V.G.BALANCHANDRAJI vs STATE OF KERALA

Court
Kerala High Court

CNR : KLHC010138832010
2026:KER:84870


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 1675 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.08.2010 IN CC NO.147 OF
2008 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/1st ACCUSED:
V.G.BALANCHANDRAJI (FORMERLY A.E. ARAKKULAM PANCHAYAT),
S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR,, VELLAKKALUMKAL HOUSE,
ANIKKAD WEST.PO., KOTTAYAM.

​
BY ADVS.
​
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
​
SMT.P.MAYA
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:


​
STATE OF KERALA
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

OTHER PRESENT:



SR PP ROY THOMAS MUVATTUPUZHA

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.10.2026, THE COURT ON 05.11.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 2

​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ‘CR’
JUDGMENT

​ The judgment in C.C.No.44/2005 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam dated 10.08.2010 is
under challenge in this appeal filed by the 1st accused in the said
case. ​
2.​ Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant/1st
accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for
the prosecution. Scrutinized the verdict impugned and the
evidence available.
​ 3.​ The prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) & (d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC
Act’) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as ‘IPC’) by accused Nos.1 and 2, after hatching
conspiracy between them. It is alleged that in continuation of
the said conspiracy, the 1st accused, while working as Asst.
Engineer, Arakulam Grama panchayath and, as such, being a
public servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of
Rs.1000/- from one Joy Mathew (PW1) on 20.05.2003 as a motive
for measuring the work by name construction of Pothumattom

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 3

pond. The prosecution further alleges that on 13.06.2003, the 2nd
accused, while working as Overseer (on daily wages) in that
panchayath, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from
the above Joy Mathew for passing the bill in respect of the said
st
work for himself and on behalf of the 1 accused. The 1st and 2nd
accused at 10.00 a.m. on 16.06.2023 repeated the same demand to
PW1 at the Panchayath office. At 10.00 a.m. on 17.06.2003, at the
office, the 1st accused demanded illegal gratification and then
instructed Joy Mathew to meet him at room No.203 in Valikulam
Tourist Home. The accused persons continued the demand for
illegal gratification of Rs.4000/- to the 1st accused and Rs.1000/-
to the 2nd accused and accordingly at 5.15 p.m. on 17.06.2003 at
room No.203 in Valikulam Tourist Home at Moolamattom, the 1st
accused demanded and accepted Rs.3000/- and the 2nd accused
also demanded and accepted Rs.1000/- as illegal gratification
from Joy Mathew for the same motive, and they abused their
official position and obtained undue pecuniary advantage by
corrupt or illegal means.
​ 4.​ The learned Special Judge framed charge for the
offences and recorded the evidence. PWs.1 to 10 were examined,
Exts.P1 to P29, C1, X1 to X6 and MOs. 1 to 13 series were marked

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 4

on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, DW1
and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked.
5.​ On analysis of the evidence tendered, the learned
Special Judge found that the 1st accused had committed
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
PC Act while holding that he did not commit offence under
Section 120B of IPC. The 2nd accused was acquitted for all the
offences.
​ 6.​ While assailing the verdict, Adv. P. Vijayabhanu, the
learned senior counsel, pointed out that, in the instant case, the
evidence of the prime witness, who was examined as PW1, is not
free from doubts. It is submitted further that Ext.D1 in this case,
marked through PW1, is the copy of O.P. No.2998/2004 filed by
PW1 before this Court for getting his amount cleared in respect
of the work he had done. But, during cross-examination, he had
denied the same, wherein his contention was that, at the
instance of the Vice President of the Grama panchayath, he had
made a trap. It is pointed out further that, as per the evidence of
PW10, the Trap Laying Officer/DySP, when the hands of the
appellant were subjected to phenolphthalein test, there was no
colour change. At the same time, the learned senior counsel

