N. Angamuthu v. The Superintendent of Police, CBI-SPECOCHIN-17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 785 of 2002(A) -----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/08/2002 IN CC.1/2001 (RC15(A)/2000/SPE/KER) OF THE SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI)-1, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/ ACCUSED --------------------N.ANGAMUTHU, SENIOR ASSISTANT, NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION, STAFF TRAINING COLLEGE, PEELAMEDU, COIMBATORE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.VINODKUMAR SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.M.RATHNA SINGH(SR) RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT -------------------------THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI-SPECOCHIN-17, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, CBI, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA), SC FOR CBI. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **"CR"** ## **P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.** ## **---------------------Crl.A.No.785 OF 2002 --------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** **~~~~~~~~~~~** Appellant is the accused in CC.No.1/2001 on the file of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam. He was prosecuted by the Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE, Cochin-17 alleging offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under both heads and also to pay a fine of rupees one lakh under Section 7. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal was preferred. 2. The brief facts leading to the prosecution is that the appellant was employed as Senior Assistant in National Textile Corporation, Training College, Peelamadu, Coimbathoor and as such he was a public servant as defined u/s. 2(c) of the PC Act. PW1- K.E. Viju was acquainted with the appellant. Appellant stated to PW1 that there were vacancies of the Deputy Manager in National Textile Corporation and by exercising his influence over the appointing authority he could secure job _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 2 in the post of Deputy Manager for graduates having degree in Business Management on payment of rupees two lakhs. The brother of PW1 was a graduate in Business Management. When the appellant repeatedly offered, PW1 thought of securing a job for his brother. PW1 expressed his desire to the appellant. Then it was stated that there were other vacancies also and if other persons are interested, he could arrange job for them also. The offer and demand was made on 2.9.2000. PW1 agreed to pay provided job is secured. Appellant demanded immediate payment of two lakh rupees. When PW1 expressed difficulty, the appellant stated that at least fifty thousand rupees should be paid on or before 5.9.2000. PW1 conveyed the matter to his brother who was examined as PW2. PW2 agreed. PW2 then conveyed the same to his classmates Prasad and Rajeev (PW3) who informed to their another frend Jithu (PW4). All of them agreed. On 5.9.2000 the appellant arrived at Cochin and stayed at Woodlands Hotel at Ernakulam of which PW8 is a partner. Getting information, PW1 along with PWs 2, 3, 4 and Prasad went to the Woodlands Hotel and meet the appellant. PW2, 4 and Prasad had brought Rs.50,000/- each. Appellant repeated his offer. When asked whether any receipt for the payment of the amount would be issued, the appellant offered that he could give receipt in _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 3 stamped paper. Accordingly, PWs 1 to 4 brought four fifty rupees stamp papers. PWs 2 and 4 and Prasad paid Rs.50,000/- each. For the amount paid to PW2, Ext.P1 receipt in stamp paper was given. To Prasad and PW4, Exts.P2 and P3 receipts were given. According to the prosecution, PW3 had not brought money. The appellant along with PW3 went to the house of PW3 at Kallambalam in a taxi and from there Rs.50,000/- was given. Thereafter, the appellant called PW1 on occasions and stated that steps for issuing appointment orders were in progress and demanded to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each for arranging the appointment order. PW1 expressed inability to pay immediately. Then the appellant asked to pay Rs.50,000/- as 2nd instalment and offered to come on 5th October. Somehow or other, PWs 1 to 4 and Prasad decided not to seek employment on paying bribe. The matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, CBI on 4.10.2000. As asked by the Superintendent, Ext. P4 FIS was given by PW1 before PW11, the inspector, CBI ON 6.10.2000. On the basis of Ext.P4, a case was registered as Crime No.R.C.15A/2000 for which Ext.P4 (a) FIR was prepared. In the meanwhile, responding to the call of the appellant to go over to Coimbatore and pay the balance amount, PW1 replied that as he had to go to Guruvayoor, he was not able to reach _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 4 Coimbatore. Thereupon, the appellant agreed that he would come over to Guruvayoor on 7.10.2000 and locate PW1 for which phone number was collected. Getting this information, PW11 made arrangements for trapping. PW1 provided Rs.10,000/- for that purpose. Currency notes, which are marked as MO3 series, were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. 