Kerala HC Reverses Acquittal, Convicts Agricultural Officer For Taking ₹50,000 Bribe Over Paddy-Land Filling Report

The accused, then an Agricultural Officer, was alleged to have demanded ₹1,00,000 from PW1 in return for a favourable report concerning the transport and deposit of red earth on paddy land.

On 26 July 2013, the accused allegedly accepted ₹50,000 from PW1 during a vigilance trap; the marked currency was recovered from the dashboard of the accused’s car, and the phenolphthalein test on his hands was positive.

The Special Judge acquitted the accused, relying principally on an answer in PW1’s cross-examination concerning whether money had been discussed between 18 and 26 July 2013.

The State appealed.

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, holding that proof of demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification is central to establishing the offences; mere recovery or acceptance, without the requisite evidentiary foundation, is insufficient.

Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, the Court noted that demand and acceptance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, that a court may draw a factual inference from proved foundational facts, and that Section 20 requires a legal presumption for Section 7 once the relevant facts are established.

The Court also relied on Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala, 2025 KHC OnLine 983, on the necessity of proof of demand, and State of Kerala v. K.A. Abdul Rasheed, 2026 INSC 365, on assessing the evidence of hostile witnesses as a whole rather than treating it as automatically erased.

The Court held that the trial court had taken PW1’s answer about 19 July out of context: it indicated, at most, that there was no discussion about money on that date; it did not negate PW1’s evidence of demands on other occasions or on the date of the trap.

PW1’s account was corroborated by PW2, who saw the transfer of the currency, and by the recovery of the marked notes from the car, the accused’s statement about their location, and the positive phenolphthalein test.

PW3’s hostility and PW1’s criminal antecedents did not, without more, require rejection of the otherwise corroborated evidence.

The Court therefore found demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt and concluded that the acquittal rested on an erroneous assessment of the evidence.

The Court imposed one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 for the Section 7 offence, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹75,000 for the Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) offence; the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The sentence was suspended until 12 December 2026 to enable an appeal to the Supreme Court.