Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2254 (KER)

Ramachandran S/o Velayudhan v. State of Kerala

2025-08-21

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. Sole accused in C.C.No.35/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, has preferred this appeal, challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 28.1.2010. Respondent herein is the State of Kerala. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge along with the records of the Special Court. 3. In a nutshell, the prosecution allegation is that, on 18.4.2005, the accused, who was working as Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board Section Office, Mavelikkara, demanded Rs.5,000/- from Sri.B.Vijayakumar, the complainant, as illegal gratification as a motive for sanctioning bill for the works executed by him in relation to Karunamattom Devaswom under the Mavelikkara group of Devaswom Board. The further case is that, pursuant to the said demand, at 11.40 a.m. on 20.04.2005, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.5,000/-. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) by the accused. 4. In this matter, the Special Court framed charge for the said offences and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13, Exts.X1 to X5 as well as MO1 to MO6 series were marked on the side of prosecution. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and opportunity was provided to him, to adduce defence evidence. Accordingly, DW1 to DW4 were examined. 5. On appraisal of the evidence, the Special Court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly, he was convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under: “In the result, the accused is convicted under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and fine Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months and convicted under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months. The sentences shall run concurrently. The sentences shall run concurrently. The accused is entitled to get set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. from 20/04/2005 to 23/04/2005. M.O.1 series shall be given to PW1 and M.O.6 series to the accused. M.O.2 to 5 shall be destroyed.” 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused argued to substantiate the fact that the very genesis of the prosecution case is not believable. According to him, the prosecution case is that, the accused demanded bribe from PW1, Sri.B.Vijayakumar, for passing bill for the work he had done, but, as per the measurement book, produced as Ext.X2, it is discernible that the work was completed only on 14.7.2006. Secondly, it is argued by the learned senior counsel that the accused never demanded or accepted Rs.5,000/-, as alleged by the prosecution. It is true that the money found in the drawer of the table used by the accused was recovered, but the same was neither demanded nor accepted by the accused. But the complainant placed the same there in the absence of the accused while he was at the toilet. 7. According to the learned counsel for the accused, while the accused was at the toilet, PW1 reached the office, put the money in the drawer of his table without there being any demand and without the knowledge of the accused, with a view to trap him in this case. Then the complainant on seeing the accused back from the toilet, caught hold of his left hand and requested his help. That is the reason why when phenolphthalein test was carried out by using sodium carbonate solution by dipping the left hand in the solution, the solution showed pink colour change. The learned senior counsel pointed out anomaly in the evidence of PW1 regarding the placement of money on asserting that whether the money was put in the drawer of the table inclusive of the cover or after removing the same from the cover, as the evidence of PW1 in this regard is not consistent. In this connection, the learned senior counsel relied on paragraph No.23 of the judgment of the Special Court, wherein the Special Court addressed as under: “23. In this connection, the learned senior counsel relied on paragraph No.23 of the judgment of the Special Court, wherein the Special Court addressed as under: “23. The counsel for the accused pointed out that there is no consistency in the evidence of PW1 to the fact that whether he tendered the cover contained the money or only the money and this suspicious circumstance would probablise the contention of accused that the money or the cover was put inside the table when he went to the toilet. In page 3 of the deposition, PW1 said that he took the money from the pocket and showed towards the accused, that accused didn't take it, but opened the draw of the table and asked him to put money inside it and he put money in it. Then the next answer is that he put the money along with the cover in that table. Then he said that the accused pushed aside the notes with his left hand. Towards the end of the chief examination he said that he doesn't remember whether he took out the money from the cover and gave to the accused. Then he volunteered that he remembers it and that he took out the money from the cover, that he placed it over the table and at that time the accused asked him to put the money inside the table. In cross examination he denied the suggestion that he put the money inside the table when the accused was not in the room. The incident happened in the year 2005 and the evidence was taken in the year 2009. It is possible that there would be failure of memory regarding the fact whether he put the cover itself or the money alone in the table. I am of the opinion that for the said difference, evidence of PW1 cannot be discarded. The evidence of the witness has to be appreciated in its entirety.” According to the learned senior counsel, the case advanced by the prosecution is improbable, if reliance is given to the evidence of PW4 and DW1 to DW4. According to him, PW4 deposed that bill could be issued only after measurement of the work by PW4 and in this case, during the relevant time, he did not check-measure the work, so that the bill could not be encashed. According to him, PW4 deposed that bill could be issued only after measurement of the work by PW4 and in this case, during the relevant time, he did not check-measure the work, so that the bill could not be encashed. He also would submit that, since the demand and consequential acceptance of Rs.5,000/- at 11.40 a.m. on 20.04.2005 have not been proved with cogent and convincing evidence, the verdict would require interference. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused and read out the relevant portions of the evidence of PW1, on asserting that the evidence of PW1 fully established demand and acceptance of Rs.5,000/- by the accused from PW1. It is pointed out that the Special Court had ignored the discrepancies in the evidence of PW1, while holding that the evidence of PW1 was sufficient to establish the ingredients of demand and acceptance, as well as any discrepancies, on the ground that PW1 was examined four years after the occurrence. It is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor further that in the decision of the Apex Court in Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab , 2016 KHC 6452 in paragraph No.15, it was held as under: “15. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was demand, payment and acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established, the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it. In the case on hand, from the facts on record, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant - accused asked for the money to do a particular act and actually accepted the same. He was caught red-handed and, therefore, we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court and the High Court.” Apart from that, another decision of the Apex Court in Umesh Balkrishna Hirve v. State of Maharashtra , 2016 KHC 7054 also placed by the learned Public Prosecutor with reference to paragraph No.17. In the said case, trial was held nearly four years after the date of the alleged incident and found that the mere fact that there were gaps in the memory of the witness during cross examination would not, in and of itself, discredit his entire testimony while holding that the entire testimony of the complainant was sufficient to prove the factum of demand where the prosecution case was supported by the testimony of PW2, the panch witness. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, going through the ratio of the decisions along with the evidence available, there is no reason to interfere with the verdict under challenge and in such view of the matter, the appeal is liable to fail. 9. On appraisal of the contentions on and off the issue, the points to be considered are; (i) Is it correct to say that the Special Court rightly entered into conviction for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988? (ii) Is it correct to say that the Special Court rightly entered into conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the verdict would require interference? (iv) The order to be passed? Point Nos. (i) to (iv) 10. (ii) Is it correct to say that the Special Court rightly entered into conviction for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988? (iii) Whether the verdict would require interference? (iv) The order to be passed? Point Nos. (i) to (iv) 10. As argued by both sides, and as discernible from the judgment of the Special Court, in this case, in order to prove the crucial ingredients, viz., demand and acceptance of bribe, the solitary evidence of PW1 is available along with the evidence of PW3 and the Investigating Officer, who supported the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. 11. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW1, he testified that he was doing contract work under the Travancore Devaswom Board. According to him, he took the work of Karunamuttom temple under the Mavelikkara Devaswom Group Office and completed the same during the month of March, 2005. Later, when he approached the accused to encash the bill for the said work, the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe. According to him, on 18.04.2005, the accused made a strong demand for the bribe to encash the bill, which he was not willing to pay. Thereafter, he lodged Ext.P1 complaint narrating the occurrence before the Dy.S.P., Vigilance and the Dy.S.P. directed him to reach the office on 20.4.2005. He reached the DY.S.P’s office and produced the notes intended to be given as bribe to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (10 notes for the denomination of Rs.500/-) and the Dy.S.P. marked “p” in the notes and the notes were identified by PW1 as MO1 series before the court. According to PW1, two officials were also present before the Dy.S.P. to assist him in demonstrating the phenolphthalein test including the resultant colour change and other related procedures. According to him, a policeman sprinkled phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes, counted them, and then wrapped them in a cover. After removing everything from his pocket, that cover was placed inside his pocket. Thereafter, the Dy.S.P. instructed PW1 to hand over the MO1 series to the accused, if he would demand the same. After 9.30 hrs., he along with the Dy.S.P. and the officials reached near the office of the accused and he got down near Sreekrishnaswamy Temple with the police and he, then proceeded to the office of the Assistant Engineer. The police officer followed him and waited outside. After 9.30 hrs., he along with the Dy.S.P. and the officials reached near the office of the accused and he got down near Sreekrishnaswamy Temple with the police and