JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. Dated this the 28 th day of October, 2025 1. These appeals are at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.10/2014 on the files of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam and they impugn the conviction and sentence imposed against them by the learned Special Judge. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the 1 st accused, the learned counsel for the 2 nd and the 3 rd accused, in detail. Perused the records of the Special Court. 3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed offences punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Acct, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) as well as under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter). 4. The precise allegation of the prosecution is that the 2 nd accused, while working as a public servant in her capacity as an Airline Attendant with Air India Express during 2011, abused her official position and hatched conspiracy with accused Nos.1 and 3 to obtain illegal gratification through corrupt and unlawful means from prospective candidates, examined as PW1 and PW2, for the post of Airline Attendant with Air India Charters Limited (AICL); and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused Nos.1 and 2 unauthorisedly assembled at Hotel Abad Plaza, Nedumbassery, on 30.01.2011, where the group discussions and personal interviews of the candidates took place. Further case of the prosecution is that, thereafter, the 1 st accused demanded and accepted Rs.4,00,000/- from PW1 and the 3 rd accused demanded and accepted Rs.4,50,000/- from PW2 to give the same to the 2 nd accused. 5. The Special Court secured the presence of the accused for trial and recorded evidence. The evidence confined to that of PW1 to PW22 and Exts.P1 to P37 on the side of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced. 6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused committed offences under Section 120B of the IPC and under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 and sentenced them as under: “64. In the result, A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakh each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months each U/s.8 of the PC Act, 1988. In the result, A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakh each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months each U/s.8 of the PC Act, 1988. A3 is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month U/s.8 of PC Act, 1988. 65. A1 and A2 are directed to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year each and liable to pay Rs.2 lakhs each as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months U/S.120B r/w Section 8 of the PC Act. 66. A3 is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month U/s.120-B r/w section 8 of the PC Act. The substantive sentences shall be run concurrently. If fine is realised from A1 and A2, Rs.6 Lakhs shall be paid as compensation to PW1 U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C.” 7. While differentiating the case of the 2 nd accused from that of accused Nos.1 and 3, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused that, in this matter, the evidence of PW1, supported by the evidence of PW5 and PW8, is relied on by the Special Court to establish the involvement of the 2 nd accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2 nd accused that, as far as the 2 nd accused is concerned, PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution. It is pointed out by the learned counsel further that even going by the evidence of PW1, the same does not anywhere indicate that the 2 nd accused either personally demanded or accepted the amount, as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted further that the Special Court convicted and sentenced the 2 nd accused, based on presumptive circumstances without any support of sufficient documents or corroborative evidence. According to the learned counsel, in order to substantiate offence under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, the ingredients as dealt in paragraph No.6 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Babji v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in [ (2018) 17 SCC 732 ] are to be satisfied. 8. According to the learned counsel, in order to substantiate offence under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, the ingredients as dealt in paragraph No.6 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Babji v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in [ (2018) 17 SCC 732 ] are to be satisfied. 8. The learned counsel for the 1 st accused read out the evidence of PW5 and PW8 contending that the ingredients for the offences, as pointed out by the learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3, not proved. He also would submit that when the evidence is insufficient to prove the demand of illegal gratification and the accused provides a plausible explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) that they were unaware of receiving excess money beyond lawful fees, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. In this connection, he placed decision of the Apex Court in Mini v. CBI/SPE Cochin reported in [2025 ICO 1864] , with reference to paragraph No.12, the Apex Court held that it is well settled that statement of the accused explaining the incriminating circumstances is to be considered before recording conviction and where the explanation is plausible and appropriately explains the incriminating circumstances, it may be accepted. 