The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a Villageman (Village Field Assistant) found guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 500 for measuring property, reiterating that proof of demand is sine qua non for establishing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the matter, dismissed the appeal against the conviction but modified the sentence imposed on the appellant, V. Chandran, reducing the rigorous imprisonment terms while maintaining the fine.
Background of the Case
The case, V. Chandran vs. State of Kerala (Crl.A. No. 1063 of 2013), arose from an incident in 2006. The appellant was working as a Villageman at the Payyampally Village Office in Mananthavady, Wayanad District. The complainant (PW1) had approached the Village Office to transfer the Jama rights of a property gifted to him by his father and to pay the land revenue.
According to the prosecution, the complainant submitted an application on June 22, 2006. He was informed that the property required measurement. After multiple visits to the office, the accused allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 to measure the property. The demand was made after the accused initially mentioned expenses for sketches and plans amounting to Rs. 950, which the complainant said he could not afford.
A trap was laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Wayanad, on October 4, 2006. The complainant, accompanied by a decoy witness (PW2) and vigilance officials, handed over the marked currency notes to the accused at the Village Office. The accused was apprehended after accepting the money, and the phenolphthalein test yielded positive results.
The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, convicted the accused on July 12, 2013, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The accused subsequently filed an appeal before the High Court challenging this verdict.
Arguments of the Parties
The Defence: The counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was unsustainable because the accused, being a Villageman (Class IV employee), was incompetent to measure the property. The defence contended that the prosecution proceeded on a false assumption regarding the accused’s official duty.
The defence further submitted that the accused had arranged a private surveyor, and on the date of the trap, the complainant forcefully inserted the money into the accused’s pocket. It was argued that the accused had “no intention to either demand or accept the bribe.” The counsel pointed to alleged contradictions in the evidence of the complainant (PW1) and the accompanying police officer (PW7) regarding the handing over of the money.
The Prosecution: The Special Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of the complainant regarding demand and acceptance was unshaken during cross-examination. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the decoy witness (PW2) and the Investigating Officer (PW9), arguing that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the ingredients required for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Justice Badharudeen referred to the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) [AIR 2023 SC 330], which established that “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.”
The Court also cited its own recent decision in Sunil Kumar K.V. vs. State of Kerala (2025 KHC 983), reiterating that “mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of bribe… or the recovery of the same would not be sufficient to prove the offences… in the absence of evidence to prove the demand.”
Addressing the defence’s argument regarding the accused’s incompetence to measure land, the Court observed:
“In fact, this contention is found to be unsustainable since all persons working in the Village Office usually do the work of measurement for the purpose of identifying the property for which mutation or other activities to be done.”
The Court further noted that when a citizen approaches a public office, they have “no other option but to believe the words of the officer who agreed to measure the property.”
The Court found the evidence of PW1 convincing regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe at 3:15 PM on October 4, 2006. The Court stated that “no material contradiction could be noticed in the evidence of PW1 as well as PW7 to disbelieve their evidence.”
Decision
The High Court confirmed the conviction of V. Chandran under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. However, considering the arguments for leniency, the Court modified the sentence to the “least minimum possible.”
The modified sentence is as follows:
- Under Section 7: Rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000.
- Under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2): Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000.
The sentences are to run concurrently, and the appellant is entitled to set off for the period of detention already undergone. The Court cancelled the appellant’s bail bond and directed him to surrender forthwith to undergo the sentence.
Case Details:
- Case Title: V. Chandran vs. State of Kerala
- Case No: Crl.A. No. 1063 of 2013
- Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