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 5

pointed out that, in this case, the evidence of PW1 is that he had
put up Rs.4,000/- at 5.15 pm on 17.06.2003, ie, on the date of trap,
in Valikulam Tourist Home at Moolamattom in the M-book, as
directed by the 1st appellant and thus the possibility of contact
of the appellant with the bribe money could not have been
possible. According to the learned senior counsel, when PW10,
DySP asked the appellant regarding the bribe money alleged to
have been paid and received by him, his immediate response was
that the amount was forcefully put therein. Thus, in the instant
case, the case put up by the appellant is that the complainant,
with the assistance of the Trap Laying team, put up MO1 series
notes in the M-book at the place of occurrence to trap him. It is
pointed out further that, thus the prosecution has failed to prove
the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and,
in such view of the matter, the impugned verdict warrants
interference.
​ 7.​ Opposing these contentions, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor would submit that Ext.D1 contradiction, as
pointed out by the learned senior counsel, was not legally
tendered in evidence, in any manner, known to law. It is further
submitted that Ext.D1 was marked when a question was asked

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 6

regarding the averment in the writ petition that he had arranged a
trap with the assistance of the Vice President. The answer given by
PW1 is that he did not read English. Thus, before either accepting
or denying the contents of Ext.D1, the same was marked in
evidence. It is submitted that the contents of Ext.D1, originally in
English were not specifically put to the witness to prove the same
as contradictions, in a case, where PW1 deposed that he did not
know how to read and understand English and therefore, there is no
contradiction in the evidence of PW1 in the eye of law and thus
Ext.D1 in no way would help the appellant/accused. According to
the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in this case, the evidence of
PW1 need not be disbelieved. According to him, the appellant
herein took room No.203, Valikulam Tourist Home, Moolamattom
and stayed therein along with the M-book to do the needful to
encash the money due to PW1, on receipt of bribe and accordingly,
on the date of trap, when PW1 met him, he had directed him to
place the money in the M-book. According to him, even though the
appellant did not receive the amount directly from PW1, the place
of occurrence and the manner in which the trap money
was seized from the room of the accused, that too, from the M-book
in relation to the work done by PW1, would show that the

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 7

evidence given by PW1 is of sterling quality to be acted upon.
8.​ It is pointed out further that apart from the evidence
of PW1, PW4, the earlier Vice President of the Grama panchayath
during 2000 had given candid evidence regarding the demand of
bribe by the appellant from PW1 before him, before the trap.
Thus, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that the
accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act.
9.​ Adverting to the rival submissions, the points arise for
consideration are:
​ (i) Whether the Special Court is right in holding that the
appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section
7 of the PC Act?
​ (ii)​ Whether the Special Court erred in finding that the
appellant/accused committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
r/w 13(2) of the PC Act?
(iii) Whether the verdict would require interference?
(iv) The order to be passed?

Point Nos.(i) to (iv)
​ 10.​ PW1 examined in this case is Sri. Joy Mathew, the
complainant. He deposed that he was the Convener of the work
of Potthumattom drinking water pond in Ward No.3 of Arakulam

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 8

Panchayath. Exts.P2, P3 & P4 were the agreements executed by
him and the Chairman of the beneficiary committee and that the
estimate for the work was Rs.50,000/-. He further said that he had
completed the work in the year 2003. He went to the Panchayath
for passing the bill for the amount. The Assistant Engineer of the
Panchayath had to take the measurements and to pass the bill.
Accordingly, he had approached the 1st accused, who was the
Assistant Engineer of the Panchayath. The 2nd accused, who was
working as the Overseer in the same Panchayath, was also
present with him. Thereafter, the 1st accused arrived at the spot
and took the measurements. The 1st accused informed PW1 that
certain formalities had to be completed before the bill could be
passed. Thereupon, PW1 obtained an amount of Rs.1,000/- from
one Vikraman and handed over the same to the 1st accused.
However, the bill was not passed even thereafter. On 29.05.2003,
the 1st accused informed PW1 that the work executed by him
could be assessed only at Rs.24,000/- and that, in order to have
the bill passed for the entire estimated amount, PW1 would have
to pay Rs.10,000/- to him. PW1 replied that he had spent Rs.
37,000/- on the work, that he required only that amount and that
he was not willing to pay any money to anyone. He gave a