9. The learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.2 and 3 contended that as far as the 3 rd accused is concerned, in the present case, the status of PW1 and PW2 is that of interested accomplice witnesses, and therefore, their evidence, in the absence of independent corroborative evidence cannot be relied upon, solely to bring home the guilt of the accused or to establish the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and credible supporting evidence to substantiate the version of PW1 and PW2. In light of the above, the learned counsel canvassed for the acquittal of the 3 rd accused on the submission that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, as required under law. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI argued that insofar as the complicity of accused Nos.1 and 3 is concerned, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, corroborated by the testimonies of PW19 and PW20, is available on record. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI argued that insofar as the complicity of accused Nos.1 and 3 is concerned, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, corroborated by the testimonies of PW19 and PW20, is available on record. In addition, the evidence of PW8 has been relied upon by the Special Court, to hold that circumstantial evidence established the involvement of the 2 nd accused in the crime, as part of a conspiracy hatched between them. In this regard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor drew the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Special Court, which discussed the role of each of the accused in furtherance of the common object of the conspiracy. It was further submitted that the allegation against the 2 nd accused, wherein accused Nos.1 and 3 are alleged to have acted in concert, can be clearly inferred from the circumstantial evidence. The Special Court found such evidence were sufficient to establish the nexus among the accused. Therefore, the conviction and sentence as against the 2 nd accused are well-founded and the same would require no interference by this Court. That apart, it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the evidence of PW5, who is none other than the brother of the 2 nd accused to the effect that he had telephoned PW1 and PW2 requesting them not to disturb the 2 nd accused by alleging her involvement in the matter of illegal gratification from PW1 and PW2, was also emphasised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the 2 nd accused. It is further pointed out that the Special Court relied on this evidence as well while finding that the 2 nd accused had committed the offences. 11. Adverting to the rival arguments, the points arise for consideration are; (i) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988? (ii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC ? (iii) Whether the verdict would require interference? (iv) The order to be passed? 12. (ii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC ? (iii) Whether the verdict would require interference? (iv) The order to be passed? 12. Point Nos.(i) to (iv) While addressing the rival contentions, it is necessary to consider the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who had applied for the post of Cabin Crew in Air India and were subjected to an interview on 30.01.2011 at Abad Hotel, Nedumbassery. Apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW19 and PW20, the persons who had accompanied PW1 and PW2, respectively, at the time when they handed over the money pursuant to the demand made by accused Nos. 1 and 3, also assume significance. 13. PW1 deposed that he worked at the Cochin International Airport as Flight Co-ordinator attached with Airawath Aviation company during the period 2010 to 2011 February. He deposed about the publication of advertisement for the post of recruitment of Cabin Crew in their website and newspaper. He also deposed that he had applied for the said post. Ext.P2 series are the copy of application form submitted by PW1 along with the related documents. On 25.01.2011, a walk-in interview was scheduled at Abad Airport Hotel, Kochi. The interview proceedings started at 7 a.m. on that day. He had registered for the interview and obtained a registration slip bearing No.OBC 707. He was directed to appear for the group discussion and personal interview on 30.01.2011 at Abad Hotel. Accordingly, he appeared on that day. The group discussion was conducted first and he was selected for the personal interview. The personal interview was also completed on the same day. Two weeks after the personal interview, he had received a telephone call claiming to be from the Bombay Air India office, stating that he had been selected and would be called for training without any delay. When the recruitment advertisement was published in the newspaper, the 1 st accused, who was working at CIAL and attached to Decor Aviation had approached PW1. PW1 identified the 1 st accused