Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, upheld the conviction of a former Assistant Engineer of the Perumkadavila Block Panchayat for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹6,000 in connection with the preparation and clearance of a contractor’s bill for construction of an Anganwadi building. However, considering the passage of time and mitigating factors, the Court reduced the sentence from two years’ rigorous imprisonment to six months under Section 7 and one year under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).
While affirming the conviction, the Court emphasized that “proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.” The Court rejected the defence contention that the trap was fabricated and that the phenolphthalein test on the notebook (where the bribe was allegedly kept) was not conducted. It held that minor procedural lapses cannot overshadow the strong direct and corroborative evidence proving demand and acceptance.
Facts
The case originated from a complaint lodged by a contractor who had undertaken the construction of Anganwadi Building No. 51 in Neyyar Dam Ward of Kallikkadu Grama Panchayat. After completing the work, the contractor approached the Assistant Engineer of Perumkadavila Block Panchayat—who was in charge of measurements and preparation of bills—for release of the final payment of ₹63,500.
The accused allegedly demanded 10% of the bill amount as illegal gratification for preparing and forwarding the bill for payment. After negotiations, the demand was reduced to ₹6,000. The complainant, unwilling to pay, approached the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), which organized a trap operation on 31 March 2003. The currency notes were dusted with phenolphthalein powder, and a pre-trap mahazar was drawn in the presence of two gazetted officers.
When the complainant met the accused at his office, the latter allegedly instructed him to place the money inside a notebook (marked as MO3). Following this, the Vigilance team entered and recovered the tainted money. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, sentencing him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution had successfully proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused.
- Whether the absence of a phenolphthalein test on the notebook rendered the trap proceedings unreliable.
- Whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act warranted interference or modification.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The defence contended that the case was politically motivated and fabricated at the instance of the complainant (a Youth Congress member) in collusion with the Overseer (PW3). It was argued that the accused neither demanded nor accepted any bribe, and that the complainant had planted the tainted notes inside the notebook to falsely implicate him.
The counsel stressed that no phenolphthalein test was conducted on the notebook, which was crucial since the prosecution did not allege direct acceptance of the currency notes. Reliance was placed on Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala [2022 (5) KLT 433], where the failure to conduct phenolphthalein tests on relevant objects was held fatal to the prosecution.
Further, the defence cited K. Subba Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2007) 8 SCC 246] to argue that where an accused had no role in the official act, conviction cannot be sustained. It was also urged that, according to Panchayat procedures, the Assistant Executive Engineer, and not the accused, was responsible for measuring works exceeding ₹50,000.
Finally, relying on Prakash Pai v. State of Kerala [2015 (3) KLT 989], the defence argued that mere recovery of tainted money without conclusive proof of demand and acceptance cannot sustain conviction under the PC Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the VACB, submitted that the prosecution had established both the demand and acceptance of bribe through direct and corroborative evidence. PW1 (the complainant) testified in detail about the repeated demands, and PW3 (Overseer) confirmed that he took the measurements at the direction of the accused. PW2 (Gazetted Officer) and PW5 (Police Constable) corroborated the trap proceedings, and PW8 (Dy.S.P.) proved the recovery and investigation.
It was argued that the phenolphthalein test omission on the notebook was immaterial, as the demand and acceptance were otherwise proved. The prosecution also emphasized that the accused exercised effective control over bill preparation and was competent to pass the bill, as corroborated by the Panchayat Secretary (PW6).
The prosecution contended that the defence theory of false implication was untenable and unsupported by any evidence of animosity or motive. Therefore, the conviction was fully justified.
Analysis of the Law
The Court began by revisiting the statutory framework under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which penalize public servants who accept or obtain illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for performing an official act. It reiterated that demand and acceptance of bribe are essential elements of the offence.
Justice Badharudeen relied extensively on the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State [AIR 2023 SC 330], where the Supreme Court clarified that:
- Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is indispensable for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d).
- Such proof can be based on direct or circumstantial evidence.
- The presumption under Section 20 arises only after establishing foundational facts of demand and acceptance.
The Court also referred to Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 983], where it was held that even in the absence of the complainant’s testimony, culpability can be inferred from corroborative evidence such as trap witnesses or circumstantial proof.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the prosecution had proved the foundational facts:
- The accused demanded ₹6,000 for preparing and passing the bill.
- The bribe money was placed in the notebook as per his instruction.
- The money was recovered immediately thereafter in the presence of witnesses.
Thus, the presumption under Section 20 operated against the accused, who failed to rebut it.
Precedent Analysis
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (2023) – Clarified the distinction between “acceptance” and “obtainment” under the PC Act and held that demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Applied here to uphold conviction.
- Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala (2025) – Reiterated that proof of demand can be based on inferential and circumstantial evidence; cited to reinforce prosecution’s case.
- Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala (2022) – Distinguished; the Court held that unlike in Ajith Kumar, the omission to test the notebook was not fatal, as there was direct evidence of demand and recovery.
- Prakash Pai v. State of Kerala (2015) – Cited by defence but distinguished; in that case, the Court found evidence of “vicious trap,” whereas here, the trap was genuine and corroborated.
- K. Subba Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) – Found inapplicable since the accused had an official role in bill preparation and supervision.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Badharudeen held that the evidence of PW1, corroborated by PWs 2, 3, 5, and 8, clearly established both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The defence’s suggestion that the complainant planted the money was inconsistent with the sequence of events and unsupported by evidence.
The Court also rejected the argument regarding non-conduct of phenolphthalein test on the notebook, observing that “procedural omission in testing an object is not fatal when the direct evidence and recovery conclusively prove guilt.”
The Court reaffirmed that once demand and acceptance are proved, the presumption under Section 20 arises, shifting the burden to the accused to explain possession of tainted money, which he failed to do.
Finally, while upholding the conviction, the Court considered the passage of over two decades and the accused’s service background to reduce the sentence to the statutory minimum.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that the prosecution had conclusively proved the demand and acceptance of ₹6,000 as bribe.
However, considering mitigating circumstances, the Court modified the sentence as follows:
- Six months’ rigorous imprisonment and ₹2,500 fine under Section 7.
- One year’s rigorous imprisonment and ₹2,500 fine under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d).
The accused was directed to surrender immediately to serve the modified term, failing which the trial court was to enforce the sentence.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that corruption convictions require clear proof of both demand and acceptance, not mere recovery. It clarifies that minor procedural lapses—like omission to test secondary evidence—cannot invalidate a well-corroborated trap.
The ruling also demonstrates judicial sensitivity to proportionality in sentencing, showing that while corruption must be punished, sentences may be moderated where long delays and individual circumstances warrant leniency.
FAQs
1. What is the essential requirement for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved. Mere possession or recovery of tainted money is insufficient without proof of demand.
2. Does failure to conduct phenolphthalein tests automatically invalidate a trap case?
No. The Court held that non-conduct of such tests is not fatal if other evidence—oral, documentary, or circumstantial—proves the transaction beyond doubt.
3. Why did the Court reduce the sentence despite upholding conviction?
Considering the case’s age, absence of prior misconduct, and minimal bribe amount, the Court exercised discretion to impose the minimum permissible sentence.