3. PW.11 procured PW.5 and PW.10, two officials - one employed in the Canara Bank and another employed in the Oriental Insurance Company. They were demonstrated about the process of trapping for which Ext.P5 Mahazar was prepared and then they proceeded to Guruvayur along with PW.1 on 6.10.2000 and lodged at Thulasidalom lodge. At 6.00 a.m. on 7th the appellant contacted PW1 over phone and informed that the appellant was staying at Aryabhavan lodge and requested PW1 to go over in front of the lodge. PW1 along with PW11 and party proceeded to Aryabhavan. The currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder were entrusted back to PW1 with instruction to pay to the appellant only on demand. PW.1 and the other officials as well as the witnesses took positions. Appellant was waiting in front of the lodge. PW.1 went over to the appellant who asked whether PW11 had brought the money. PW1 answered affirmatively and handed over MO3 series which the appellant accepted. Then they walked _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 5 ahead talking about employement. PW.11 then approached and disclosed his identity. The bribe money was in the hands of the appellant. PW11 asked the appellant to hand over M.O.3 series to PW.5 and thereafter, phenolphthalein test was conducted. Result was positive. The appellant was arrested. Ext.P5 contains the serial number of the currency notes. The identity of the currency notes were verified with reference to Ext.P5. Ext.P6 narrates the process of trapping including the recovery of MO3 series from the appellant. The investigation was later taken over by PW.14, another Inspector, who, after completing the investigation, laid the charge sheet before the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-1, Ernakulam. 4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance and issued process to the appellant. Responding to the process issued, the appellant, who was subsequently released on bail, entered appearance. After hearing the appellant and the prosecution, charge was framed for offence under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. When read over and explained, the appellant pleaded not guilty. Hence he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 14 were examined. Exts. P1 to P25 and M.Os. 1 to 4 series were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the appellant was questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of the _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 6 Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that while he was in financial difficulties he had availed a loan from PWs.2,3,4 and one Prasad for which at the instance of PW1 stamped pronotes were issued to PWs 2 to 4 and Prasad and it was for that purpose, he reached at Guruvayur and that PW.1 gave the complaint only because of the threat of PW.11 who had some vengeance. It was also stated that seeing the appellant, PW.1 handed over one pouch and requested him to keep it until PW.1 return from the temple and that no money was handed over to him. On the side of the appellant, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D7 were marked. The Special Judge, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above assailing which this appeal was preferred. 5. I have heard Sri. S. Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P. Chandrasekharan Pillai, the learned standing counsel for the CBI. The fact that the appellant was working as a Senior Assistant in the National Textile Corporation was proved by the testimony of PW 1. PW.13, the Principal of the Staff Training College, attached to the National Textile Corporation, Coimbatore corroborates. The appellant was working _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 7 under PW13. It is PW.13 who had issued Ext.P21 order according sanction to prosecute the appellant. PW.13 had also deposed that he was the authority competent to remove the appellant from service. The fact that the appellant was working as a Senior Assistant in National Textile Corporation is not at all challenged in cross-examination. Having carefully gone through the evidence of PWs 1 and PW.13, I find that there is reliable evidence regarding the fact that the appellant was working as a Senior Assistant in the National Textile Corporation and in that capacity, he was a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. Though it was suggested that PW.13 had accorded sanction to prosecute the appellant without applying his mind, I find little reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.13 or to reject Ext.P21. Hence I find that the prosecution was launched with due sanction to prosecute the appellant. 