JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. Conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in C.C.No.2 of 2005 on the files of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, as per judgment dated 18.08.2006, are under challenge in this Appeal at the instance of the sole accused therein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 3. The prosecution case is that the accused while working as Deputy Director in the office of the Director, Mines Safety, Ministry of Labour, Regional Office, Oorgaum, Bangalore, in between 21.05.2001 and 17.05.2004 had enjoyed the powers of the Inspector of Mines as defined under Section 7 of the Mines Act, 1952 (`Act’ for short). Thus he was bestowed with the duty to oversee the implementation of the provisions of the Act by the Mines Management, through inspections and inquiries at the mines, besides other promotional initiatives like conduct of safety weeks in Mines etc. The specific allegation is that while holding the post, the accused reached Thrissur on 14.07.2004 and stayed at Hotel Elite International, Thrissur. While so, on 16.07.2004, he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/- from PW1, the partner of M/s.St.Basil Granites, Pattikkad, Thrissur, in continuation of his earlier demand. Thus the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short), by the accused. 4. After investigation, final report was filed by the Investigating Officer and the Special Court took cognizance of the matter and recorded evidence. On the side of prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P15 and MO1 to MO8 were marked. On the side of defense, DW1 to DW4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D7 were marked. 5. The Special Court adverted to the allegations based on the evidence and finally found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. On the side of defense, DW1 to DW4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D7 were marked. 5. The Special Court adverted to the allegations based on the evidence and finally found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Accordingly he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offences under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused argued that the evidence relied on by the Special Court to find the commission of the aforesaid offences by the accused is not fully free from doubts. According to the learned counsel, there was delay in reaching the FIR before the court, and as per the endorsement made in the FIR, marked as Ext.P1(a), based on the complaint (Ext.P1) lodged by PW1, it reached the Court only on 04.05.2004 and the prosecution has not offered any explanation for this delay. It is pointed out further that the court below ought to have found that the suppression of PW1 about his intention to carry a folder to the room of the appellant and the manner in which PW1 had smuggled in, the said folder and the documents inside it to the room of the appellant without the knowledge or approval of any other members of the trap party would by itself prove the malafide intention of PW1 and the court below erred in placing reliance on the evidence of such a witness. It is argued that the Special Court ought to have found that the manner in which PW1 had smuggled the folder into the room of the appellant without the prior mentioning of the same by itself vitiate the entire entrustment proceedings and Ext.P2 entrustment mahazar. 7. The Special Court ought to have found that the said folder did not find a place in any of the documents produced before court and that no explanation is forthcoming as to where the said folder or the documents it contained had gone. 7. The Special Court ought to have found that the said folder did not find a place in any of the documents produced before court and that no explanation is forthcoming as to where the said folder or the documents it contained had gone. The appellant is very seriously prejudiced due to the fact that no investigation was conducted regarding the whereabouts of the said folder or the documents nor was any endeavour made to trace them out which would reveal the bias on the part of the investigating officer in omitting to conduct any investigation regarding such a material aspect. It is only to be presumed from the above conduct of PW1 & the Investigating officers that the said folder should have been smeared with phenolphthalein powder by PW1 to trap the accused. 8. Accordingly the learned counsel for the accused argued that since the prosecution evidence is not free from doubts, the accused would deserve acquittal on finding benefit of doubt. 9. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that there is no delay in registering the FIR or reaching the same in court. According to him, the FIR was registered at Cochin after receiving information from Thrissur and on the next day, FIR reached the court. Therefore, the delay canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused in the matter of FIR reaching the court is of no significance. It is pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor further that in this case, PW1 categorically supported the prosecution case regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- as bribe by the accused at Elite International Hotel, Thrissur in room No.558, and the evidence of PW1 remained unshaken. As to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that PW1 carried a folder containing documents to the room of the appellant without the knowledge or approval of any other member of the trap party, which, according to the defence, indicates a mala fide intention on the part of PW1, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that since PW1 was to give certain documents and trap money, he carried a folder and the same by itself is not a reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 or to hold that there was any mala fide intention to PW1. