Legal Heirs To Pay Fine From Accounts Inherited From Him: Kerala High Court Upholds Deceased Contractor’s Conviction In Corruption Case
Says trial court’s conclusion on demand and acceptance of bribe was well supported by evidence
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a deceased government contractor and a Superintending Engineer in a corruption case for offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the IPC, holding that the findings of guilt recorded by the trial court were legally sound and supported by evidence on record.
In the present matter, the substantive sentence of imprisonment stood abated due to the death of the contractor, as a custodial sentence cannot survive against a deceased person. However, the Court clarified that while imprisonment cannot be enforced, the liability to pay fine, being a pecuniary penalty, survived against the legal heirs of the deceased.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “…the prosecution succeeded in proving that the 1st and 2nd accused hatched criminal conspiracy with the common object of deriving undue pecuniary advantage and by adopting corrupt or illegal means and in pursuance of the said conspiracy and by misutilising clauses 31 and 32 of LCB executed S.A Nos.3 and 6 resulting in pecuniary advantage of Rs.34,78,415/- to the 2nd accused and corresponding loss to the Government”.
“…taking into consideration of the gravity of the offences, the sentence imposed against the 2nd accused is confirmed. As far as the sentence imposed on the 1st accused is concerned, since he is no more, the execution of the substantive sentence stood abated. Therefore the execution of the sentence in relation to the 1st accused shall be confined to realisation of fine from the accounts, if any, inherited by the legal heirs of the 1st accused, including the additional appellants in Crl. Appeal No.106/2011”, the bench further observed.
Senior Advocate B.G. Harindranath appeared for the appellant and Rekha. S, Senior Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
As per the facts in the present matter, there were allegations that the contractor had demanded and accepted illegal gratification in connection with execution of civil contractual works. A trap was laid by the vigilance authorities after a complaint was lodged, and tainted currency notes were allegedly recovered during the operation.
The Special Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution had successfully established the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The contractor and the Engineer were consequently convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.
However, during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the contractor passed away. The Court though proceeded to examine the legality and correctness of the conviction on merits. It noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been properly invoked once recovery of tainted money was proved, and that the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumption with a plausible explanation.
The High Court observed that the evidence of the complainant and trap witnesses remained consistent and credible, and there were no material contradictions affecting the prosecution case. It held that mere minor discrepancies could not demolish an otherwise cogent case establishing demand and acceptance of bribe.
“Thus the conclusion to be reached by the Court is that regarding the above items, as part of a conspiracy hatched between the 1st and 2nd accused, before the retirement of the 1st accused, some claims were raised by the 2nd accused and in a hurry-burry manner the 1st accused granted the same on the date of his retirement. It is judicially noticeable that the 1st accused also granted amounts to various contractors on the last date of his retirement in a similar fashion and caused huge loss to the State exchequer”, the bench further noted.
Therefore, on finding no perversity or illegality in the reasoning of the Special Court, the High Court affirmed the conviction recorded under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, thereby upholding the finding of guilt despite the death of the appellant during the appellate proceedings.
Cause Title: T.O. Abraham v. State Of Kerala [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:9212]
Appearances:
Appellant: Amith Krishnan H., B.G. Harindranath (Sr.), Sundeep Abraham, Anna Mary Mathew, Manavi Muraleedharan, Advocates.
Respondent: Rajesh. A, Special Public Prosecutor, Rekha. S, Senior Public Prosecutor, Advocates.