6. The question that remains is whether the appellant had received any illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act and/or whether he had committed any misconduct as defined under Section 13(1) of the PC Act. PW.1 would depose that he was acquainted with the appellant while he was an apprentice trainee in Travancore _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 8 Titanium and that the appellant had introduced himself as an Assistant in the National Textile Corporation and told him that he could make arrangements for getting appointment to the post of Deputy Manager, in the National Textile Corporation, for graduates with MBA by exercising his influence and that the appellant demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- for arranging such employment. Believing the words of the appellant, PW.1 thought of securing an employment for his brother PW.2, who is a Master's degree holder in Business Administration. The appellant also offered that he could manage appointment to other persons also. Accordingly, the matter was informed to PW.3, 4 and one Prasad, who are friends of PW.2. All of them initially agreed for securing the job by paying the amount demanded by the appellant. On 5.9.2000 the appellant reached at Woodlands Hotel, Ernakulam, of which PW.8 was a partner and lodged in Room No. 201 of the Hotel. PW.1 along with PWs 2 to 4 and Prasad went to the Hotel and met the appellant. The appellant reiterated his influence and demand. PWs 2, 4 and Prasad paid Rs. 50,000/- each, for which, on demand, the appellant issued Exts. P1 to P3 receipts on stamp papers. PW.3 had not brought the amount at that time. Therefore, the appellant went along with PW.3 in a taxi to the house of PW3 and obtained Rs. 50,000/- for which also a receipt _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 9 was alleged to have been issued; but not produced. Thereafter, the appellant used to ring to PW.1 demanding payment of further amount stating that arrangements for appointment was on move. Though PWs 1 to 4 and Prasad initially thought of securing job by making payment, later, after an afterthought, decided not to pursue the same and to complain. Accordingly, PW.1 intimated the Superintendent of Police, CBI, regarding the demand and gave Ext.P4 First Information statement on the basis of which PW.11 registered a case as Crime No. RC 15A/2000/SPE/KER. for which Ext.P4(a) First Information Report was prepared. Without knowing these changes and the complaint by PW.1 to the police, the appellant repeated his demand and asked to make payment on 6.10.2000 at Coimbatore. Then PW.1 informed that he had some inconvenience to go over to Coimbatore as he had to go to Guruvayur. The appellant agreed to reach at Guruvayur for receiving the balance amount. In the meanwhile, PW.11 made arrangements to trap the appellant. As asked by PW11, PW1 produced MO3 series currency notes. PW11 summoned PW5 and 10. MO3 series were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Phenolphthalein test was demonstrated and noting the numbers of the currency notes, Ext.P5 mahazar was prepared. _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 10 PW.11 along with PW.1 and the police party and two independent witnesses proceeded to Guruvayur on 6.10.2000 and lodged at Thulasidalam Hotel. On the way, PW.1 called the appellant and ascertained whether he would be coming over to Guruvayur. He responded positively. After reaching Guruvayur, PW.1 again rang to the appellant and assured that the appellant would be coming over to Guruvayur. The appellant also reached Guruvayur and at about 6 A.M. On the next day the appellant rang PW.1 and stated that he had been waiting in front of Aryabhavan Lodge. Though PW.1 asked the appellant to go over to Thulasidalam Lodge, the appellant stated that he had difficulties to go over there and he would be waiting in front of Aryabhavan Lodge. On getting information, PW.11 and part proceeded. The independent witnesses and the party took positions at different spots near the lodge. PW1 was informed to proceed to the lodge. PW.1 accordingly proceeded to Aryabhavan Lodge. Appellant was waiting in front of the lodge. Seeing PW.1 the appellant demanded money. PW.1 took over the cash and handed over the same to the appellant. The appellant after receiving the cash walked ahead talking with PW1. PW.11 rushed to the appellant and disclosed his identity. As asked by PW.11, the appellant handed over the currency notes which were marked as M.O.3 series to _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 11 PW.5, the independent witness. The hands of the appellant were subjected to phenolphthalein test. The result of the test was positive. The appellant was arrested. The serial numbers of the currency notes were verified with reference to Ext. P5. Thereupon Ext.P6 mahazar was prepared. 7. The evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 would corroborate with the evidence of PW.1 regarding the acceptance of Rs. 50,000/- each by the appellant from PWs 2,3,4 and Prasad. They would also depose that Exts.P1 to P3 are the receipts issued by the appellant to PW.2, PW 4 and Prasad on receipt of Rs.50,000/-. Their evidence on that aspect could not be shaken in cross examination. 8. PW.5 had deposed that he was working as an Officer in Canara Bank and that in October, 2000 he was working as such at the Regional Office of the Canara Bank, Shanmugham Road, Ernakulam and that as requested by his superior officer he had been to the Office of PW.11 who informed the trap after reading over the complaint of PW1. . PW.11 had also demonstrated the procedure of trap, for which Ext.P5 mahazar was prepared. MO3 series were smeared with Phenolphthalein and gave back to PW1. Then they proceeded to Guruvayur along with PW.11 and party. He would further depose that he had witnessed the demand and acceptance _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 12 of money by the appellant from PW.1 and that the appellant was subjected to phenolphthalein test which turned positive and that the appellant was arrested. PW5 also would depose that MO3 series were handed over to him by the appellant on command by PW11 and that the identity MO3 was verified with reference to Ext.P5. PW5 had also proved Ext.P5 and P6 in which PW5 is also an attestor. 