he, then proceeded to the office of the Assistant Engineer. The police officer followed him and waited outside. Then he entered in the office of the accused and found that the accused was inside the office. When the accused asked why PW1 had come, he replied that he had come to get his bill encashed. When PW1 agreed to give the money demanded by the accused and took it from his pocket, the accused did not accept the same directly. Instead, he directed PW1 to place the same in the left drawer of the table used by him and he opened the drawer and facilitated putting the notes therein. Accordingly, he put the money (MO1 series) therein. PW1 further stated that he placed the money along with the cover, and the accused, using his left hand, pushed the currency notes inside and then closed the drawer. Later, PW1 came out and gave the signal by removing his spectacles, whereupon the Dy.S.P. arrived at the spot. PW1 identified the accused at the dock, as the person who demanded and accepted the money. 12. It was through PW1, Ext.P2, the selection notice for the work and Ext.P3, the application submitted by him for obtaining the E.N.D., were marked. During further evidence, PW1 stated that he had given a statement to the Dy.S.P., and according to him, he had stated before the Dy.S.P. that he had given the money from his pocket and that the amount was Rs.5,000/-. When a question was asked whether he had given the money in the cover, he initially answered that he did not remember. Soon he volunteered that he had taken the money from the cover and placed the same over the table, but the accused demanded to place the notes inside the drawer of the table. 13. PW1 was subjected to cross-examination with regard to the work, and by suggesting the defence case, as argued by the learned senior counsel. It was suggested to him that at the time when PW1 entered the office room of the accused, the accused was inside the toilet, and in the meantime, PW1 placed the money on the drawer of his table. It was suggested to him that at the time when PW1 entered the office room of the accused, the accused was inside the toilet, and in the meantime, PW1 placed the money on the drawer of his table. Those suggestions were emphatically denied by PW1 and he stuck on his stand that the accused demanded and accepted the MO1 series. Another suggestion made during cross- examination was that when the complainant demanded preparation of the bill and encashment of the money for the work which had not been completed, the case was foisted against the accused. This suggestion also denied by PW1. During re-examination, the judgment in W.P. (C)No.856/2006 tendered in evidence as Ext.X1, which would show that PW1 had approached this Court to get encashment of the money due under the work. 14. PW3, who was working as the Assistant Executive Engineer (Technical) attached to the Alappuzha PWD Roads Division during 2005, examined in this case is the Gazetted Officer, who accompanied the trap team. He deposed about his arrival at 7.30 hrs. on 20.4.2005 before the Dy.S.P. office. He deposed about arrival of PW1 also there. According to him, PW1 handed over Rs.5,000/- to the Dy.S.P. and the Dy.S.P. marked “p” on the above notes and the same was MO1 series. He deposed about phenolphthalein demonstration and also the events narrated by PW1. According to him, he also accompanied them to the office of the Assistant Engineer, Mavelikkara Devaswom Board, and he identified the accused as the person found sitting inside the office during the time of trap. According to PW3, when the Dy.S.P. asked the accused as to whether he received bribe, he was perplexed and he denied the receipt of bribe. He deposed about dipping the above notes in sodium carbonate solution and the resultant pink colour change to the solution. According to him, MO5 is the bottle pertaining to the same. PW3 testified further that when the left hand fingers of the accused was dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the solution showed pink colour change and he identified the same as MO4. He also supported Ext.P7 Mahazar in this regard. 15. Supporting the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the prosecution examined PW6, the Dy.S.P., who registered Ext.P10 FIR based on the complaint given by PW1. He also supported Ext.P7 Mahazar in this regard. 15. Supporting the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the prosecution examined PW6, the Dy.S.P., who registered Ext.P10 FIR based on the complaint given by PW1. According to PW6, after registering the FIR, he had requested the District Collector to provide two officers and as per Ext.P11, the District Collector, Alappuzha deputed CW2 as well as PW3 to assist the Vigilance police, He supported the evidence of PW1 and PW3 regarding the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings including recovery of MO1 series from the drawer of table used by the accused. He also deposed about Phinophthaline test by dipping the fingers of the trap party by identifying MO1 solution used for the same. PW6 testified that when both the hands of the accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, and when the fingers of the left hand were dipped separately, the solution showed pink colour change, and the sodium carbonate solution was collected in MO4 bottle. He also deposed that it was PW3 who accompanied the Vigilance trap party, recovered the MO1 series notes from the drawer of the table of the accused. He testified further that the arrest of the accused was effected at 2.40 p.m., with reference to MO6 series documents pertaining to the arrest. He also deposed in support of preparation of Ext.P7 Mahazar regarding the trap proceedings. 