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that in Ext.P2 entrustment mahazar, no such recitals could be found. 10. Having addressed the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/accused committed offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988? (ii) Whether the Special Court went wrong in finding that the appellant/accused committed offence under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988? (iii) Is it necessary to interfere with the verdict under challenge? (iv) The order to be passed? Point Nos.(i) to (iv) 11. In this case Ext.P1(a) FIR was registered by PW11 based on Ext.P1 complaint lodged by PW1. Charge was laid against the accused after obtaining sanction, produced as Ext.P13, proved through PW11. From the same FIR, 2 cases were charge sheeted against the accused, viz. CC 2/2005 and 5/2005. This appeal is against the verdict in C.C.2/2005 and the same appellant filed Crl.Appeal No.906 of 2011, challenging the verdict in CC.No.5/2005. Insofar as the allegation of the prosecution that the accused demanded and accepted bribe from PW1, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 and that of PW4, the decoy witness apart from the evidence of PW9, the trap laying officer. PW4, who was working as Assistant Manager at the Thrissur Branch of the State Bank of India at that time during July, 2004, had witnessed the trap proceedings in which the CBI on 16.7.2004 caught the accused. On that day, the AGM called him and directed him as well as CW3 who was a Trainee Officer to go as witnesses for the proceedings of the CBI. The said direction was given on the request of CW14 CBI officer. CW14 took him and CW3 to the Thrissur Guest House. On reaching there, they were introduced to PW9, CBI Inspector. 5-6 persons were there in the room. PW9 introduced PW1 to them and told that PW1 had given a complaint to the CBI and they were called to witness the trap proceedings on the basis of the complaint. A photocopy of Ext.P1 complaint preferred by PW1 was handed over to him by PW9 and he was requested to read it aloud. He did so. Then he asked regarding the contents of Ext.P1 complaint to PW1 and satisfied that the complaint was genuine. A photocopy of Ext.P1 complaint preferred by PW1 was handed over to him by PW9 and he was requested to read it aloud. He did so. Then he asked regarding the contents of Ext.P1 complaint to PW1 and satisfied that the complaint was genuine. Thereafter, the demonstration of Sodium Carbonate Phenolphthalein test was conducted there. The solution received in the demonstration is preserved and is MO1. The demonstration was conducted by smearing Phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes produced by PW1. He and CW3 noted down the particulars of the said currency notes. The cash as well as mobile phone, which were present in the pocket of the shirt of PW1, were removed, and PW1 was directed by PW9 to put the same in his pant's pocket. PW1 did so. Thereafter, the Phenolphthalein smeared currency notes were placed in the pocket of the shirt of PW1 and he was specifically directed not to touch it unless and until demanded by the accused. He was requested by PW9 to accompany PW1 to Hotel Elite International, to hear the conversation between the accused and PW1, and to see the transactions, if any. PW1 was directed to give a signal by coming out of the room and by wiping his face thrice with his right hand on the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. Thereafter, all of them washed their hands by soap and water and Ext.P2 mahazar was prepared. Then he accompanied PW1 by the car of PW1 to Hotel Elite International. CBI officers and CW3 accompanied them by another car. After reaching the hotel, PW1 parked the car and took a folder kept at the rear seat of the car and then they together walked towards the lift. They could see two persons coming out of the lift, and PW1 talked to them. They informed PW1 that they were coming after meeting the accused and each of them had paid Rs.2,000/- to the accused. By the time, the lift had gone up and then came down. They could see the accused coming out of the lift and walking away. At that time, they were not aware of the identity of the accused. When PW1 told the lift operator that they wanted to go to Room No.558 for meeting Sreedhar, the lift operator told them that, the said Sreedhar was the person going out of the lift. They could see the accused coming out of the lift and walking away. At that time, they were not aware of the identity of the accused. When PW1 told the lift operator that they wanted to go to Room No.558 for meeting Sreedhar, the lift operator told them that, the