9. PW.10 is the Assistant Divisional Manager, employed in the Oriental Insurance Company. He would corroborate with the evidence of PW.5. PW.11 had given descriptive evidence regarding the trap and the arrest of the appellant as well as the recovery of M.O.3 series currencies and the phenolphthalein test. He had proved Ext.P5 and P6 mahazars. M.O.1 is the sodium carbonate solution, which was used for testing the right hand of the appellant. M.O.2 is the sodium carbonate solution used for testing the left hand of the appellant. The evidence of PW11, which corroborates with the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 10 regarding the trap, inspires confidence. 10. PW.6 was examined by the prosecution to establish that PW.11 and party had stayed at Thulasidalam Lodge. PW.7, a booth operator at Poonkunnam had deposed that PW.1 had telephoned the appellant from his booth on the way to Guruvayur. PW.8 was examined to prove that the _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 13 appellant had lodged at Woodlands Hotel. PW.9 was examined to prove that the appellant had parked a motor bike bearing Reg. No. TN 37 A 6039 at the parking ground where PW.9 was a watchman and that thereafter the appellant had proceeded to Guruvayur. PW.12 is an Assistant Engineer who prepared Ext.P12 site plan. PW.14 was examined to prove the process of investigation and the filing of the charge sheet. 11. On a careful reading of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, I find that the prosecution had succeeded to establish that the appellant stated to PWs 1 to 4 and one Prasad that he could arrange employment to the post of Deputy Manager in the National Textiles Corporation to persons who are having degree in Business Management and that the appellant offered to arrange a job to PW.2, 3,4 and to one Prasad on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and accordingly, PWs 2 to 4 and Prasad handed over Rs. 50,000/- each as 1st instalment on 5.9.2000 for which Exts. P1 to P3 receipts were issued to PW.2, Prasad and PW.4. 12. The case of the appellant is that he was suspended from service and was badly in need of money and that PW.1 was acquainted with the appellant while PW.1 was studying at Coimbatore and that PW1 offered to arrange loans and it was thus the appellant availed loans and not on any _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 14 promise to arrange any job to PW 2, 3 or to Prasad. That defence would show that the appellant practically admitted acceptance of cash from PW2 to 4 and Prasad and the issuance of the receipts. There is nothing on record to show that it was a loan transaction. The defence plea is not at all supported by any evidence. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that at Guruvayur, PW.1 offered to pay the amount as a loan so as to enable the appellant to pay back to PW3 who insisted to return the loan earlier availed. PW3 was the brother of Sasidharan, the then Circle Inspector of Police and the appellant was forced to pay back the amount. It is on the offer of PW.1 to arrange money to pay back to PW3, the appellant had been to Guruvayur. That explanation indicates that the appellant had been to Guruvayur to take money from PW1. Then for what purpose alone remains to be established. Prosecution alleges that it was as bribe. Appellant alleges that it was as loan. PW1 supports prosecution. Defence plea is not supported by any evidence. In the above circumstance, I reject the defence plea of loan. It is the further case of the appellant that though PW.1 had offered to arrange loan, no money was handed over, but a pouch was handed over to the appellant stating that he would come back after visiting the temple. The learned counsel for the appellant heavily attacked the failure _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 15 of the prosecution to produce the pouch. Going by the evidence of PWs 1, 5,10 and 11, it is revealed that the pouch was belonging to PW.1 and it was not smeared with phenolphthalein powder and that PW.1 had not at all handed over the pouch to the appellant. On the other hand, PW.1 took over M.O.3 currencies from the pouch and handed over to the appellant. It is not in dispute that the pouch was not the subject matter of the prosecution. Though PWs 1,5,10 and 11 were subjected to very lengthy and searching cross examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve those witnesses. This evidence instil confidence. The learned counsel for the appellant heavily assailed the failure of the prosecution for not procuring local witnesses. It has to be remembered that the place of occurrence was in front of the Guruvayur Temple. There may be independent witnesses available. But, many of them would be pilgrims and thereby chance witnesses. Many may not care to heed. However, PW11 did not dare to take chance. Instead, PW11 arranged PWs 5 and 10, who are senior officials in the public sector undertakings. PWs 5 and 10, as I have stated earlier, were subjected to lengthy and searching cross examination. There was no suggestion to those witnesses that they had got any axe to grind against the appellant or that they were otherwise loyal to the prosecution to trap the appellant. They are _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 16 independent and credible witnesses. In the above circumstances, I find that the failure of the prosecution to seize the pouch or to get a local witness is not much fatal and there is no good reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 5 and 10, which corroborated with the evidence of PWs 1 and 11 in all material particulars. Their evidence is further corroborated by Exts.P5 and P6. It is pertinent to note that the very case of the appellant is that he had demanded money from PW.1 and it was for repayment of the loan to PW3, who is the defacto complainant in C.C. 742/2000. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW.3 is the brother of the Circle Inspector of Police and that the appellant having feared severe consequences, agreed to pay back the amount and to settle C.C. 742/2000. Such being the defence version, the non seizure of the pouch is not at all significant. It is also crucial to note that in the event somebody asked for advancement of loan and agreeing to pay it, in the usual course, it would not be paid along with pouch. So, in that way also, the non-seizure of the pouch is not very significant. On the other hand the demand for money from PW1 is practically admitted. 13. On a careful analysis of the evidence of PWs 1, 5, 10 and 11 and going by the judgment impugned in the light of the defence version, I find _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 17 that the learned Special Judge had correctly analyzed the evidence and believed the prosecution case regarding the demand of money by the appellant and handing over M.O.3 series amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. The defence plea is not at all believable or probable. The Special Judge had analyzed the evidence in detail and had given good reasons to arrive at a conclusion in favour of the prosecution. The identity of M.O.3 series entrusted back to PW.1 for the purpose of trap is specifically noted in Ext.P5. The evidence of PW.1, 5, 10 and 11 regarding the identity of the currency notes were scrutinized with reference to Ext.P5 after the trap. The identity of the currency notes is also specifically mentioned in Ext.P6. Ext.P6 mahazar also corroborates with the evidence of PWs 1, 5,10 and 11. So I conclude that the prosecution has succeeded to establish that the appellant had received Rs. 10,000/- on 7.10.2000 as alleged by the prosecution in addition to Rs.2,00,000/- that the appellant had received on 5.9.2000. 14. The question then comes is as to whether such receipt of the amount would amount to acceptance of illegal gratification coming under Section 7 or it would amount to criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or both. _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 18 15. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to my attention the decision reported in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. ( 2006(1) SCC 401) and argued that in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification, no guilt of the accused can be established. Going by the evidence of PWs 1, 5,10 and 11, I find that there is sufficient evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.10,000/- (MO3 series) as illegal gratification, on 7.10.2000. Regarding the acceptance of amount on 5.9.2000, there is evidence of PWs 1 to 4 supported by Exts.P1 to P3. So, the ratio of the above decision has no application to the case on hand. The learned counsel had also canvassed my attention to the decision in Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas (2005(12) SCC 576). There also, it was held that to establish an offence, the demand by the accused shall be proved by the prosecution. The decision reported in Banarsi Dass V. State of Haryana ((2010) 4 SCC 450) was also brought to my attention and argued that the demand and acceptance shall be established beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecution had to let cogent evidence in that regard. In the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 5, 10 and 11, which I had stated earlier, the ratio of the above decisions also has no application to the case on hand. _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 19 16. The learned counsel for the appellant had further submitted that the appellant was working as a Senior Assistant and that he was not in a position to give appointments to the post of Deputy Manager. According to the learned counsel, since he was not the appointing authority, it could not be said that he had received illegal gratification for doing an official duty. The learned counsel had placed reliance on the decision reported in State of Punjab v. Sohan Singh ((2009) 6 SCC 444). In that case to interfere with the conviction, the Apex Court at para 15held thus: “ ………………. The respondent, who was a Junior Engineer, according to PW.9 had no role to play in the matter. Priority in the matter of grant of connection could only be granted by the higher authorities in the Board. It was in the aforementioned factual scenario, the defence of the respondent must be considered.” On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the CBI submitted that in the light of the Explanation (d) to Section 7 of the PC