16. In fact, evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW6 not at all shaken during cross-examination to disbelieve their version. It is true that as far the demand and acceptance of the MO1 series by the accused is concerned, the prosecution evidence is confined to that of PW1 alone. The Special Court found that the evidence of PW1 regarding the demand of Rs.5,000/- on 18.04.2005, the subsequent demand on 20.04.2005, and its acceptance by the accused, stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is strange to note that the learned counsel for the accused argued that, when the accused came back from the toilet, the complainant caught hold of his left hand seeking help, as an explanation for the colour change noticed when his left hand fingers were dipped in sodium carbonate solution. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the entire case of the defence is that the work was not completed and therefore, the question of encashment of the bill would not arise. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the entire case of the defence is that the work was not completed and therefore, the question of encashment of the bill would not arise. Then, what help was in fact demanded by the complainant, by catching the left hand of the accused is surprising, rather not believable. It appears to be an excuse to escape from the change of colour that occurred when the accused pushed MO1 series notes in the drawer of his table when the same was placed by PW1, as deposed by PW1. 17. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, the evidence of PW3, in no way, would support the demand and acceptance of bribe, though when the notes were recovered after Ext.P7 Mahazar at the instance of the other Gazetted Officer. It is pointed out that in Ext.P7 Mahazar, it has been stated that the accused replied that PW1 had placed the MO1 series on the table while he was at the toilet. On perusal of Ext.P7, such a narration could be found; however, it is further stated therein that the accused was perplexed after the arrival of the Dy.S.P. 18. In this case, PW4, the Assistant Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board issued Ext.P8 sanction to prosecute the accused and no challenge raised in the matter of sanction before this Court. 19. In this case, accused examined DW1 to DW4. The evidence given by DW1 to DW4 were given emphasis to show that the work was started or completed in the middle of the year 2006, is not believable. The learned Special Judge observed that there is possibility that they gave evidence to save the accused. It is improbable that PW1 filed Ext.P1 complaint to the Dy.S.P. stating false fact that he completed the work on 03.03.2005 and the accused demanded bribe for writing a bill in respect of a work which was not executed. He put it in writing in the complaint that he completed the work on 03.03.2005. If any action is taken on the basis of that false fact, he would be prosecuted for taking a false prosecution against the accused. He put it in writing in the complaint that he completed the work on 03.03.2005. If any action is taken on the basis of that false fact, he would be prosecuted for taking a false prosecution against the accused. The learned Special Judge also observed in the judgment that, it is highly improbable that PW1 would approach this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the amount for a work not executed by him, referring Ext.X1 judgment in the writ petition filed by PW1. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge found no reason to accept the contention of the accused that, due to enmity arising from his refusal to prepare a bill for a work not executed by PW1, PW1 lodged a false complaint with the Dy.S.P. DW4 deposed that, in gravel filling works, there would be provision in the estimate to stock the materials, that pre-measurement had to be taken, that the Divisional Engineer had to check-measure the pre-measurements and only after that the M-book and the bill should be prepared. He further said that the contractor had to inform the Assistant Engineer that he stocked the materials that then, the Assistant Engineer had to inform the Divisional Engineer to check-measure and in the present case, these procedures were not done. To the question that since check measurement was not done whether the bill could be written, he answered negatively. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out PW1’s answer that he did not know whether any pre-measurement was taken in this case. PW1 further stated that he was asked to unload 25 loads of earth, that he did so, and that the accused came to the site and noticed the same. To another question whether the site was handed over by the Sub Group officer, PW1 answered that it was not handed over recordically, but it was done orally. PW1 admitted to a question that the agreement was approved only on 29.03.2005. Thereafter, to the suggestion that he had no right to start and complete the work without obtaining approval of the agreement, he answered that he had no such experience, and that in big works such a practice would be followed, whereas in small works they would be asked to proceed with the work. He specifically denied the suggestion that the work was not done in March. He specifically denied the suggestion that the work was not done in March. He even said that the accused came to the site 3 times. From the records and the evidence of DW4, it is seen that procedures necessary for the contract works of this nature i.e. the stocking of the material, the measurement by the Assistant Engineer, the preparation of the M-book and the check measurement by the Divisional Engineer, were not done. In the judgment of the Special Court, the learned Special Judge observed that the approval of the Chief Engineer reached at the Divisional Engineer's office only on 29.03.2005. But, PW1 deposed that he completed the work on 03.03.2005. As stated earlier, there is no probability that he would dare to file a false complaint against the accused stating that the accused demanded bribe for preparation of bill in which the work was not executed and even a petition before this Court. The nature of the work is filling of earth in a low lying area. It could not be assumed that everything was done properly and regularly in the offices of the accused and DW4. If all works were done regularly and properly in accordance with the rules and circulars, there would be no scope for any corruption in this country, as observed by the learned Special Judge. But, every one knows that it is not being done so in public offices. It is possible that one officer could make appear everything proper, if he was given with illegal gratification. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 that the accused demanded the bribe from him. Even if the necessary procedures regarding the work of PW1 were not done properly, it is possible that, after giving the bribe, everything would be done or made to be done properly, and the bill would be prepared. The learned Special Judge also observed in the judgment that evidence of PW1 would not show that he made false complaint against the accused and the learned Special Judge was not inclined to accept the contention of the accused that this was an illegitimate trap planned by PW1. 20. In this matter, DW3 was examined from the side of the accused to show that PW1 put MO1 series notes inside the table of the accused. 20. In this matter, DW3 was examined from the side of the accused to show that PW1 put MO1 series notes inside the table of the accused. But, the Special Court disbelieved the said version on the ground that he had not come forward to state the said fact before any authority at any point of time, and had deposed the same for the first time before the court. This was considered as against the evidence of PW1, which was found to be trustworthy and credible. This observation also could not be found fault with and the same is justifiable from the circumstances. 21. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The same are extracted as under:- Section 7:- Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. – Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government Company referred to in clause (C) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a public servant. – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxxx (d) If he - (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. xxxxx (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 22. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State , AIR 2023 SC 330 , where the Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C Act to be said to be proved along with ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in paragraph No.68, it has been held as under : "68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1) (d) and (ii) of the Act. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 23. Thus, the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, is extracted above. Thus, the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, is extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. The mode of proof of demand and acceptance is either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. 24. On scrutiny of the available materials, it could be gathered that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- from PW1 on 18.4.2005 and thereafter demanded and accepted the same on 20.04.2005, and he was caught red-handedly. PW1, PW3 and PW6 categorically stated in evidence that, on seeing the Vigilance authorities, the accused was perplexed and stuttered with emotion. PW1, PW3 and PW6 categorically stated in evidence that, on seeing the Vigilance authorities, the accused was perplexed and stuttered with emotion. Regarding something stated by PW1 as loss of memory or in the form of minor discrepancy, the same could not be adjudged as material to disbelieve PW1, since he was examined after four years of the occurrence, where the ratio laid down in Mukhtiar Singh ’s case (supra) and Umesh Balkrishna Hirve ’s case (supra) would apply as the facts are similar. Therefore, the finding of the Special Court as regards to demand and acceptance of MO1 series bribe by the accused is well established beyond reasonable doubts and in such view of the matter, the Special Court is justified in holding that the accused/appellant herein committed offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Therefore, the conviction does not require any interference. 25. Coming to the sentence, the same requires modification in tune with the argument tendered by the learned senior counsel. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Special Court for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 is reduced to the least minimum permissible. 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the Special Court is confirmed. The sentence imposed by the Special Court for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 is reduced to the least minimum permissible and accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Similarly, for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year (the statutory minimum) and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- by modifying the sentence imposed by the Special Court for a period of 3 years. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. 27. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stands cancelled and the bail bond executed by the accused also stands cancelled. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. 27. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stands cancelled and the bail bond executed by the accused also stands cancelled. The accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court, forthwith to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment of the Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and compliance.