Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of a former Assistant Engineer for demanding and accepting a ₹6,000 bribe to process a bill related to the construction of an Anganwadi building, affirming his guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while modifying his sentence to the statutory minimum.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed:
“Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the sine qua non to establish the guilt of a public servant. Mere recovery of tainted money, without proof of demand, is insufficient to convict.”
While sustaining the conviction based on consistent prosecution evidence, the Court reduced the sentence from two years’ rigorous imprisonment to six months under Section 7 and one year under Section 13(1)(d), citing the appellant’s long pendency of trial and mitigating factors.
Facts
The appellant, a public servant serving as an Assistant Engineer at a Block Panchayat Office in Thiruvananthapuram, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of ₹6,000 from a contractor who constructed an Anganwadi building at Neyyar Dam. The contractor had completed the work and sought approval for his bill of ₹63,500.
It was alleged that the appellant initially demanded 10% of the bill amount and later reduced it to ₹6,000 when the contractor expressed financial hardship. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau organized a trap operation, during which the accused was caught after the complainant placed phenolphthalein-treated currency notes inside a notebook as directed by him.
The Special Judge convicted the appellant, sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment under both Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was sustainable.
- Whether non-conduct of phenolphthalein test on the notebook (MO3) rendered the prosecution case unreliable.
- Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court warranted modification.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that the case was fabricated at the instance of the complainant (PW1), who was allegedly affiliated with a political party, and another overseer (PW3) who bore animosity against him. It was argued that there was no documentary evidence showing the appellant’s role in approving or measuring the construction work.
Counsel highlighted that the phenolphthalein test was not conducted on the notebook (MO3) in which the bribe money was allegedly kept, rendering the trap doubtful. The appellant further alleged that the complainant had planted the currency notes in the notebook without his knowledge, amounting to a “vicious trap.”
Relying on Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala (2022 (5) KLT 433), it was submitted that failure to conduct the chemical test on the alleged object of bribe receipt was fatal. Further reliance was placed on K. Subba Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 8 SCC 246, where the Supreme Court granted benefit of doubt due to lack of involvement of the accused in the act alleged.
It was also argued, based on Prakash Pai v. State of Kerala (2015 (3) KLT 989), that in corruption cases based on traps, courts must distinguish genuine traps from those maliciously orchestrated to frame officials, emphasizing that the “presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act cannot arise in the absence of proven demand.”
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, countered that the evidence of PW1 (complainant), PW3 (overseer), and PW5 (constable) clearly established the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. It was submitted that the Assistant Engineer had the authority to measure the work and pass the bill, as corroborated by the Panchayat Secretary (PW6).
The prosecution argued that failure to conduct a phenolphthalein test on the notebook was immaterial since multiple witnesses had confirmed that the accused directed the complainant to place the money inside it. It was also pointed out that PW3’s role in measuring the work was authorized by the appellant, and there was no evidence of any animosity between them.
The State maintained that the evidence of the complainant and official witnesses was consistent, credible, and corroborated by documentary evidence, proving beyond doubt that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which penalize the act of accepting or obtaining gratification as a motive or reward for performing official acts. The essential ingredients, the Court held, are demand, acceptance, and recovery of the illegal gratification.
Justice Badharudeen referred extensively to the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (AIR 2023 SC 330), which clarified that:
“Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d). Mere recovery without proof of demand is insufficient.”
The Court reiterated that demand can be established either through direct or circumstantial evidence, and even in cases where the complainant turns hostile, other corroborative evidence can sustain conviction.
The Bench also cited Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 983], where it was reaffirmed that proof of demand and acceptance is indispensable and that “mere recovery of tainted money does not suffice.”
Precedent Analysis
- Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala (2022 (5) KLT 433) – Distinguished; the Court held that failure to conduct phenolphthalein tests on objects unrelated to the act of receipt was material in that case, but not here.
- K. Subba Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 8 SCC 246 – Distinguished on facts; in the present case, the appellant had direct involvement and authority in processing the bill.
- Prakash Pai v. State of Kerala (2015 (3) KLT 989) – Discussed to highlight that presumption under Section 20 requires proof of acceptance; however, here both demand and acceptance were proved.
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (AIR 2023 SC 330) – Applied; established that demand and acceptance are essential for conviction, either through direct or circumstantial proof.
- Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 983] – Followed; confirmed that proof of demand is sine qua non and recovery alone does not constitute guilt.
Court’s Reasoning
After meticulously reviewing the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8, the Court found the prosecution case consistent and credible. The complainant’s version of repeated demands, placement of money inside the notebook, and subsequent trap was corroborated by both official witnesses and the Panchayat Secretary.
The Court rejected the appellant’s theory of false implication, observing that no evidence of enmity between the accused and witnesses existed. The alleged procedural lapses, including the absence of phenolphthalein test on the notebook, were held not fatal, as the recovery was directly linked to the appellant’s instructions.
Justice Badharudeen concluded:
“When demand and acceptance stand proved through consistent evidence, minor procedural omissions cannot vitiate the prosecution case. The conviction must follow.”
However, considering the passage of over two decades since the offence and the relatively small bribe amount, the Court exercised discretion to reduce the sentence to the statutory minimum.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of the accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while reducing the sentence to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,500 under Section 7, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹2,500 under Section 13(1)(d), with concurrent running of sentences.
The Court directed the appellant to surrender before the Special Court to serve the modified sentence, warning that non-compliance would trigger execution by the trial court.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that demand and acceptance are indispensable elements in corruption prosecutions and that even minor lapses in procedural conduct do not vitiate a case once these are established. It provides clarity on the evidentiary threshold for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and limits the misuse of technical grounds to evade accountability.
The ruling also demonstrates judicial sensitivity by balancing deterrence with proportionality, ensuring that punishment reflects both guilt and the passage of time.
FAQs
1. What is required to prove a corruption offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)?
Proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential. Mere recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient.
2. Does failure to conduct a phenolphthalein test automatically invalidate a corruption case?
No. If other reliable evidence establishes demand and acceptance, non-conduct of the test does not vitiate the prosecution case.
3. Can courts reduce sentence after upholding conviction in corruption cases?
Yes, courts may reduce the sentence to the minimum prescribed when mitigating factors, such as long delay and small bribe amount, are present.