before the Court. The 1 st accused informed PW1 that if he would pay Rs.4 Lakh to the 2 nd accused, Smt. Savitha S. Kannan, who was working as Senior Cabin Crew with Air India, he would get the job. PW1 identified the 1 st accused before the Court. The 1 st accused informed PW1 that if he would pay Rs.4 Lakh to the 2 nd accused, Smt. Savitha S. Kannan, who was working as Senior Cabin Crew with Air India, he would get the job. It was also stated that Smt.Savitha Kannan would influence the officers of Air India in Bombay. He did not give any reply. On 25.01.2011, when he came out of the hotel after registration, the 1 st accused was present there. He again reiterated the same demand regarding payment of money to the 2 nd accused for securing the job. On 30.01.2011, after the group discussion, one officer loudly called out the names of the candidates who had qualified in the group discussion. On hearing that, the 2 nd accused, Smt.Savitha Kannan, approached him and enquired, “Are you the friend of Mr. Baby?” (Baby is the 1 st accused). She also stated that Baby was present there and that they would meet again. He identified Smt.Savitha Kannan before the Court. After the interview, Baby Varghese again approached PW1 and repeatedly stated that if he would pay Rs.4 Lakh, he would arrange the job. On 01.02.2011, a fixed deposit in the name of the mother of PW1 at the Kodungalloor Town Co-operative Bank was closed, and Rs.3,17,000/- was withdrawn. Using this amount, the father of PW1 paid Rs.3,50,000/- to the 1 st accused at the car parking area of CIAL. At that time, PW1 and PW19 were also present. After receiving the amount, Baby Varghese assured them that PW1 would be called for training in the first batch itself. He also asked them to pay the balance of Rs.50,000/- within a short period. Thereafter, they withdrew Rs.80,000/- from the fixed deposit account of his mother. From that amount, Rs.49,900/- was deposited in the account of one Mr.Rona Francis (PW3) as directed by the 1 st accused. According to him, though he was directed to deposit Rs.50,000/-, due to the absence of a PAN card, he could deposit only Rs.49,900/-. The entire amount was paid for securing the job in Air India. The 1 st accused had sent the account number of PW3 via a mobile message. Ext.P3 was the credit voucher showing the deposit of Rs.49,900/- by PW1 into the account of PW3. The said amount was deposited on 12.02.2011. The entire amount was paid for securing the job in Air India. The 1 st accused had sent the account number of PW3 via a mobile message. Ext.P3 was the credit voucher showing the deposit of Rs.49,900/- by PW1 into the account of PW3. The said amount was deposited on 12.02.2011. Pursuant to this payment, he had contacted the 1 st accused several times. On all such occasions, the 1 st accused assured him that he would get the job. During February 2011, the father of PW1 fell ill, and PW1 resigned from the airport. He was in need of money for his father’s treatment. Moreover, even after the lapse of six months, he could not secure the job. Hence, he had demanded the amount back from the 1 st accused. The 1 st accused deposited Rs.1 Lakh in the account of PW1 in Federal Bank, Airport Branch, in two instalments. At that time also, the 1 st accused stated that the job would be ready soon. Thereafter, one person named Sharma contacted him over the phone and told him that the job would be ready within a short time. Later, he lodged a complaint before the Vigilance Wing of the Airport. They directed him to approach the CBI, and accordingly, Ext.P1 was given to PW23. He identified his signature in Ext.P1. The balance amount had not been received so far. Many of the persons working at the airport had applied for the post of Airline Attendants. They had discussed the matter among themselves. Accordingly, Baby Varghese came to know about the application of PW1. He had given statement to the Investigating Officer in this regard. PW1 also stated that the 1 st accused and he had worked together for a short period before the money transaction involved in this case. The 1 st accused was not familiar to him earlier. He had acquaintance with the 1 st accused only after the latter approached him in connection with the demand of Rs.4 Lakh. According to PW1, he had not given Rs.1 Lakh to the 1 st accused on a credit basis. There was no occasion to give Rs.1 Lakh to the 1 st accused. As the amount was directly paid to the 1 st accused, there were no documents showing the receipt of Rs.3½ Lakh. According to PW1, he had not given Rs.1 Lakh to the 1 st accused on a credit basis. There was no occasion to give Rs.1 Lakh to the 1 st accused. As the amount was directly paid to the 1 st accused, there were no documents showing the receipt of Rs.3½ Lakh. He denied the suggestion that the amount withdrawn from his mother’s account was utilised for some purpose other than giving it to the 1 st accused. 