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 9

complaint orally to the Vice President of the Panchayath by
name Shaji Joseph. The said person talked with the Asst.
Engineer in the room of the President. After coming out of the
room of the President, the 2nd accused told the Vice president
that the Asst. Engineer told that apart from Rs.1000/- given
earlier, if Rs.5000/- more to be given, on such payment the bill
would be written within 2 hours. Since he felt that the bill would
not be passed without giving money, he gave an oral complaint
at the Vigilance office. His complaint was recorded as Ext.P5.
PW1 further deposed that he told the Asst. Engineer that he was
not in a position to give Rs.5000/-, that he would give Rs.4000/-
within 2 hours and Rs.1000/- later. According to PW1, the 1st
accused told him that he should meet the accused in room No.203
in Valikulam Tourist Home and pursuant to that he had made
complaint at the vigilance office. He produced Rs.4000/- before
the Dy.S.P. and the notes were of the denomination of Rs.500/-
and Rs.100/-. He identified M.O.1 series as the notes produced
before the Dy.S.P.
11.​ The version of PW1 further is that he and his friend
were sent to the room with direction to give signal by placing his
hand on the head if the accused would accept the bribe. PW1

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 10

deposed further that when he had reached room no.203 in the
upstairs, Balanchandraji (1st accused) was inside the room and
Jayaraj (2nd accused) was outside the room. Then
Balanchandraji asked as to whether the money demanded was
brought. He replied in the affirmative. In turn, Balanchandraji
directed to put the money in the M-book on the table. Soon he
had placed the bribe money inside the M-book. Then they came
out and given the pre arranged signal. Then Dy.SP and team
reached the room.
12.​ PW2, examined in this case, is V. N. Prakash, the decoy
witness. He had spoken about his presence at the Vigilance
office. He had deposed about the pre-trap proceedings,
phenolphthalein test etc, in tune with the evidence of PW1. He
deposed that he was Teacher in Thodupuzha Government Higher
Secondary School, that on 17/06/2003 as directed by the Head of
the Institution, he reached at Thodupuzha Vigilance office at
about 2:30 P.M., that there was another witness by name
Khadeeja Umma who was Additional Tahsildar, that the Dy.S.P.
read over the complaint given by PW1, that PW1 handed over
Rs.4000/- to the Dy.S.P, that the Dy.S.P put initials on the notes
and that one Policeman demonstrated the phenolphthalein test.

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 11

He identified M.O.1 series as the said notes. PW2 deposed further
that, he had signed in the mahazar. At about 5:15 p.m. signal was
obtained, that he, Khadeeja Umma, the Dy.S.P. and other
Policemen went inside the room, that both accused at the dock
were sitting in a cot in that room, then the Dy.S.P. introduced
himself and the witnesses to the accused. The Dy.S.P. asked them
whether they accepted bribe, at first, they did not give any reply
and stood afraid and when asked again the 1st accused replied
that he had directed PW1 to place the money under the M-book
(measurement book).
13.​ PW1 & 2 deposed that another Policeman smeared
phenolphthalein powder on the said notes and PW1 was given
the notes with direction that if the accused persons asked, the
same should be given. PW10 also deposed that the notes were
given to PW1 with direction to give it to the accused persons if
they demand. He also said that Ext.P7 is the mahazar prepared
for the things done at the vigilance office. PW10, the Dy,SP
deposed in tune with the version of PW2.
14.​ PW10 deposed that he was the Dy.S.P., V.A.C.B., Idukki
during the period of occurrence. He deposed that on 17/06/2003
PW1 gave Ext.P5 statement and it was reduced into writing.

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 12

Based on Ext.P5, he had registered V.C.13/2003 and prepared
Ext.P5(a) F.I.R. He further deposed that M.O.1 series are the notes
produced by PW1 in the presence of the decoy witnesses. Here,
PW1, PW2 & PW10 described the other procedures followed. PW2
& PW10 deposed that phenolphthalein test was conducted by
dipping their fingers and that of the accused persons and there
was no colour change. The said solutions were taken in bottles
and they got identified MO.2, MO.3, MO.4 , ΜΟ .5, & ΜΟ .6. PW2
further testified that as directed by the Dy.SP., he took the notes
from under the measurement book. There, Rs.3000/- was found
as one set and Rs.1000/- was found as another set and on
verification, it was understood that they were the same notes
which were entrusted with PW1 at the Dy.S.P. office. PW10 also
deposed the same version. They further said that when the
corner portion of the notes were dipped in sodium carbonate
solution, there was pink colour change and the said solution was
taken in bottles, that it was sealed and they signed on the labels
and they identified MO.7 and MO.8 as the bottles containing the
said solution. Thereafter PW2's fingers were dipped in sodium
carbonate solution and it turned pink and identified MO9 as the
bottle containing the said solution. They testified further that

