. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to impose a very
lesser sentence. Since the offences found to be committed
by the accused is on 24.07.2013, before the enhancement of
punishment under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the
PC Act with effect from 16.01.2014, the minimum sentence
provided before the amendment of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act is liable to be imposed.
32. Accordingly, the respondent/accused is sentenced
as under:
(i) The respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) for the offence punishable under
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
40
Section 7 of the PC Act and, in default of payment
of fine, he shall undergo default simple
imprisonment for a period of three months.
(ii) The respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Five Thousand only) for the offence punishable
under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of
the PC Act and, in default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo default simple imprisonment for a
period of four months.
(iii)
The substantive sentence shall run concurrently
and the default sentence shall run separately.
(iv)
Set off, if any, is allowed.
(v) MO1 series shall be returned to PW1 facilitating
to get the same exchanged as per law, after the
appeal or appeal period is over.
(vi) Other MO’s shall be dealt with in accordance with
law, after the appeal or appeal period is over.
CNR : KLHC011572932024
2026:KER:86476
CRL.A.NO.2217 OF 2024
41
The sentence imposed has been suspended till 12.12.2026
by this Court facilitating appeal before the Apex Court,
challenging the verdict herein.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment
to the Special Court, forthwith for information and
compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr