Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction in Corruption Case with Modified Sentence
Appellant's Sentence Reduced to Statutory Minimum Following Mitigating Circumstances
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of A.K. Rajendran, a Village Assistant, for charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while modifying his sentence to the statutory minimum due to mitigating circumstances. The judgment, delivered by Mr. A. Badharudeen, J., reaffirms the legal principles surrounding the demand and acceptance of bribes under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.
The appellant was initially sentenced by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, following allegations that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 25,000 from Paul Varghese, a landowner, as an inducement to not reduce the valuation of land improvements and expedite compensation disbursement for land acquired for the Kochi International Airport. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the complainant and trap witnesses, corroborated by documentary evidence.
Despite the appellant's argument that he was made a scapegoat, the High Court found the evidence of demand and acceptance to be credible and sufficient. The Court noted the essential role of the appellant in the valuation process, corroborated by witnesses and documentary evidence, which justified the original conviction.
The judgment referenced key legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), which elucidates the necessity of proving demand and acceptance for convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court emphasized that mere acceptance without proven demand does not constitute an offence under the Act.
The appellant's counsel cited recent Supreme Court decisions to argue for sentence modification, highlighting the appellant's relatively lower hierarchical position and lack of direct influence over land valuation. The Kerala High Court agreed to reduce the sentence to the statutory minimum, considering these circumstances but remained within legal constraints that prevent reduction below statutory minimums.
The appellant is now sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), and six months of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 35,000 under Section 7 of the Act. The substantive sentences will run concurrently, with separate terms for default on fines.
The Court directed the appellant to surrender within two weeks to serve the modified sentence, highlighting the judiciary's commitment to upholding anti-corruption laws while acknowledging mitigating factors in sentencing.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Demand and acceptance of bribe - Proof of demand is sine qua non to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act - Direct or circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to prove the demand - Conviction upheld with modification of sentence to statutory minimum.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2); Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 319
A.K.Rajendran v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2790067
