G.S. Bijumon And J. Ayyappan Pillai vs Inspector Of Police, CBI ACB, Cochin

Dated this the 05 day of August, 2026 Accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No.38/2014 on the files of the Special Court (CBI-III), Ernakulam, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment in the said case, dated 17.08.2015.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI. Perused the judgment under challenge along with the records of the Special Court.

The prosecution case is that, during the year 2009-2010, the 1 accused was working as a Petty Officer (Mechanical Engineering) at INS Sutlej and the Naval Ship Repair Yard (NSRY), Cochin. The 2 accused is the wife of the 1 accused, and the 3 accused is the father of the 2 accused. While so, accused Nos.1 to 3 hatched criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for themselves by corrupt or illegal means, by abusing the official position of the 1 accused as a public servant. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, they cheated PW1, an aspirant for the post of Senior Secondary Recruit (SSR) in the Indian Navy, and PW5, his father, by falsely representing that the 1 accused was a Lieutenant Commander in the Indian Navy and that, by virtue of his official position, he could secure employment for PW1 as a Senior Secondary Recruit. Believing the said representation, PW5 was induced to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to accused Nos.2 and 3 in January 2010, and PW1 was induced to hand over a signed undated cheque for Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand only) to the 1 accused in August 2010. On the above allegations, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter), as well as under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act', hereinafter).

In this matter, the Special Court framed charge for the aforesaid offences and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW17 were examined and Exts.P1 to P25 series were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of defence, DW1 to DW9 were examined and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked.

On appreciation of evidence, the learned Special Judge found that accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offences punishable under Section 419 and 420 r/w 120B of the IPC as well as under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and accordingly, they were sentenced as under:

The learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 zealously argued that in the instant case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is quite insufficient to find demand of illegal gratification either by the 1 accused or by the 3 accused and the very foundation of the prosecution case is that demand was made in a house situated in Thannikkamukku, as deposed by PW1 and PW3. However, during the cross-examination of PW17, the Investigating Officer, he deposed that he was not aware of any house in Thannikkamukku. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3, the alleged demand, as projected by the prosecution, has not been proved. Consequently, the essential ingredients required to establish the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act have not been proved. In such circumstances, it is contended that the impugned verdict is liable to be set aside. He had read out the relevant portion of the evidence PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW16 and PW17 to contend that some financial liability in between PW5 and the 3 accused existed and as per Ext.P4 agreement, the same was settled and in fact, the case was foisted on the background of the said financial liability. Thus, the learned counsel canvassed interference in the verdict impugned.

Whereas, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI strongly opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 and submitted that PW1 Imran Khan (Complainant) deposed that the 1 accused promised to secure him a Navy SSR post and deposed that the 1 accused initially demanded Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), later reduced it to Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only). He also stated that he handed over a signed cheque for Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) to the 1 accused. He also stated that the 3 accused had accepted and later returned the money. Further, PW1 identified accused Nos.1 and 3 before Court. PW3 Ameer Khan (Brother of PW1) deposed that he accompanied PW1 to meet the 1 accused and supported the testimony of PW1. PW4 S. Basheer (Brother of PW16) who introduced PW1 to the 1 accused. According to him, the 1 accused offered to procure Navy jobs and that he had witnessed the payment of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). PW5 Abdul Majeed Rahamathullah Khan (Father of PW1), stated that he paid Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) directly to the 3 accused on the demand made by the 1 accused and as specifically instructed by him. PW16 Jameela Beevi (Mother of PW1) deposed that she had received repeated phone calls from the 1 accused insisting on payment. PW10 M.Swamy given evidence that the 1 accused was actually only a Petty Officer, not Lieutenant Commander. PW11 S.J.Pisute (Member of the Board of Enquiry) deposed that in the departmental enquiry allegations against the 1 accused was found. PW14 George Nijo Antony (Member of the Board of Enquiry) deposed that in the departmental enquiry found allegations against the 1 accused was substantiated. PW2 Vishnu.R.Pillai (Naval Officer) deposed that the 1 accused had similarly approached him and demanded money for securing appointment in the Indian Navy. PW6 Nitheesh R. (Naval Officer) also testified that the 1 accused had similarly approached him and demanded money for securing appointment in the Indian Navy. PW7 S. Radhakrishna Pillai (Father of PW6) corroborated the testimony of PW6. PW8 Radhakrishna Pillai (Father of PW2) corroborated the testimony of PW2. PW17 Santhosh Kumar (Investigating Officer), in fact, supported the investigation led to filing of final report in this case.

According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, the 1 accused falsely represented himself to PW1 and PW5 as a Lieutenant Commander in the Indian Navy and informed them that, he could secure the recruitment of PW1 as a Senior Secondary Recruit (SSR) in the Indian Navy by virtue of his official position, induced PW5 to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to accused Nos.2 and 3 in January 2010. It is further submitted that accused No.2, who is the wife of the 1 accused, and accused No.3, who is the father of the 2 accused and the father-in-law of the 1 accused, accepted the said amount on the instructions of the 1 accused. Therefore, the demand and acceptance stand proved, and the contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant/accused Nos.1 and 3 that the prosecution failed to prove the twin ingredients of demand and acceptance would not sustain in the eye of law. It is also pointed out that, in paragraph Nos.68 and 69 of the impugned verdict, the learned Special Judge considered the legal effect of Ext.P4 agreement, to which PW1, PW3, PW16 and the 3 accused are signatories, and disbelieved the same mainly on the ground that, in the additional statement filed by the 3 accused under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Cr.P.C." hereinafter), he stated that he did neither pay any amount to PW5 nor receive any amount from PW5. Therefore, Ext.P4 has no significance in the instant case to disbelieve the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI argued to confirm the conviction and sentence, for the reasons found by the Special Court and for the reasons urged by him.

Adverting to the rival contentions, the points arise for consideration are;

Whether the Special Court is right in holding that appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 r/w 120B of the IPC?

Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act?

Whether the verdict would require interference?

The order to be passed? Point Nos.(i) to (iv)

Here, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 along with PW16 and PW17, the Investigating Officers to find the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 r/w 120B of the IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The prosecution case is that the 1 accused, who was working as a Petty Officer attached to (Mechanical Engineering) at INS Sutlej and the Naval Ship Repair Yard (NSRY), Cochin during the period 2009 - 2010, demanded Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) for securing job to PW1 and similarly, he also demanded illegal gratification from PW2 Vishnu R.Pillai, and PW6 Nitheesh.R., two other candidates to secure the post of Naval Officer.

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 PC Act, 1988. The same are extracted as under:-

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 bribe 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.

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:

In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in [2026 INSC 365] in The State of Kerala v. K.A.Abdul Rasheed, the Apex Court considered the decision [(2023) 4 SCC 731], Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and in paragraph 13 the Apex Court held as under:

Adverting to the evidence available, the prosecution examined PW1, the de facto complainant to prove the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by accused Nos.1 to 3. PW1 deposed that he had been working as a Medical Assistant in the Indian Navy. According to him, though he had appeared for the written examination conducted for the second batch recruitment to the Indian Navy in the year 2009, he was unsuccessful. At the relevant time, he and his family were residing at Mangadu, Kilikollur, Kollam. According to him, while he was waiting for a bus after returning from college, PW4, his maternal uncle, telephoned him and introduced the 1 accused, stating that he was an employee of the Indian Navy and could arrange employment for him in the Navy. The 1 accused requested PW1 to meet him in person for detailed discussions. PW1 informed PW16, his mother, about the same and thereafter, accompanied by PW3, his brother, visited the residence of the 1st accused. When they met the 1 accused, he introduced himself as Biju Gopinath, a Lieutenant Commander in the Indian Navy. He represented that he was conducting the recruitment examination and that he could secure employment in the Indian Navy for any person who had passed the Plus Two examination. PW1 and PW3 thereafter returned after furnishing the mobile phone number of PW1 to the 1 accused. Subsequently, the 1 accused contacted PW1 on several occasions through the mobile phone of PW16. PW1 also requested the 1 accused to arrange employment for his friends, Firoz and Rafi, to which the 1 accused agreed. The 1 accused informed him that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) would be required for the purpose. Thereafter, PW1, PW3, Firoz and Rafi met the 1 accused at his residence at Thannikkamukku. All four of them applied for the written examination conducted by the Indian Navy in October, 2009. However, only PW1, PW3 and Firoz received hall tickets. The 1 accused informed them that Rafi would not get hall ticket as he was over-aged and that he would have to appear for the examination in Delhi, assuring that necessary arrangements would be made for getting the job. According to PW1, when the results were published, he alone was qualified in the written examination and thereafter he had passed the physical test. When PW1 contacted the 1 accused regarding the results of the others, the 1 accused assured him that he would manage their results. PW1 further deposed that, at the first instance, he was declared medically unfit in the medical examination. However, within one week, he underwent a re-medical examination and was declared medically fit. Thereafter, when he met the 1 accused, the latter demanded Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh only). When PW1 pointed out that he had already passed the written and physical tests, the 1st accused agreed to reduce the amount to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only). PW1 informed his parents about the demand. Subsequently, when his name appeared in the main selection list published in December, 2009, the 1 accused contacted PW16 over the telephone and demanded payment of the amount, insisting that at least Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) should be paid immediately. During the said period, PW5, his father, who had been working in a Gulf country, returned home. According to PW1, upon a further demand made by the 1 accused, PW16 informed him that PW5 would make the payment. PW1 left for training on 28.01.2010. He testified further that either on the previous day or on the same day, PW5, accompanied by PW4, paid Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the 3 accused, who is the father-in-law of the 1 accused, as instructed by the 1 accused over the telephone. PW1 further deposed that, after completing his training, he returned to his native place and met the 1st accused, to whom he presented a shirt and a dhoti. The 1 accused again insisted upon payment of the balance amount and demanded a further sum of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand only). The 1 accused agreed to reduce the total amount payable to Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only). According to PW1, the 1 accused subsequently informed his friends, Firoz and Rafi, that he could not arrange employment for them because PW1 had failed to pay the balance amount. When his friends complained about the same, PW1 contacted the 1 accused and sought further time for payment of the balance amount. As security for the said payment, PW1 handed over Ext.P2 cheque for Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only), duly signed by him, to the 1st accused. Thereafter, PW1 proceeded to Mumbai for ship training, where PW6, his colleague, was also undergoing training. PW6 informed him that the 1 accused had been arrested in connection with demand for money from him, for securing employment. PW1 then disclosed the entire incident to PW6, who introduced him to PW12, an officer attached to the Naval Intelligence Unit. PW1 narrated the incident to PW12 and subsequently submitted Ext.P3 complaint dated 17.05.2011 against the 1st accused. PW1 further deposed that, after the submission of Ext.P3 complaint, the 2 accused, who is the wife of the 1 accused, contacted PW16 over the telephone and informed her that an enquiry was pending against the 1 accused. She requested PW16 to state, in the event of any enquiry, that the 1 accused was merely a family friend. According to PW1, he had instructed PW16 to record the conversation with the 2 accused. Accordingly, with the assistance of PW3, the conversation between PW16 and the 2 accused was recorded and transferred to a compact disc, which was later produced in the Naval enquiry. PW1 further deposed that, thereafter, PW16 received information from the residence of the 1 accused that they were willing to return the money upon execution of an agreement on stamp paper. Accordingly, PW1, PW16, PW3, PW4 and Laila Beevi went to the residence of the 3 accused, where the 3 accused prepared the agreement on the stamp paper. PW1, PW3, PW16 and PW4 signed the same, whereupon the 3 accused returned Ext.P2 cheque and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to them. PW1 identified the stamp paper as Ext.P4, identified his signature therein, identified Ext.P2 cheque, and also identified all the accused before the Court.

The brother of PW1 was examined as PW3 by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW1. He testified that he had accompanied PW1 to the residence of the 1 accused to secure employment for PW1 in the Indian Navy. According to him, the 1 accused demanded Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) from each candidate for arranging employment. He further deposed that, after PW1 was declared medically fit in the re-medical examination, the 1st accused insisted on payment of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only). Before PW1 left for training, PW5, their father, who had returned from the Gulf, paid Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the 3rd accused at the instance of the 1st accused. Thereafter, when PW1 came home on leave, he met the 1 accused and handed over Ext.P2 cheque for Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) towards the balance amount. Subsequently, the 3 accused, who is the father-in-law of the 1 accused, returned the said amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and Ext.P2 cheque to PW16. PW3 further deposed that, prior to the return of the amount and the cheque, the 2 accused had come to his residence when he alone was present there. As nobody else was available, she left without disclosing the purpose of her visit. According to PW3, the amount and the cheque were returned only after PW1 had lodged a complaint against the 1 accused before the Naval authorities. He further deposed that the amount and the cheque were returned at the residence of the 3 accused, where Ext.P4 agreement was also executed, and he affixed his signature thereto. PW3 also deposed that the 2 accused had telephoned PW16 and agreed to return the amount and the cheque. The conversation between the 2 accused and PW16 was recorded by him, and the compact disc containing the said conversation was handed over to PW1. He further deposed that, when he accompanied PW1 to meet the 1 accused, the 1 accused introduced himself as Lieutenant Commander Biju Gopinath.

The mother of PW1 and PW3 and the wife of PW5, was examined by the prosecution as PW16 to corroborate the evidence of PW1 and PW3 regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the 1 accused and the 3 accused. She deposed that PW4, her brother, informed her that the 1 accused had represented to him that he could arrange employment in the Indian Navy. Thereafter, PW1 and PW3 met the 1 accused and, on their return, informed her about the demand for payment of money. In order to verify the genuineness of the representation made by the 1 accused, she, along with PW4, Shajahan and Laila Beevi, went to the residence of the 1st accused. As the 1 accused was not available there, they proceeded to the residence of the 3 accused, who is the father-in-law of the 1 accused, situated near Thannikkamukku. According to PW16, all the accused were present there. The 1 accused spoke to her and demanded Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) for securing employment for PW1 in the Indian Navy. PW16 further deposed that, at the first instance, PW1 was declared medically unfit. Thereafter, the 1 accused telephoned her and instructed her to send PW1 to him on the following day, assuring that he would manage the re-medical examination. Subsequently, PW1 was declared medically fit. She further deposed that the 1 accused thereafter demanded Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only). When PW1 negotiated with him regarding the amount, the 1 accused agreed to reduce the demand by Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and insisted on payment of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only). PW16 conveyed the said demand to PW5, her husband, who initially discouraged her from paying the amount. She further deposed that, before PW1 left for training, PW5 returned from the Gulf. During that period, the 1 accused again contacted her over the telephone and repeatedly demanded payment of the amount. Consequently, PW5, accompanied by PW4, went to the residence of the 3 accused and paid Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the 3 accused, as instructed by the 1 accused. PW16 further deposed that the 1 accused contacted her frequently and insisted upon payment of the balance amount. According to her, the friends of PW1, namely Firoz and Rafi, were made to believe by the 1 accused that they had not secured employment because PW1 had failed to pay the balance amount. She further testified that, thereafter, PW1 presented a shirt and a dhoti to the 1 accused and also handed over Ext.P2 cheque for Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) towards the balance amount. PW16 further deposed that the 2 accused subsequently telephoned her and informed her that the amount would be returned, while requesting her to persuade PW1 not to lodge any complaint against the 1 accused. Thereafter, PW16 contacted the 2 accused and informed her that they would not proceed against the 1 accused if the amount and the cheque would be returned. The 2 accused agreed to the said proposal. According to PW16, the conversation between her and the 2 accused was recorded by PW3. Thereafter, PW16, along with PW1, PW3 and PW4, went to the residence of the 3 accused, where an agreement was prepared on a stamp paper. She identified the said agreement as Ext.P4. According to her, all of them signed Ext.P4, following which the 3 accused returned Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and Ext.P2 cheque to her.