Act, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any merit. A reading of Explanation (d) to Section 7 would be appropriate. (d) " A motive or reward for doing". A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression." _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 20 According to the learned counsel, it is immaterial whether the person receives gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or he is not in a position to do. Learned standing counsel also canvassed my attention to the decision in Sebastian v. State (1987 (2) KLT 443). That was a case in which the accused, who was employed in the Health Service of the Kerala State as a Health Officer, demanded illegal gratification for issuing a life certificate. Issuing a life certificate is not part of the duty of the medical officer. Any Gazetted Officer could issue it. Though it was not the duty of the accused there in, who was working as a Medical Officer, to issue life certificate he demanded illegal gratification and though it was held by this Court that even if it is not part of the discharge of the official duties, an offence under Section 161 IPC (as then it was) was committed. According to the learned standing counsel, Section 7 of the PC Act is almost a reproduction of Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. But it is pertinent to note that the accused therein was also competent to issue certificate for which gratification was accepted. 17. The learned standing counsel also had canvassed my attention to the decision reported in V.K. Kannan v. State (AIR 2010 SC 166) and submitted that in a case where there is proof regarding the acceptance of _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 21 illegal gratification, offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) is deemed to be established. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 would show that the appellant demanded money from them to secure the job of a Deputy Manager to PWs 2 to 4 and one Prasad by using his influence. There is no mention that the appellant stated to PWs 1 to 4 that he was the appointing authority or that on getting any amount he would issue the appointment order to the post of Deputy Manager though he was not the appointing authority. On the other hand, the very offer was that he could exercise his influence to the appointing authority to secure the employment. So, it is very evident that the demand by the appellant was not as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person. Though explanation (d) to Section 7 quoted above mentions that reward for doing what he does not intend or he is not in a position to do or has not done, would come within the expression of a motive or reward for doing. In my opinion, to attract offence u/s 7, the demand shall be for doing an official act though the appellant was not in a position to do. Here, the demand was on promise that he would influence the appointing authority _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 22 which is no way connected with his official function. It is only an abuse of the office. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 would show that the payments were not made for discharging any official duty. It was only for the appellant influencing the appointing authority which is not part of his official duty. It is for an action independent of the power or colour of the office. Suppose the demand and acceptance was for doing an official act, though he may not be able to do or intended to do, the position would have been different. Since the demand and acceptance was not for doing an official act, but for doing an act which is not official, I find that no offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is established. On the other hand, the evidence on record is more than sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant had abused his position as a Senior Assistant in a Public Sector Undertaking and abusing his position as a public servant he had obtained for himself gratification other than legal which would come within the definition of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and it is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence I find that the conviction and sentence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not sustainable whereas the conviction for offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w Section 13(2) is sustainable. Having regard to the _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 23 fact that the appellant was not even a high ranking officer but only a Senior Assistant, I find that the sentence awarded by the trial court is on a higher side and that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh) would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 7 and confirming the conviction for offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2), the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh). In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year. Out of the fine amount, if realized, Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to PW.1 as compensation as ordered by the trial court. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/- _**CRL. A. 785/2002**_ 24 **P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------Crl.A.No.785 OF 2002 ---------------------------** **Dated 14[th] February, 2011** **J U D G M E N T**