JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 30 of 2004 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, which has arisen from VC-7/2003 of VACB, Kannur, who stands convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 2. The appellant was working as a Lineman on contract basis in the Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Vellur, during 2002-03 and thereby, he was a public servant. According to the prosecution, he abused his official position, committed criminal misconduct and by adopting corrupt and illegal means, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.750/- for himself from PW1 at about 6 p.m. on 19.05.2003, at the residence of PW9, who is the grandmother of PW1, for providing a domestic electrical connection to the house of PW9. Further, according to the prosecution, the appellant directed PW1 to meet him with the bribe amount on 20.05.2003 at Karthika Medicals, Mathil. 3. After the alleged demand, PW1 had reported the matter to the VACB. Consequently, a tap was arranged. Phenolphthalein power was applied on the marked currency notes of one number of Rs.50/-. In pursuance of the demand, PW1 went over there, met the appellant and paid the said amount. When the appellant accepted the amount paid by PW1, he was caught red handed by the VACB and consequently, the investigation, prosecution and conviction. 4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined, Exts.P1 to P40(a) were marked and MO1 series to MO4 were identified. 5. The appellant filed a statement in writing just on the completion of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by contending that he had not obtained any illegal gratification or bribe as alleged; whereas, the consumer was informed of the expense of Rs.750/- for engaging three workers for installing an electric post, for drawing the electric line and for giving electrical connection to the house of PW9 by drawing service wire. Three workers were employed. PW9 had agreed to pay the amount on the next day. The amount was sent through PW1. Three workers were employed. PW9 had agreed to pay the amount on the next day. The amount was sent through PW1. He accepted the amount for handing over it to the Sub Engineer for making payments to the said three workers, who were employed for installing the post and other related works. 6. On the side of the accused, DW1, who was one of the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board and DW2, who is the appellant, were examined. The court below found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that this is a tragic case, wherein, unnecessarily, the appellant was put in hot waters. On account of the case, he lost his employment. Even though he was subsequently selected by the PSC as worker in service, and was appointed as Lineman by the KSEB, thereafter, he was dismissed from service on account of this corruption case against him. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount of Rs.750/- received by the appellant from PW1 was not illegal gratification; whereas, it was legal remuneration and therefore, no offence was made out in the case. It is also argued that the prosecution could not prove the element of demand in order to invite the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the manner in which the amount was paid by PW1 and the amount was accepted by the appellant, clearly denotes demand. It is also argued that the manner in which the amount was accepted will clearly go to prove that it was not accepted as legal remuneration. 10. In the light of the arguments forwarded by either side, the evidence of the appellant furnished as DW2 has to be considered. According to him, during the period in question, he was working under PW12, who was the Sub Engineer there. According to him, the KSEB used to call labourers from outside for the purpose of installing electric post, drawal of lines etc. In this particular case, it necessitated to engage three workers named Ajayan, Suresh and Madhu. According to him, during the period in question, he was working under PW12, who was the Sub Engineer there. According to him, the KSEB used to call labourers from outside for the purpose of installing electric post, drawal of lines etc. In this particular case, it necessitated to engage three workers named Ajayan, Suresh and Madhu. They were engaged by PW12. Consumers used to pay the wages for the said outside labourers. As the Sub Engineer was not present, the amount was handed over to him, he accepted it for handing it over to the Sub Engineer. When Vigilance Personnel caught him, he explained them that the amount was accepted as legal remuneration for defraying the wages to the aforesaid three labourers. 11. It seems that from the very beginning, the appellant had the very same contention. He has not denied the acceptance of the amount to him by PW1. He has admitted that the amount was handed over to him. He has taken up the very same contention in his statement filed under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the court below. The line of cross-examination of all the witnesses also clearly shows that they were cross examined on the basis of the very same contention. 12. PW1, in chief examination, has deposed that the said amount was paid by him. At the same time, he has denied any demand for the said amount by the appellant. He was declared hostile to the prosecution on that aspect and questions that could be put in cross-examination were put to him by the Prosecutor. Through the said method, answers were put into the mouth of PW1 and the same were recorded as his deposition. Even then, he has no case that there was any demand by the appellant. 13. PW9 has also denied any demand from the part of the appellant. When PWs.1 and 9, who are the persons concerned, have denied the demand by the appellant, that assumes importance. 14. The evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 12 also assume importance in this case regarding the contention advanced by the appellant. PW3 was the Assistant Engineer of the concerned Electrical Section as on the date of incident. In cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that when outside labourers were to be employed, their wages were to be paid by the Assistant Engineer. The evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 12 also assume importance in this case regarding the contention advanced by the appellant. PW3 was the Assistant Engineer of the concerned Electrical Section as on the date of incident. In cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that when outside labourers were to be employed, their wages were to be paid by the Assistant Engineer. On obtaining the receipt, the Assistant Engineer had to get it reimbursed subsequently. When consumers are prepared to make such payment, such consumers are allowed to pay the wages of outside laboures, in order to carry out the work. It was a practice that was prevalent in the KSEB. PW5 also was the Assistant Engineer of the concerned Electrical Section. According to him, he was on leave as on the date of incident and therefore, PW3 was in his additional charge. He has clearly deposed that there was a practice of the consumers’ employing outside labourers for carrying out such works. In this particular case, three workers were employed from outside and no amounts were paid to them from the KSEB. Therefore, it is evident that the Board has not spent any amount towards the wages of the said three outside labourers. 15. PW12 was the Sub Engineer of the concerned Electrical Section. He has given evidence to the effect that he had engaged the aforesaid three outside labourers for carrying out the work and no amounts were paid to the said workers from the KSEB. According to him, payment of wages to such laboures were being made by the consumers. 16. In the light of evidences of PWs.3, 5, 12 and DW1, the definition of “legal remuneration” contained in Explanation (c) to Section 7 of the PC Act has to be considered. “Legal remuneration” is defined as follows: “The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organization, which he serves, to accept.” 17. In such case, when the KSEB, in which the appellant was working as a Lineman on contract basis, had permitted all the Sub Engineers to employ outside labourers and had also permitted the consumers to meet the expenses towards the wages of outside labourers, the amount of Rs.750/- paid by PW1 for and on behalf of PW9 can only be “legal remuneration”. It has come out in evidence that the KSEB had not made any such payment. It is an admitted fact that an electric post was installed and line was drawn for giving electrical connection to the house of PW9. Somebody had to do the said work. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PWs.3, 5, 12 and DW1 on the aforesaid aspect. 18. Apart from the above, PW10, who was one of the aforesaid outside labourers, who was engaged by PW12 has also deposed in terms of the evidence of PWs.3, 5, 12 and DW1. According to PW10, he has not received the wages for the aforesaid work done by him on the date of incident. The said amount of wages has not been paid to him, so far. From all the above, it seems that the said amount of Rs.750/- was nothing but “legal remuneration” to which the aforesaid three workers were entitled. The consumer handed over the amount to the appellant who was the concerned Lineman since the Sub Engineer was not present. The explanation offered by the appellant that he had accepted the amount for handing over it to PW12 to defray the wages of the said three outside labourers can only be accepted. 19. Apart from all the above, there is presently no evidence regarding the element of demand from the part of the appellant. In order to invite the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, ‘demand’ is required. When the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, the aforesaid offences are not made out. 20. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has lost his job only because of the corruption case against him. Considering all the above, this Court is satisfied that the appellant is entitled to have an honourable acquittal in the matter. In the result, this Crl. Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside. It is recorded that no offences are made out against the appellant. The appellant stands acquitted.