PW5, the father of PW1 and PW3 and the husband of PW16, was examined by the prosecution to prove the payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the 3 accused. He deposed that he was working in a Gulf country and that he had been receiving information regarding the transaction from PW16 over the telephone. According to him, towards the end of the year 2009, he had returned to his native place. When PW16 informed him about the demand for payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), he was initially reluctant to make the payment. However, he subsequently agreed to pay the amount. Accordingly, he, along with PW4, his brother-in-law, went to the residence of the 3 accused and handed over Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the 3 accused, as instructed by the 1 accused. PW5 identified the 3 accused before the Court. He further deposed that, at the time of handing over the amount, the 2nd accused and the wife of the 3 accused were present there. He also identified the 2 accused before the Court. According to PW5, the 3 accused handed over the amount to the 2 accused, who informed him that the 1 accused had instructed her to receive Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from PW5 in connection with securing employment for PW1. PW5 further deposed that the said amount was paid in the month of January, 2010.

Supporting the case of the prosecution, PW4, the brother of PW16 and the maternal uncle of PW1 and PW3 also given evidence. During his examination, he had testified about the circumstances by which PW1 came into contact with the 1 accused. He deposed that he was working as a painter and had undertaken the painting work at the residence of the 1 accused. According to him, while carrying out the said work, the 1 accused informed him that he could arrange employment in the Indian Navy for persons who had passed the Plus Two examination. On hearing this, PW4 informed the 1 accused about PW1 and PW3, who are his nephews. The 1 accused agreed to arrange employment for them. Thereafter, PW4 conveyed the said information to PW16 and contacted PW1 over the telephone, introducing him to the 1 accused. The 1 accused spoke to PW1 through PW4's mobile phone and requested him to meet him in person. Accordingly, PW1 and PW3 met the 1 accused. Thereafter, in order to verify the representation made by the 1st accused, PW4, along with PW16, Shajahan and Laila Beevi, met the 1 accused at the residence of the 3 accused, who is the father-in-law of the 1 accused. The 1 accused reiterated that he could arrange employment in the Indian Navy. PW16 informed him that she would consult her husband and communicate their decision. PW4 further deposed that, subsequently, PW1 secured employment in the Indian Navy. Thereafter, when PW5 returned from the Gulf, PW5 and PW4 went to the residence of the 3 accused and handed over Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the 3 accused. The 3 accused informed them that the 1 accused had instructed him to receive the said amount. The 2 accused also informed them that the 1 accused had directed her to receive the amount. PW4 further deposed that PW1 thereafter handed over Ext.P2 cheque for Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) to the 1 accused towards the balance amount out of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only). Subsequently, the 3 accused returned the amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and Ext.P2 cheque to PW16 at his residence. PW4 further deposed that an agreement was executed on a Rs.100/- stamp paper, which was marked as Ext.P4, and that he had affixed his signature therein.

On the side of the defence, DW1 to DW9 were examined and in paragraph Nos.34 to 42, the learned Special Judge summarised their evidence as under: “34........DW1 is a taxi driver.

In paragraph No.48 of the impugned verdict, the learned Special Judge addressed the contention raised by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 that the 1 accused had no residence at Thannikkamukku and the place of residence is at Chonamchira. While addressing this question, the learned Special Judge relied on the evidence of PW17, which was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 which was observed by the learned Special Judge that PW17 when asked the 1 accused found to have any residence at Thannikkamukku other than Chonamchira and Vellimon, he answered in negative. In this connection, the learned Special Judge relied on the evidence of PW7, who is the father of PW6, who deposed regarding the place Thannikkamukku, PW7 deposed that Thannikkamukku is a nearby place of Anchalummoodu and the residence of the 1 accused was situated at a distance of 3/4 km from Thannikkamukku. Apart from that, PW7 also deposed that the 1 accused has been residing Anchalummoodu and the same is a nearby place of Thannikkamukku. The learned Special Judge also addressed the evidence of PW2 and PW8 who had visited the residence of the 1 accused situated in Thannikkamukku, which is situated on the eastern side of Anchalummoodu and thereafter, the learned Special Judge found that Thannikkamukku might be an interior place at Anchalummoodu and the same is not so prominent as Anchalummoodu. It was found by the learned Special Judge further that the distance between the residence of accused Nos.1 and 3 as spoken by PW1 was only 20 meters. PW16 also given evidence that he had visited the house of the 1 accused.