said Sreedhar was the person going out of the lift. The lift operator made a sound, invited the attention of the accused, and then the accused came back. Along with them, the accused went to his room. The accused demanded the papers from PW1. Then PW1 took the papers from the folder kept by him and handed over it to the accused. The accused and PW1 were sitting on the cot and he was standing at the side. After glancing through the papers, the accused asked whether he (PW4) is quarry owner. PW1 answered that he was not the quarry owner, but the friend of the quarry owner. Then he occupied a chair there. He heard the accused telling PW1 that the lease period had been expired, and the same was illegal and therefore the same would attract penal consequences under the Mines Act. At that time, the accused had addressed PW1 as Elias. Then the accused directed PW1 to send him (PW4) out of the room. On the request of PW1, he came out of the room and approached PW9 who was standing at some distance away. Just after 2-3 minutes, PW1 came out of the room and showed the pre-arranged signal. PW1 told PW9 that as demanded by the accused he gave the amount and after obtaining the amount, the accused placed it in the bag. All of them rushed into the room of the accused. PW9 introduced him and others to the accused and asked the accused whether he had obtained bribe from PW1. The accused immediately became upset and was seen uttering by sitting on the cot 'save me sir, save me sir'. When repeatedly PW9 asked the said question, the accused admitted having received the bribe. Fresh Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and separate hand washes of the right hand as well as left hand of the accused were obtained. The solutions turned pink in colour and the same were preserved as MO2 and MO3 respectively. PW9 declared the accused as arrested. When repeatedly PW9 asked the said question, the accused admitted having received the bribe. Fresh Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and separate hand washes of the right hand as well as left hand of the accused were obtained. The solutions turned pink in colour and the same were preserved as MO2 and MO3 respectively. PW9 declared the accused as arrested. When the accused was asked as to the place at which he kept the amount obtained as bribe, the accused pointed towards MO8 bag. When the accused was directed to take out the money, the accused took it and handed over it. PW4 verified the particulars of the said currency notes with the numbers noted in Ext.P2 mahazar and found it tallying. The portion where the said amount was kept in MO8 bag was rubbed with a piece of cotton. When the said cotton was put in Sodium Carbonate solution, the same also turned pink and the said solution is MO5. When MO8 bag of the accused was searched, MO7 series currency notes were obtained from there. When asked about the source of the same, the accused revealed that the same were obtained from other quarry owners as in this case. The CBI officers prepared Ext.P8 series sketch of the fifth floor of the hotel and Room No.558. Ext.P3 mahazar was prepared. Even though PW4 was subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing could be brought out in order to discredit or disbelieve his testimony. 12. Thus the evidence of PW4, the decoy, alone would show that on the date of trap, the accused had demanded and accepted MO4 series bribe money from PW1. In tune with the version of PW4, PW1 also had given evidence. According to PW1, he was a graduate in Physics and he had preferred Ext.P1 complaint against the accused before the CBI on 16.07.2004. On 16.07.2004 he had received a telephone call from the accused at 7.45 a.m enquiring about the location of M/s.St.Basil Granites and the quarry and as to whether he had quarrying lease. Then PW1 had told him that his quarry lease had been over by 17.05.2004 and had been functioning with the movement pass obtained from the Mining and Geology Department. Then PW1 had told him that his quarry lease had been over by 17.05.2004 and had been functioning with the movement pass obtained from the Mining and Geology Department. Then the accused had informed him that his quarry had been functioning unauthorisedly and the quarry could not be functioned on movement pass alone and he would take steps for stopping the quarry. Further the accused informed PW1 that he was staying in room No.558 of Elite International Hotel, Thrissur and asked him to meet the accused in the evening with Rs.2,000/-. PW1 had deposed further that he had no prior acquaintance with the accused. Accordingly on realising that the accused was demanding bribe from him, he had contacted PW3, who was running Jayalakshmi Crusher Unit, for informing about the call received from the accused. Then PW3 had informed him that the accused called him also in the same line. PW1 deposed further that he had contacted Mr.Jose John, who was the proprietor of another crusher unit and intimated the matter. Then he had informed PW1 that the appellant/accused had visited the crusher unit of Mr.Jose John at Ernakulam and by assailing several reasons he obtained money from many of them. He had further contacted Dileepkumar, who was running V.M.Minerals crusher unit and informed the matter. Then Dileepkumar also told him