PC Act | Even If Not Statutorily Authorised, Demanding a Bribe to Influence an Official Act Is Corruption: Kerala High Court

“Proof of Demand and Acceptance Is Sine Qua Non—Presumption Under Section 20 Follows Foundational Facts”, In a significant reaffirmation of the settled law under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Kerala High Court on 12 January 2026 upheld the conviction of a Village Man for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹500 from a property owner seeking land mutation, holding that “a public servant need not be statutorily empowered to attract the rigours of the PC Act if he demands illegal gratification to influence an official process.”

Justice A. Badharudeen ruled that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was well-founded in both fact and law. While modifying the sentence to the statutory minimum, the Court refused to interfere with the conviction, observing:

“The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the foundational facts of demand and acceptance—once that is established, the legal presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act follows, unless rebutted.”

“Whether He Was Authorised to Measure Land Is Irrelevant—It’s the Demand for Bribe That Matters”

The core defence advanced by the appellant, who was a Class IV Village Man in the Payyampally Village Office, was that he was not legally competent to measure land, and hence the entire premise of the bribery charge was flawed. The Court rejected this outright, stating:

“Even if the accused was not statutorily empowered to carry out land measurement, once he held out that he would do so and demanded a bribe for facilitating the mutation, his conduct falls squarely within the mischief of Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.”

Relying on testimony of the complainant (PW1), the decoy witness (PW2), and corroborating circumstantial evidence, the Court held that the accused had indeed demanded ₹950 initially, later reduced to ₹500, to carry out mutation-related processes.

The Court emphasised:

“When a layman approaches a public office and an official demands money while holding himself out as being capable of assisting in the official process, the citizen is entitled to rely on such representation—this alone is sufficient to attract culpability under the PC Act.”

“Demand and Acceptance Are Twin Pillars—Both Were Established Beyond Doubt”

The Court invoked the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330, as laying down the controlling principles in corruption cases. Reiterating the ratio, the Court stated:

“Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the sine qua non to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.”

Justice Badharudeen noted that PW1’s oral testimony, corroborated by the decoy witness and the successful phenolphthalein test, clearly satisfied this legal threshold:

“There is cogent oral evidence supported by recovery of tainted money and scientific test results—this satisfies the burden of proving demand and acceptance.”

The Court also rejected the defence’s attempt to create doubt through minor inconsistencies in witness positioning during the trap, holding:

“Mere minor contradictions that do not touch the core issue of demand and acceptance cannot shake the prosecution’s case.”

“Presumption Under Section 20 Follows Proof of Foundational Facts—Accused Failed to Rebut It”

Applying the principles set forth in Neeraj Dutta, the Court noted that once demand and acceptance are proved, Section 20 of the PC Act mandates the court to raise a legal presumption that the gratification was for a corrupt motive.

“The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption with credible evidence—here, the accused did not even step into the witness box, nor lead any evidence. The presumption therefore stands.”

The Court further noted that the accused’s claim that the complainant forcibly inserted money into his pocket was not supported by any evidence and contradicted the sequence of events documented by the trap team.

“Conviction Sustained, But Sentence Reduced to Statutory Minimum Considering Circumstances”

While affirming the conviction, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence:

“Considering the time elapsed, the nature of the bribe, and submissions of the defence, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence to the least minimum permissible under law.”

Accordingly, the sentence was modified as follows:

• For the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act: Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of ₹5,000.

• For the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2): Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of ₹5,000.

Both sentences were directed to run concurrently, and the Court ordered:

“The accused shall surrender forthwith before the Special Court to serve the modified sentence. Failing which, the Court shall take steps to execute the sentence.”

“Bribe Is Bribe, Even If Just ₹500—Law Doesn’t Tolerate Any Illegal Gratification by Public Servants”

In conclusion, the Court held:

“Whether the gratification is ₹500 or ₹5 lakh, the law is clear—demanding or accepting bribes by public servants corrodes the very core of governance and public trust. Conviction under the PC Act cannot be diluted on such grounds.”

The judgment sends a strong message that even lower-rung public servants who exploit citizens seeking basic services will face penal consequences, regardless of the amount involved or their formal competence.

Date of Decision: 12 January 2026