Engineer Told Contractor To Place ₹4,000 Bribe In Measurement Book; Kerala HC Upholds Conviction, Cuts Sentence To One Year

The appellant, an Assistant Engineer in Arakulam Grama Panchayat, was accused of demanding gratification from Joy Mathew (PW1) in connection with measurement and payment for a pond-construction project.

The prosecution alleged that, following earlier demands, the appellant directed PW1 to meet him at a tourist home on 17 June 2003 and place the money in the project’s measurement book (M-book); trap officers subsequently recovered the marked notes from the book.

The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), but acquitted him of the conspiracy charge; the second accused was acquitted of all charges.

The appellant challenged his conviction, relying, among other things, on an alleged contradiction in PW1’s evidence and the absence of a positive phenolphthalein test on his hands.

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)–(ii), read with Section 13(2), of the PC Act as applicable at the time of the offence.

Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State, AIR 2023 SC 330, it stated that proof of demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)–(ii), and may be established by direct oral or documentary evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

Once the foundational facts for Section 7 are proved, Section 20 requires the court to raise a rebuttable legal presumption that the gratification was for the motive or reward contemplated by that provision; that presumption does not apply to Section 13(1)(d).

The Court accepted PW1’s evidence that the appellant demanded money and instructed him to put it in the M-book, and found it supported by the decoy witness (PW2), the trap-laying officer (PW10), and PW4’s evidence about the appellant’s demand for payment as a condition for issuing the cheque.

Ext.D1, a copy of PW1’s English-language petition, did not establish a contradiction because its contents were not properly put to and explained to PW1, who said he could not read or understand English.

The negative phenolphthalein result on the appellant’s hands did not displace the prosecution case: the marked notes had been placed inside the M-book as directed, and the appellant was apprehended before taking them.

On the evidence, the Court found the demand and acceptance of Rs.4,000 proved, following earlier demands that had been reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 and then to Rs.4,000.

The substantive sentences are to run concurrently, while the default sentences run separately; set-off, if any, was allowed.

The appellant was directed to surrender before the Special Court to serve the modified sentence.