that the accused had visited his querries and crusher units in Palakkad district and obtained money from them. At this juncture, PW1 decided to inform the matter to the CBI. The further evidence of PW1 is that at about 9.15 am. PW1 made a telephone call to the CBI office, Kochi and informed the matter to the S.P, CBI. Immediately the S.P. handed over the telephone to PW9 to whom also he told the matter. PW9 gave him his phone number. PW1 also gave his phone number to PW9. He was directed by PW9 to contact him again after half an hour. When he did so, he was told by PW9 to prepare a complaint in writing addressed to the S.P., CBI, Kochi and to arrange Rs.2,000/- demanded by the accused as bribe. He was further told that they could meet together in front of the shop named City Centre at Thrissur in between 12.15 p.m. and 12.45 p.m. on that day. When he did so, he was told by PW9 to prepare a complaint in writing addressed to the S.P., CBI, Kochi and to arrange Rs.2,000/- demanded by the accused as bribe. He was further told that they could meet together in front of the shop named City Centre at Thrissur in between 12.15 p.m. and 12.45 p.m. on that day. By about 10.30 a.m. on the same day, PW3 had called PW1 over the phone and told him that the accused had reached his unit for inspection. He was further told that after inspection the accused had demanded Rs.2,000/- and PW3 paid Rs.1,500/- to the accused. He was further told by PW3 that the accused had directed him to inform all the nearby crusher and quarry owners that the accused was staying at Elite International Hotel, Thrissur and to direct each one of them to meet the accused with Rs.2,000/-. While PW3 was talking with PW1 over the phone, the accused took the receiver from PW3 and talked directly to PW1. The accused told him that he would not be coming for inspection to his quarry as he had no quarrying lease and he was asked to meet him at Elite International Hotel in the evening in between 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. with Rs.2,000/-. The accused threatened PW1 by stating that in case of the failure of PW1 to meet him with the money as aforesaid, he would write the report against his quarry which would result in the closure of the firm. 13. Then PW1 preferred Ext.P1 complaint and reached in front of the City Centre, Thrissur at 12.30 p.m. After some time, he received a call from the CBI over his mobile phone. He was told that a Maruti Gypsy Jeep in which the CBI officers had come was parked in front of the City Centre and he was directed to reach there. PW1 reached there and saw the CBI officers. He handed over Ext.P1 complaint to PW9. He narrated all the events in detail. After telling that he would be called after one hour, the CBI officers went away with Ext.P1 complaint. He went to his house and after having lunch, he returned. By 1.30 p.m., he received a call from PW9 over his mobile phone directing him to appear in Room Number 4 of the Government House, Thrissur at 2.30 p.m. He did so. He went to his house and after having lunch, he returned. By 1.30 p.m., he received a call from PW9 over his mobile phone directing him to appear in Room Number 4 of the Government House, Thrissur at 2.30 p.m. He did so. The CBI officers were present in the room and they asked him about the complaint. By 3.20 p.m., one of the CBI officers reached there with two officers of the State Bank of India viz., Prakash (PW4) Assistant Manager and Praveen (CW3) Trainer Officer. PW1 handed over the photocopy of Ext. P1 to PW4. They read it aloud and clarified doubts from PW1. Then PW9 revealed that he would be going to take further steps on the complaint of PW1. Thereafter, PW9 explained the significance of Sodium Carbonate Phenolphthalein test. Its demonstration was conducted. PW1 was asked to produce the amount intended to be paid as bribe to the accused. He produced four currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/-. The CBI noted its numbers. 14. PW9 asked CW3 to dip his right hand in the Sodium Carbonate solution. When he did so, there was no colour change. Then after smearing MO4 series with Phenolphthalein powder, CW3 was asked to count it and then to dip his hand in Sodium Carbonate solution. When he did so, the solution turned pink. The said solution is preserved and is MO1. There was a mobile phone and an amount of Rs.1,600/- in the shirt pocket of PW1. PW9 directed him to take all the said contents out of that pocket and to put it in his pant's pocket. He did so. Then the Phenolphthalein smeared MO4 series currency notes were placed in his shirt’s pocket and he was specifically directed not to touch it until he reaches the room of the accused and unless and until demanded by the accused. PW4 was directed to accompany him, to hear the conversation between PW1 and the accused, and to see the transactions, if any. Further PW1 was directed to give the signal when coming out of the room by wiping his face with his hand if the accused demanded and accepted bribe by the accused. PW1 was further directed to introduce PW4 as his friend to the accused, if the accused would ask anything about PW4. All of them washed their hands by using soap and water. PW1 was further directed to introduce PW4 as his friend to the accused, if the accused would ask anything about PW4. All of them washed their hands by using soap and water. All others mutually conducted their body searches. Ext P2 mahazar was prepared there. 