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 13

Khadeeja Umma took the M-book, the outer cover was washed in
sodium carbonate solution and there was pink colour change to the
solution and the outer cover and MO.1 is the bottle containing the
said solution. Khadeeja Umma's fingers were also dipped in sodium
carbonate solution and there was pink colour change. MO.11
identified as the bottle containing the said solution. According to
PW10, Ext.P8 post-trap mahazar was prepared in this regard. PW2
deposed that he signed in that mahazar. PW10 further said that on
body inspection of the 1st accused Rs.115/- and of the 2nd accused
Rs.2300/- were found and the same were marked as MO.12 series
and MO.13 series. Another Rs.100/- note was found from under the
bed where the accused were sitting. He also seized other
measurement books, file No.29/2000-01, note book, etc.. by
preparing Ext.P9 mahazar.
15. ​ In addition to the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW10, the
evidence of PW4, the then Vice President of Arakulam Panchayath
also has much relevance. According to him, he was the Vice
President of the Panchayath from 2000 onwards and the member
from ward No.III. He testified that he talked with the 1st accused,
i.e, Asst. Engineer regarding the non-receipt of money after the
completion of the work by PW1. It was after approaching the Asst.
Engineer several times that he took the measurement. The

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 14

Asst. Engineer did not give the papers in the Panchayath in order
to make the payment and at that time also PW1 approached him.
He had talked with the Asst. Engineer on 16.06.2003. Then the
Engineer told him that cheque would be issued at 5 '0' clock on
that day. On 17.06.2003 in the morning, he met PW1 at the
Panchayath office and understood from PW1 that cheque was not
issued. On getting information, he went to Valikulam Tourist
Home in order to meet the Asst. Engineer and Overseer and they
told that PW1 did not do the things as required and so the delay
was caused. The Asst. Engineer told that if half of the amount
asked from the Convener, ie, Rs.5000/- would be given, cheque
would be issued within 2 hours. He came to the Panchayath office
and informed PW1 about the same. He told PW1 that a complaint
could be filed before the Panchayath committee that bribe was
asked and decision could be taken in the next committee. Then
PW1 left the Panchayath office angrily stating that PW1 did the
work believing him and he would do the necessary thing. Only at
about 5:30 P.M. he knew that the Asst. Engineer and the Overseer
were arrested in the bribery case.
16.​ PW5 deposed that he was Clerk in Arakulam Grama
panchayath office from 1998 onwards and he had worked in the

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 15

section dealing with Peoples Planning Scheme. He had produced
Ext.P11 measurement book and Ext.P12 file before the
Investigating Officer. He deposed that pages 1 to 8 in Ext.P11
contain the handwriting of the 1st accused and the last page in
Ext.P12 contains the handwriting of the 2nd accused. He had
testified that since he had worked along with the accused
persons he knew their handwriting.
17.​ When the evidence given by PW1/complainant along with
the evidence given by PW4 and PW10 supported by the evidence of the
decoy witness, demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant/1st
accused at 10 a.m. on 17.06.2003 could be found, in continuation of the
earlier demand. Now the question to be addressed is; whether the
evidence of PW1 is to be discarded in toto in view of Ext.D1, copy of
the original petition filed by PW1, before this Court, seeking to get
release of the amount entitled by him. In this connection, it is relevant
to note that, Ext.D1 marked in evidence through PW1 is the copy of
O.P.No.2998/2004 filed by PW1 before this Court. But, when PW1 was
confronted with Ext.D1 for the purpose of contradicting his versions
in the instant case, the answer given was that he was unable to read
and understand English and, therefore, he could not say the
correctness of the contents of Ext.D1. At this juncture, the trial court
marked the same as Ext.D1. However, the counsel who cross-examined