14. PW2 deposed that during 2011–2012, he was working at CIAL Airport. He had applied for the post of Cabin Crew in Air India, and Ext.P4 series were the application form and related documents. The interview was conducted on 30.01.2011 at Abad Airport Hotel. After the interview, he continued his employment at the airport. Two or three days thereafter, one Mr.Syed, the 3 rd accused, who was working as an Arabic Translator in Air India at CIAL had approached him and enquired about the interview. He identified the 3 rd accused before the Court. According to PW2, the 3 rd accused was known to him earlier. The 3 rd accused told him that if he would pay Rs.4.5 Lakh, he would get the job of Cabin Crew. It was also stated that the amount was to be given through the 1 st accused, who was working in the dispatch section. Both PW2 and the 3 rd accused thereafter went to meet the 1 st accused. The 1 st accused also told him that if he would pay Rs.4.5 Lakh, he would get the employment by influencing the officials of Air India. He identified the 1 st accused before the Court. PW2 told them that he would inform them about the same after consulting with his family members. Accordingly, he discussed the matter with his family. PW2 stated that he had paid Rs.4.5 Lakh to the 3 rd accused in two instalments. An amount of Rs.2 Lakh was given to the 3 rd accused at his residence, at that time, PW20 was also present with PW2. The second instalment of Rs.2½ Lakh was handed over to the 3 rd accused at a place near the airport, and on that occasion too, PW2 was accompanied by PW20. After receiving the money, the 3 rd accused assured them that he would arrange the employment through the 1 st accused, Baby Varghese. The second instalment of Rs.2½ Lakh was handed over to the 3 rd accused at a place near the airport, and on that occasion too, PW2 was accompanied by PW20. After receiving the money, the 3 rd accused assured them that he would arrange the employment through the 1 st accused, Baby Varghese. According to PW2, Rs.2.40 Lakh was raised by pledging gold ornaments and utilising the money available in the accounts of his parents, while the remaining amount was contributed by PW20. The amount had been withdrawn from the bank during January 2011. Even after the lapse of seven to eight months, the job was not arranged as promised by the 3 rd accused. Whenever PW2 met the 3 rd accused, he enquired about it, and the 3 rd accused repeatedly assured him that the job would be arranged soon. Thereafter, PW20 contacted the 3 rd accused over the phone, and both of them went to the house of the 3 rd accused and demanded either to arrange the job or to return the money. On that occasion too, the 3 rd accused assured them that the job would be arranged and further stated that if the job was not ready, the amount would be returned within one month. Subsequently, PW2 noticed the absence of the 3 rd accused at the airport and made enquiries, through which he came to know that the 3 rd accused was planning to move to Saudi Arabia. He informed the same to his family members. Thereafter, PW2, along with PW20 and one Mr.Asharaf, the brother of his father, went to the house of the 3 rd accused. On that occasion, the 3 rd accused told them that he would return the amount within three days and handed over his passport and bank passbook as security. After three days, the 3 rd accused returned Rs.3 Lakh and stated that the remaining amount would be paid within ten days. Within ten days, Rs.1 Lakh was also returned. They did not insist on the balance of Rs.50,000/-. After the registration of this case, the 3 rd accused came to the house of PW20 and returned Rs.50,000/-. At that time, he told them that PW2 would be interrogated by the CBI officials and that nothing needed to be disclosed. During November and December, PW2 received a telephone call informing him that he would get the job soon. After the registration of this case, the 3 rd accused came to the house of PW20 and returned Rs.50,000/-. At that time, he told them that PW2 would be interrogated by the CBI officials and that nothing needed to be disclosed. During November and December, PW2 received a telephone call informing him that he would get the job soon. His mobile number was 9895698251, and Ext.P5 series were the application form and copy of the identity card submitted for obtaining the mobile connection. He further stated that he had received telephone calls from mobile number 9310893626, which he had saved under the name “Express.” According to PW2, he was informed that the money was to be paid to the Air India officials. Exts.P6 and P6(a) contradictions were also brought out in his witness, which would negate the involvement of the 2 nd accused. 15. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW2 as regards to involvement of the 2 nd accused, PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution and PW2 did not disclose anything to show the involvement of the 2 nd accused in this crime. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, the same mainly confined to demand of Rs.4 Lakh by the 1 st accused to be given to the 2 nd accused, who was working as Senior Cabin Crew with Air India in order to get the job. That apart, PW1 stated that the 1 st accused informed him that the 2 nd accused would influence the officers of Air India in Bombay to secure the job. In addition to that, the evidence of PW1 would show that on 30.01.2011, after the group discussion, one officer loudly called out the names of the candidates who had qualified the group discussion and on hearing the same, the 2 nd accused approached PW1 and enquired “Are you the friend of Mr.Baby?” and she had stated further that Baby was present there and they would meet again. Accordingly, PW1 identified the 2 nd accused as Smt.Savitha S. Kannan. Apart from this, the demand and acceptance of Rs.4 Lakh, as deposed by PW1 by the 1 st accused and nothing available to show the direct involvement or nothing available to show that the 1 st accused demanded and accepted Rs.4 Lakh for and on behalf of the 2 nd accused. Apart from this, the demand and acceptance of Rs.4 Lakh, as deposed by PW1 by the 1 st accused and nothing available to show the direct involvement or nothing available to show that the 1 st accused demanded and accepted Rs.4 Lakh for and on behalf of the 2 nd accused. It is true that when PW5, the brother of the 2 nd accused was examined as a witness, he deposed that during the months of July and August, 2011, the 2 nd accused contacted him over the phone and disclosed that her name was being misused by some persons for making monetary gains. Further, she told him to enquire about the truth of such affairs. In fact, he was declared hostile to the prosecution. He also deposed that he contacted PW1 over phone. Relying on the above evidence, the Special Court discussed the involvement of the 2 nd accused in this crime and found that she also had committed the offences alleged. 16. Going through the judgment of the learned Special Judge, the learned Special Judge given emphasis to the evidence of PW1 stating that on 30.01.2011, after group discussion, when the names of the qualified candidates were called, the 2 nd accused reached near PW1 and enquired about his relationship with Baby, the 1 st accused and also identification of the 2 nd accused by PW1 in the dock. According to the learned Special Judge, the presence of the 2 nd accused in the venue of group discussion assumes significance, since no Cabin Crew was officially appointed in connection with the interview process. The learned Special Judge also found that during questioning of the 2 nd accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the 2 nd accused categorically admitted her presence at the venue of interview and the presence of hundreds of candidates at the site. In this regard, the learned Special Judge relied on the evidence of PW6, the then Manager of Air India Charters Limited, Bombay, who had given evidence that no Cabin Crew was deputed for the interview at Abad Hotel, Nedumbassery. According to the learned Special Judge, no other satisfactory evidence forthcoming to prove the contention raised by the 2 nd accused to justify her presence in the venue of the interview. Moreover, PW6 has no reason to give false evidence against the 2 nd accused. According to the learned Special Judge, no other satisfactory evidence forthcoming to prove the contention raised by the 2 nd accused to justify her presence in the venue of the interview. Moreover, PW6 has no reason to give false evidence against the 2 nd accused. Apart from the evidence of PW1, the evidence of PW3, who is a friend of the 1 st accused, was also relied on by the learned Special Judge and PW3 deposed that while receiving Rs.10,000/- from PW3, the 1 st accused told him that the amount was for securing a job at the airport and that the amount would be given to accused Nos. 2 and 3 for that purpose. 17. The Special Court also relied on the evidence of PW8, who was working as Public Relations Manager in Air India at CIAL, to the effect that during January 2011, the 2 nd accused approached him in his office and sought his help for selecting her economically backward relatives, whereupon he expressed his reluctance and instructed her not to approach him again with such illegal requests. The Special Court was of the view that PW1 and PW2 were not relatives of the 2 nd accused, then also, she had recommended PW1 and PW2 for the job, and the same as a relevant factor to prove the involvement of the 2 nd accused and her nexus with accused Nos.1 and 3. The Special Court also observed that even though PW2 turned hostile as against the 2 nd accused, the evidence of PW3 would show that the 3 rd accused demanded illegal gratification from him for securing the job of Airline Attendants by influencing the officials of Air India. Apart from that, telephone calls took place between one Mr.Sharma and PW1, and PW2 deposed that he also received telephone calls from a person speaking in Hindi and English, stating that he would definitely get the employment. The Special Court also pointed out that during questioning under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the 2 nd accused admitted that PW5 madev telephone calls to PW1 and PW2. 18. It is well-settled law that, in order to fasten criminal culpability against a person, the prosecution has the duty to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The Special Court also pointed out that during questioning under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the 2 nd accused admitted that PW5 madev telephone calls to PW1 and PW2. 