15. At about 4.45 p.m., he along with PW4 proceeded from there by his car to Elite International Hotel. CW3 and the CBI officers accompanied them by the CBI vehicle. By about 4.50 p.m. they reached the hotel. There was a folder kept in his car, which contains the papers to be shown to the accused. He took the folder also and they proceeded to the lift of the hotel. When they reached there, they saw two persons coming out of the lift. One of them was Kuttappan of Eastern Granites and the other was Roy, Manager of Granites Products. He told them that he was going to see the accused. Then they replied that they had already met the accused and their documents were examined by the accused and the accused obtained Rs.2,000/- from each one of them. By the time, the lift went upwards and came down. They could see a man coming out of the lift and going away. Then PW1 told the lift operator that they wanted to go, to Room No.558 wherein the person named Sreedhar is staying. Then the lift operator immediately told him that the said man leaving from the lift was the said person, and the lift operator made a sound for inviting the attention of the accused. On hearing the sound, the accused turned back, saw them, came back and entered in the lift and along with PW1 and PW4 went up and went to Room No.558 of the accused. 16. On reaching the room, the accused demanded PW1 the documents. He gave the documents. After perusing the documents, the accused told PW1 that his lease period had already been expired and he has no valid lease and that he (the accused) has the power to punish him under the Mines Act and he could close down his unit. According to PW1, the accused had addressed him as Elias at that time, since the documents were in the name of his brother K.P.Elias. Then the accused enquired whether PW4 was a quarry owner. According to PW1, the accused had addressed him as Elias at that time, since the documents were in the name of his brother K.P.Elias. Then the accused enquired whether PW4 was a quarry owner. When PW1 informed the accused that PW4 was not a quarry owner, but one of his friends, the accused directed PW1 to ask his friend to go out. When PW1 told this. PW4 went out of the room. Then the accused asked PW1, 'have you brought money?" PW1 answered 'yes sir'. By telling it, PW1 took MO4 series out of his pocket and gave the same to the accused. The accused then and there counted the money and then opened the side pocket of MO8 travellers bag placed at the bottom of the Almirah in the room and kept the money there. Immediately. PW1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. PW4, CW3 and the CBI officers came to him. He informed them regarding the demand of the bribe by the accused, the giving of bribe by him to the accused, the counting of the same by the accused and also regarding the keeping of the bribe amount by the accused in the bag. He along with them entered inside the room of the accused. PW9 showed his identity card to the accused, revealed his identity, and asked the accused whether he obtained bribe from PW1. The accused became very perplexed and was trembling and shivering and by sitting on the cot, the accused uttered save me sir, save me sir'. When PW1 repeatedly asked, the accused admitted having received bribe. Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and the accused was asked to dip his right hand in it. When he did so, the solution turned pink. The said solution is preserved and is MO2. Again, Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and the accused was asked to dip his left hand in it. When he did so, the said solution also turned pink. The said solution is preserved and is MO3. When PW9 asked the accused as to the place at which the bribe money was kept by the accused, the accused pointed out MO8 Travellers bag and informed that the money obtained from PW1 has been kept in the bag placed at the bottom of the cupboard. The said solution is preserved and is MO3. When PW9 asked the accused as to the place at which the bribe money was kept by the accused, the accused pointed out MO8 Travellers bag and informed that the money obtained from PW1 has been kept in the bag placed at the bottom of the cupboard. When PW9 asked the accused to produce the money obtained from PW1 as bribe, the accused took MO4 series from the bag and produced it. When the denomination and numbers of MO4 series produced by the accused were compared and verified with the same in Ext.P2, they became satisfied that the same were tallying. CBI seized MO4 series. One of the CBI officers rubbed the inside of MO8 bag wherein MO4 series was kept, by using cotton. When the said cotton was dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution, after it, the said solution turned pink. The said solution is preserved and is MO5. The said cotton piece is MO6. The CBI officers have examined MO8 bag. Over and above other articles in the bag, three bundles of currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- were there. The said currency notes are identified as MO7 series. When PW9 asked the accused regarding the source of MO7 series, the accused stated that the same were obtained as bribe from other quarry and crusher owners. Ext.P3 mahazar was prepared detailing all the above. 