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 16

PW1 made no attempt to explain the contents of Ext.D1, which were in
English, in a language known to PW1 to make him to understood with
option for him to either deny or accept the same to get the same as
contra versions therein to prove the statements therein as
contradictions to the statement given in this case before the police
and the evidence given by PW1 before the Court. According to PW1,
he had filed Ext.D1 as instructed by the President of the Panchayath to
expedite the release of his money. In fact, Ext.D1 though merely
marked in evidence, was not used to contradict PW1, in a manner
known to law. It is in this context, the evidence of PW4, who meddled
with the matter, assumes significance. His version is that he had
tracked the 1st accused/appellant regarding non-receipt of money by
PW1 after completion of the work. Even though the appellant agreed
to issue the cheque by 5 O’ clock on 16.06.2003, he did not issue the
cheque. Then PW5 reached Valikulam Tourist Home in order to meet
the Assistant Engineer and Overseer and at this juncture, they told him
that PW1 did not do the things as required and so the delay was
caused. His further version is that, the Assistant Engineer told him
that if half of the amount asked from the Convenor (PW1) ie, Rs.5,000/-
would be given, cheque would be issued within 2 hours. Later, he
informed the same to PW1 and told PW1 to lodge a complaint before
the Panchayath committee to take a decision regarding the demand of

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 17

bribe. Then PW1 left the Panchayath office angrily stating that he did
the work believing PW4 and that he would do the necessary thing in
this regard.
18.​ It is true that, on conduct of the phenolphthalein test on
the hands of the appellant, no positive result was yielded. This
happened because of the reason that the money was put by PW1
inside the M-book as demanded and directed by the appellant, as
deposed by him. Thereafter, before taking the sum by the appellant,
he was nabbed by the trap team. Therefore, this aspect would not give
any aid to the appellant to get out of the prosecution.
19. ​ 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 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


Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 18

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 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.

20. ​ In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench
decision of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State [AIR 2023 SC
330] , where the Apex Court considered when the demand and
acceptance under Section 7 of the PC 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 No.68, it has
been held as under :

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 19

"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
​ (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt
of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d)
(i) and (ii) of the Act.
​ (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of
fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence.
​ (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by
circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and
documentary evidence.
​ (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant,
the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver
without there being any demand from the public
servant and the latter simply accepts the offer
and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case
of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such
a case, there need not be a prior demand by the
public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant
makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the
demand and tenders the demanded gratification
which in turn is received by the public servant, it
is a case of obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for illegal
gratification emanates from the public servant.
This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act
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

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 20

make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13
(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to
bring home the offence, there must be an offer
which emanates from the bribe giver which is
accepted by the public servant which would
make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by
the public servant when accepted by the bribe
giver and in turn there is a payment made which
is received by the public servant, would be an
offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d)
and (i) and (ii) of the Act
​ (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand
and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may
be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when
the foundational 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 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

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 21

above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption
while the latter is discretionary in nature.”
​ 21. ​ Thus, the legal position as regards to the essentials
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act is extracted
above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there
is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any
demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts
the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of
acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need
not be a prior demand by the public servant. The presumption of
fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of
an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of
an inference only when the 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

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 22

trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the
accused public servant. Insofar as Section 7 of the PC 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.
22.​ Thus, in the instant case, the evidence evaluated would
show that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the
appellant demanded and accepted Rs.4,000/- on 17.06.2003 by way
of bribe in continuation of his earlier demand for Rs.10,000/-, then
reduced to Rs.5,000/- and again reduced to Rs.4,000/-. Thus, the
learned Special Judge is right in finding that the appellant had
committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of the PC Act. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be
sustained.
23.​ It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant that in the event of confirmation of sentence, the
sentence may be reduced. The minimum sentence at the
relevant time of the commission is only one year for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 23

Act. Considering this request, the sentence can be reduced to the
minimum permissible.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part.
The conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge for
the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
the PC Act is confirmed. The sentence is modified as under:
(i)​ The appellant/1st accused is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year (one
year) and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC
Act and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) months.

(ii)​ The appellant/1st accused is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year (one
year) and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) for the offence punishable under Section13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of the PC Act and in default of payment of the fine, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 (two)
months.
(iii)​ The substantive sentence shall run concurrently
and the default sentence shall run separately.
(iv)​ Set off, if any, is also allowed.

25.​ The order suspending sentence and granting bail to
the accused stands cancelled and the bail bond executed by the

Crl. Appeal No.1675/2010​ ​ ​ 24

accused also stands cancelled. The 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
Sbna/