Here, the evidence of PW16 and PW4 would show that both of them visited the residence of the 1 accused and according to PW17, the house name was ‘Sreyas’. In fact, the house mentioned as that of the 1 accused is at Thannikkamukku, which is a near place of Anchalummoodu. In this connection, the evidence of PW16 is very relevant. PW16 deposed that when she reached the residence of the 1 accused, he was not there and soon, she went to the residence of the 3 accused. Thus, the evidence would show that accused Nos.1 and 3 resided nearby during the time of occurrence. Therefore, mere mentioning of the residence at Thannikkamukku (a very nearby place of Anchalummoodu) would not by itself is insufficient to hold that the entire prosecution is not believable and also to hold that the very foundation of demand was failed to be proved, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3.

The trump card put up by the defence attached to the credibility of the prosecution case is not only want of evidence to prove the demand, but also relying on Ext.P4 agreement. In paragraph No.69 of the impugned verdict, the learned Special Judge discussed about Ext.P4 and observed as under:

Thereafter, in paragraph Nos.70 to 72 of the impugned verdict, the learned Special Judge held that the evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW5 regarding the alleged payment of money by PW16 to the 3 accused in the month of December was not reliable. In arriving at the said finding, the learned Special Judge placed considerable reliance on the additional statement filed by the 3 accused under Section 313(5) of the Cr.P.C., stating that he did not lend any money to PW3.

On re-appreciation of evidence, it could be seen that PW1, Imran Khan deposed that the 1 accused promised to secure him a Navy SSR post and he had demanded Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh only) and reduced the same later to Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only). According to him, Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) was paid by way of cheque, but later returned. PW5, the father of PW1 categorically given evidence that he had paid Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) directly to the 3 accused pursuant to the demand made by the 1 accused, and as specifically instructed by the 1 accused. Supporting this evidence, PW4, Basheer, the brother of PW16, i.e., the uncle of PW1 deposed that the 1 accused offered to procure job to PW1 and he was given Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), as deposed by PW4 and he witnessed the same. PW16, Jameela Beevi, the mother of PW1 also given evidence that she had received repeated telephone calls from the 1 accused insisting for the payment. Thus, the demand of the 1 accused for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) initially and reduction of the same to Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only), payment of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) by way of cheque, and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) directly by PW4 in the presence of PW4, the uncle of PW1, is established by the prosecution very well. It is pertinent to note that the 1st accused had initially informed PW4 that he was a Lieutenant Commander in the Indian Navy, whereas, as deposed by PW10, he was in fact only a Petty Officer. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 1 accused. PW2 and PW6 also given evidence supporting that the 1 accused had approached them and demanded bribe for the purpose of securing appointment in the Indian Navy. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 that the prosecution failed to prove the twin ingredients to substantiate offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, would not sustain. Regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 that there was no house at Thannikkamukku and, therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case must tumble down, the same also cannot be accepted for the reasons discussed in detail hereinabove. Thus, none of the contentions raised by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 to unsettle the verdict could be found favoured.

Therefore, the conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge is liable to be confirmed. Coming to the sentence, having regard to the sentence imposed on the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 and considering the seriousness of the offences committed by them, no interference in the sentence is warranted. In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court. Consequently, the order suspending the sentence and granting bail to the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 stands cancelled, and their bail bonds also stand cancelled. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 are directed to surrender before the Special Court, forthwith to undergo the sentence, failing which, the Special Court shall take necessary steps to execute the sentence, without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, for information and compliance. Sd/-

JUDGE