17. During cross examination of PW1, he deposed that when he talked to the accused over the telephone, the appellant/accused had demanded bribe from him and told him that details could be given when they would meet at Thrissur. PW1 deposed during cross examination that he called the CBI officer at 9.15 a.m and PW3 called him at 10.30 a.m. 18. In addition to the evidence of PW4, PW1 and PW3, the Managing Partner of Jayalakshmi Granites Metal Industries also deposed in support of the telephone call he had received from PW1. He also deposed about demand of Rs.2,000/- by the accused, as informed by PW1. PW3 further deposed that at 9 a.m the accused called him over phone and then he gave the location of his crusher unit to his driver. By 10 a.m the accused reached his crusher unit and inspected the same. He also deposed about demand of Rs.2,000/- by the accused, as informed by PW1. PW3 further deposed that at 9 a.m the accused called him over phone and then he gave the location of his crusher unit to his driver. By 10 a.m the accused reached his crusher unit and inspected the same. After that, he told him that he was coming there for the first time and therefore he wanted `some thing’. Accordingly he paid Rs.1,500/- to the accused and the accused received the money and kept the same in a file like material and in the meantime PW1 had contacted him. According to PW1, PW6 the Managing Director of Dream World Water Park and one of the partners of St.Joseph Metal Industries as well as Maria Financiers in Thrissur and he also identified the accused after deposing that the accused informed him to book a room. He booked a room in the Elite International Hotel, Thrissur and the accused came and stayed there and returned after inspection without settling the hotel bill and PW6 finally settled the bill by paying Rs.7,000/-. Again in July, 2004 and he was contacted by the accused and informed that he would be coming within 2 days and he had directed to book a room for him and PW6 directed his office to book a room at Elite International Hotel and to arrange a car for the accused, as directed by the accused. This time also, PW6 settled the hotel bill after paying Rs.8,000/-. Apart from PW7, PW8 also had deposed in support of the prosecution case. 19. PW7 is the Manager of Elite International Hotel, Thrissur. Ext.P9 is the guest registration card prepared for the checking in of the accused at the Hotel at 2.40 p.m. on 14.7.2004. The particulars in Ext.P9 were filled up by the accused himself. At first, the accused had checked in Room No.458. As the air conditioner of the said room had complaints, the said room was changed and Room No.558 was allotted to the accused. Identity cards will be issued to the persons who take room at the hotel. Ext.P10 is the identity card issued to the accused. Telephone facility was also there at Room No.558, from which the inmate of the room could directly dial to outside numbers. The call details from each room will be recorded in the computer. Identity cards will be issued to the persons who take room at the hotel. Ext.P10 is the identity card issued to the accused. Telephone facility was also there at Room No.558, from which the inmate of the room could directly dial to outside numbers. The call details from each room will be recorded in the computer. He had issued Ext.P11 call details of the calls through the telephone of Room No.558 from 9.41 p.m. on 15.7.2004 to 11.59 p.m. on 16.7.2004. 20. According to PW8, he has been working as Lift Operator at Hotel Elite International, Thrissur, for the last ten years. He identified the accused. According to him, he was the lift operator at the hotel on the date on which the CBI caught the accused. On that day, by about 5 p.m., the accused had come down from the hotel by the lift. After getting down from the lift, the accused walked towards the reception. At that time, two persons came and told him (PW8) that they wanted to go to the room of the accused. By telling them that the guest in that room was the person going towards the reception, he made a sound and attracted attention of the accused. The accused came back, entered the lift along with the said two persons and they went up and went to Room No. 558. In the cross- examination of PW7 and PW8, there is absolutely nothing to discredit or disbelieve their testimony. 21. Apart from the evidence of PW11, PW9 - the trap laying officer, fully supported the prosecution evidence regarding the pre and post trap proceedings as well as recovery of MO4 from the accused and Phenolphthalein test, etc. 22. It is true that the FIR in this crime reached the court only on 04.05.2004 on the next day. When the delay of one day in reaching the FIR in a case of this nature is given much emphasis ignoring the evidence, the same would be an unwanted exercise and in fact there is no substantial delay in lodging the FIR. Then the delay in reaching the FIR before the court, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, is of no avail. Then the delay in reaching the FIR before the court, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, is of no avail. Coming to the allegation raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as