18. It is well-settled law that, in order to fasten criminal culpability against a person, the prosecution has the duty to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence may be of three types, viz, i) absolute direct evidence, ii) indirect or absolute circumstantial evidence, which would form a chain to prove the guilt of the accused and iii) direct evidence in part and circumstantial evidence in part. In the instant case, as far as the involvement of the 2 nd accused in the matter of demand of bribe from PW1 and PW2 is concerned, no direct evidence has come forth. It is therefore necessary for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the 2 nd accused with the aid of circumstantial evidence, which would form a complete chain to establish her guilt, excluding any other hypothesis that she is guilty. To put it differently, the circumstances from which the guilt of the accused is to be drawn should be fully established, and the chain of evidence should be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. In this connection, the decision of the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in [ AIR 1984 SC 1622 ] is relevant, which was followed in a large number of subsequent decisions on this point. In this connection, the decision of the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in [ AIR 1984 SC 1622 ] is relevant, which was followed in a large number of subsequent decisions on this point. When applying the circumstantial evidence in this case, relied on by the Special Court, it is discernible that the mere presence of the 2 nd accused on the date of the group discussion, after the declaration of qualified candidates, her subsequent meeting with PW1, the telephone call made by PW5 to PW1 and PW2, and the telephone call between PW1 and one Sharma and PW2 with a person speaking English and Hindi, are all materials connected with certain admissions made by the accused in her 313 examination, were the evidence in the form of circumstantial nature relied on by the learned Special Judge to find that the 2 nd accused was also involved in the demand and acceptance of bribe, after observing that how PW5 came to contact PW1 and PW2 for the purpose of explaining the innocence of the 2 nd accused was not seen explained by the 2 nd accused, and the same was treated as cogent evidence to prove the involvement of the 2 nd accused. In fact, this finding of the Special Court, attributing a liability on the 2 nd accused to explain the lacuna in the prosecution evidence, is not permissible in law. In fact, the said evidence if taken together would not make a complete chain to find the guilt of the 2 nd accused excluding any other hypothesis that the 2 nd accused is guilty, as per the settled law, as already discussed. 19. In view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned Special Judge went wrong in finding the involvement of the 2 nd accused in this crime. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed against the 2 nd accused are liable to be set aside. 20. Coming back, even though much has been argued by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 3 to prove the innocence of accused Nos.1 and 3 and also repayment of money by the 3 rd accused to the tune of Rs.4.5 Lakh to PW2, as deposed by PW2 and PW20, mere repayment would not absolve the 3 rd accused of the criminal offence. As far as the amount by the 1 st accused from PW1 is concerned, the same was not fully repaid, only Rs.50,000/- was repaid. The learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 further contended that, admittedly, PW1’s salary was Rs.12 Lakh, while the salary offered for the post of Cabin Crew was only Rs.10,000/-, and therefore, paying Rs.4.5 Lakh as bribe to secure a job with a lower salary is highly improbable. However, mere salary alone is not the sole criterion for securing a job; accordingly, this argument is not of much significance and is hereby repelled. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 is that the status of PW1 and PW2 is that of accomplices, and therefore, their evidence requires corroboration with the aid of other evidence. In the instant case, as already discussed, as far as demand and acceptance of bribe from PW2 is concerned, PW20, who accompanied PW2, has given substantive evidence itself in support of the version of PW2. Similarly, PW19 is the witness, who accompanied PW1 at the time of demand and acceptance of bribe by the 1 st accused. Thus, apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the evidence of PW19 and PW20 is also available against accused Nos.1 and 3. Therefore, this contention is found to be untenable. 21. Here, the learned Special Judge found that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the IPC. Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 provides as under: 8. Therefore, this contention is found to be untenable. 21. Here, the learned Special Judge found that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the IPC. Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 provides as under: 8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant.- Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt 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 for a term which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 22. The ingredients of the offence as settled by the Apex Court in Babji ’s case (supra) as under: 5. In order to establish the offence Under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act it must be proved: (i) That the Accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain, from someone; (ii) For himself or for some other person; (iii) Any gratification whatever; (iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any 'public servant’ to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to any of the persons specified in the section. 