Bribe Is a Bribe, Even If It’s Just ₹200: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction of Telecom Mechanic, Reduces Sentence

“Phenolphthalein-Stained Truth: Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification Proven Beyond Doubt”, In a case that reinforces the principle that even small bribes are criminal, the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of a telecom mechanic under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while reducing the sentence imposed by the trial court to the statutory minimum.

Justice A. Badharudeen, a public servant working as a Telecom Mechanic at the Irumpupalam Telephone Exchange, who had demanded and accepted a bribe of ₹500 in two installments in exchange for installing a telephone connection under the OYT Scheme.

“FIR Before Trap – Not After”

One of the central contentions of the appellant was that the trap laid by the CBI was illegal as it allegedly preceded the formal registration of the First Information Report (FIR). The Court, however, found this argument baseless. The FIR was registered at 11:15 AM, while the trap was carried out at 2:00 PM, and the complaint had been received the previous evening.

Justice Badharudeen wrote: “Since the FIR was registered at 11.15 a.m. and the trap was at 2.00 p.m., it could not be held that the trap was without registering a crime.”

He added that just because the FIR completion extended till 3.30 p.m., the legality of the trap is not affected. The Court held that the complaint was genuine, even if CBI officials had assisted a poor complainant in drafting it.

“Demand and Acceptance – Proven Beyond Doubt”

The prosecution case was simple: on 11 June 2005, the accused demanded ₹500 from the complainant, PW1 Subaida Aliyar, for installing her telephone connection. On 15 June, she paid ₹200, with a promise to pay the rest when her husband would send money from abroad.

PW1 then contacted the CBI, and based on her complaint, a trap was organized. On 1 July 2005, at exactly 2:00 PM, the accused came to her house and accepted ₹200 as part of the bribe. He was caught red-handed. Phenolphthalein test confirmed the presence of the tainted currency on the accused’s hands and clothing.

“The prosecution successfully proved demand and acceptance of Rs.200/- by the accused from the complainant as bribe in connection with the supply of OYT Scheme telephone to PW1.”

“Independent Witnesses Corroborate Entire Sequence”

The prosecution’s case was fortified by strong corroborative evidence. The testimony of PW3, a woman constable with the CBI who was part of the trap team, and PW7, an independent witness and Deputy Manager of SBI, aligned perfectly with that of the complainant.

PW3 detailed the entire sequence — from the initial planning to the final arrest — and her cross-examination revealed no inconsistencies. PW7 testified to the phenolphthalein demonstration, recording of phone calls, presence during the acceptance of the bribe, and recovery of the currency notes.

The High Court was satisfied that there was no contradiction or fabrication.

“Not Entitled to Temptation Defence”

The accused argued that he had been "tempted" or "induced" by the complainant and CBI officers, citing the Supreme Court’s observations in Ram Janam Singh v. State of Bihar.

But the Court rejected this outright, noting:

“The evidence shows consistent demand and receipt of money. There is no element of coercion or entrapment as claimed by the accused. This was not a case of luring an innocent man into crime.”

“Sentence Reduced, But Conviction Remains”

While affirming the conviction, the High Court modified the sentence, considering the small amount involved and the long delay in disposal of the appeal (almost two decades). The trial court had sentenced the accused to 1 year under Section 7 and 3 years under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. This was reduced to:

“Six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹5,000 under Section 7. One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000 under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2).”

Justice Badharudeen made it clear: “Substantive sentence shall run separately. Default sentences shall run concurrently.”

The appellant was directed to surrender immediately, and the order staying execution of the sentence was vacated.

“Demand and Acceptance are Sine Qua Non”
The Court followed the principles laid down in Neeraj Dutta v. State (2023) and Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (2023), reiterating:

“Mere recovery of tainted money is not enough. Demand and acceptance must be proved, either directly or circumstantially.”

“Presumption Under Section 20 Applies”
Once demand and acceptance are established, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act kicks in — and unless rebutted, the conviction is inevitable.

“FIR Must Precede Trap – And It Did”
The argument that the trap was carried out before the FIR was completed was found unconvincing. The Court held that FIR registration time is crucial, not when the paperwork ended.

This judgment sends a clear message: no bribe is too small to escape prosecution. The law does not discriminate between petty corruption and grand scams — what matters is intent, demand, and acceptance.

“Even ₹200, if accepted as a bribe by a public servant, is enough to attract the full weight of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”

The Kerala High Court struck a balance between upholding public accountability and tempering punishment with proportionality, thereby reinforcing that justice is not only about conviction but about fairness.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2025