to possession of a folder by PW1, the same by itself would not make the prosecution case unbelievable, since the same is supported by a bundle of evidence discussed herein above. That apart, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 would show that, in fact, PW1 carried the folder which contained the documents to be shown to the accused. Therefore the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused by giving heavy reliance on the folder found to be of no serious consequence. It seems that such a feeble contention has been raised as there is no valid contention otherwise available to shake the prosecution case. 23. In this connection it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [ AIR 2023 SC 330 ], Neeraj Dutta v. State where the Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C Act, 1988 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 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.” 24. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C 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 P.C 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 P.C Act, 1988. 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 P.C Act, 1988 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. 25. In this context, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 983] , in Crl.Appeal No.323/2020, dated 12.9.2025, wherein in paragraph No. 12, it was held as under: “12. 25. In this context, it is relevant to refer the decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 983] , in Crl.Appeal No.323/2020, dated 12.9.2025, wherein in paragraph No. 12, it was held as under: “12. Indubitably in Neeraj Dutta’ s case (supra) the Apex Court held in paragraph No.69 that there is no conflict in the three judge Bench decisions of this Court in B.Jayaraj and P.Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge Bench decision in M.Narasinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or “primary evidence” of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns “hostile” is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases. Further in Paragraph No.70 the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary,oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. In paragraph No.68 the Apex Court summarized the discussion. That apart, in State by Lokayuktha Police ’s case (supra) placed by the learned counsel for the accused also the Apex Court considered the ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act,1988 and held that demand and acceptance of bribe are necessary to constitute the said offences. Similarly as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Aman Bhatia ’s case (supra) the Apex court reiterated the same principles. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials to be established to fasten criminal culpability on an accused are demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. Similarly as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Aman Bhatia ’s case (supra) the Apex court reiterated the same principles. Thus the legal position as regards to the essentials to be established to fasten criminal culpability on an accused are demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. To put it otherwise, proof of demand is sine qua non for the offences to be established under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and dehors the proof of demand the offences under the two Sections could not be established. Therefore mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of bribe or as undue pecuniary advantage or illegal gratification or the recovery of the same would not be sufficient to prove the offences under the two Sections in the absence of evidence to prove the demand.” 26. On evaluation of evidence in this matter, demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from PW1, MO4 series on the date of trap was proved substantially by the evidence of PW4 as well as PW1 supported by the evidence of other witnesses, without an iota of doubt. Therefore, conviction imposed against the accused by the Special Court for the offences punishable under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 is only to be justified. Therefore, the conviction doesn’t require any interference. 27. Coming to the sentence, the Special Court imposed sentence of R.I for three years each for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. Having considered the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, I am inclined to modify the sentence. 28. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the Special Court is confirmed, but the sentence stands modified as under: “(1) The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ; (2) The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. (3) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the default sentences shall run separately. 29. The order suspending execution of the sentence imposed on the accused stands vacated with direction to him to appear before the Special Court forthwith, without fail, to undergo the modified sentence. On failure to do so by the accused, the Special Court is directed to execute the modified sentence without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Ernakulam, for compliance and further steps.