Festival donation or bribe? Kerala High Court upholds conviction of forest officer held in Rs 20,000 trap

Justice A Badharudeen noted that once foundational facts are proven, the judiciary has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact regarding the demand. 

The order added that in such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

Corruption trap and claim of ‘festival fund’

The applicant, Muheshkumar K, while serving as a section forest officer in Mukkudam, was accused of demanding Rs 20,000 from a timber merchant in December 2012. The bribe was allegedly a motive for permitting the transportation of mango and jackfruit timber.

Following an initial payment of Rs 10,000, the complainant approached the Kerala police along with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Idukki. A successful trap was executed on December 15, 2012, during which the appellant was caught red-handed accepting a subsequent bribe amount of Rs 5,000.

Forensic tests involving phenolphthalein powder confirmed that the appellant had handled the currency notes, as his fingers turned pink when dipped in a sodium carbonate solution.

Appearing for the appellant, advocate Nireesh Mathew argued that the money recovered was not a bribe but a voluntary donation collected for the Chirappu Mahotsavam festival at the Anachal Ayyappa Temple.

Court’s findings

The court noted that, regarding the mode of proof of a bribe demand, if the bribe giver makes an offer to pay without any demand from the public servant, and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it constitutes acceptance under Section 7 (offence relating to public servant being bribed) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act,1988.

While rejecting the appellant’s defence, noting that the temple was located in a different forest section than where the appellant was stationed, the court agreed with the special court observation and reiteriated the defence testimony as a “ruse to save a companion” and found it insufficient to displace the legal presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act that gratification was accepted as a bribe.

Addressing the appellant’s challenge to the complainant’s credibility, the court noted that once the prosecution proved the foundational facts through relevant oral or documentary evidence, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact regarding whether an illegal demand was made.

Upholding the special court decision, the order said, the special court imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the PC Act, 1988, and the minimum punishment provided for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 is one year and in such circumstance, no reduction in sentence also practically possible.