V. Chandran's appeal results in reduced jail time for bribery charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of V. Chandran, a former Village Man at Payyampally Village Office, for demanding and accepting a bribe. The court, however, modified his sentence, reducing the duration of imprisonment. The judgment was delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen on January 12, 2026, in the criminal appeal filed by Chandran against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court.
Chandran was initially sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court found Chandran guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 500 for facilitating the Jama rights transfer of a property. The evidence provided by the complainant (PW1), decoy witness (PW2), and the investigating officer played a crucial role in establishing the charges against Chandran.
The High Court, while agreeing with the Special Court's findings on the conviction, considered the mitigating factors and reduced the imprisonment to six months for the offence under Section 7 and one year for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), with fines for each offence. The sentences will run concurrently, with an additional provision for set-off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish guilt under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Despite the appellant's arguments highlighting contradictions in the testimonies and challenging the credibility of the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution's case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's stance on corruption and the stringent application of the Prevention of Corruption Act to deter public servants from engaging in corrupt practices.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Conviction for demand and acceptance of bribe upheld - Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt through direct or circumstantial evidence - Proof of demand is a sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2), Evidence Act, 1872 Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code Section 428
V.Chandran v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2836969