23. Here, the evidence of PW1 and Pw2 supported by the evidence of PW19 and PW20 and other evidence would show that accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded and accepted bribe from PW1 and PW2 respectively on the premise of handing over the same to the 2 nd accused, ensuring the job offered. 23. Here, the evidence of PW1 and Pw2 supported by the evidence of PW19 and PW20 and other evidence would show that accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded and accepted bribe from PW1 and PW2 respectively on the premise of handing over the same to the 2 nd accused, ensuring the job offered. It is found by this Court that the evidence available is not sufficient to find the complicity of the 2 nd accused, the payment of Rs.4.5 Lakh back to PW2 by the 3 rd accused and Rs.50,000/- by the 1 st accused to PW1 would show that they have demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from PW1 and PW2 respectively, as deposed by them and supported by the evidence of PW19 and PW20 on the premise of giving the same to the 2 nd accused as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means or to show favour or render any service to any person specified in the Section. In paragraph No.6 of the decision in Babji ’s case (supra), the Apex Court held that in order to constitute an offence under Section 8 of the Act, three things are essential. In the first place there must have been the solicitation or receipt of the gratification. Secondly, such gratification must have been asked for or paid as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant to do an act or do a favour or render some service as stated under Section 8 of the Act. Since evidence not available to show that the accused Nos.1 and 3 handed over the money to the 2 nd accused, the available evidence would suggest that the illegal gratification was demanded by accused Nos.1 and 3 to be paid as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant do an act or to do a favour and in pursuance of the said demand, they accepted the same. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 supported by PW19 and PW20 categorically would establish that accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded and accepted the amount. That apart, the evidence discussed would show the repayment of Rs.4.5 Lakh by the 3 rd accused back to PW2 and Rs.50,000/- by the 1 st accused to PW1. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 supported by PW19 and PW20 categorically would establish that accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded and accepted the amount. That apart, the evidence discussed would show the repayment of Rs.4.5 Lakh by the 3 rd accused back to PW2 and Rs.50,000/- by the 1 st accused to PW1. Thus, the ingredients for the offence under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, as part of conspiracy hatched in between accused Nos.1 and 3 could be gathered. Therefore, the finding of the Special Court that accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC and Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, is only to be confirmed. 24. Coming to the sentence, the Special Court sentenced accused Nos.1 and 3 as extracted hereinabove. On a perusal of the sentence, it could be gathered that the learned Special Judge committed an error by imposing simple imprisonment for default sentence after imposing rigorous imprisonment as substantive sentence. Therefore, the imprisonment would require modification by unifying the same. 25. Since the minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, before amendment of Section 8 w.e.f. 16.01.2014 was 6 months, I am inclined to modify the sentence. 26. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. Conviction and sentence imposed against the 2 nd accused are set aside and the 2 nd accused is set at liberty forthwith. 27. The conviction imposed against accused Nos.1 and 3 are upheld while modifying the sentence as under: Accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 9 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC, accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, accused Nos.1 and 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. If the fine is realised, Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid to PW1. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the default sentences shall run separately. In default of payment of fine, accused Nos.1 and 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. If the fine is realised, Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid to PW1. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the default sentences shall run separately. The orders suspending sentence and granting bail to accused Nos.1 to 3 stand cancelled and the bail bonds executed by accused Nos.1 to 3 also stand cancelled. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are 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 to the Special Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and compliance.