Negative Phenolphthalein Test No Aid To Accused When Bribe Was Placed In Measurement Book At His Direction: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the absence of a positive result in the phenolphthalein test on the hands of an accused public servant does not help him escape prosecution, where the bribe money was placed inside the measurement book as demanded and directed by him, and he was nabbed before he could take it.

The Court observed that the evidence of the complainant, the then Vice President of the Panchayat, the decoy witness and the Trap Laying Officer proved that the accused had demanded and accepted ₹4,000 as bribe for passing the bill for a drinking water pond work, in continuation of his earlier demand.

The Court confirmed the conviction of the former Assistant Engineer of Arakulam Grama Panchayat under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). On his counsel’s request, it reduced the sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment, the minimum applicable when the offence was committed, and partly allowed the appeal.

The Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “It is true that, on conduct of the phenolphthalein test on the hands of the appellant, no positive result was yielded. This happened because of the reason that the money was put by PW1 inside the M-book as demanded and directed by the appellant, as deposed by him. Thereafter, before taking the sum by the appellant, he was nabbed by the trap team. Therefore, this aspect would not give any aid to the appellant to get out of the prosecution.”

Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Public Prosecutor Roy Thomas Muvattupuzha appeared for the State.

Brief Facts

The complainant was the Convener of the work of constructing the Pothumattom drinking water pond in Ward No. 3 of Arakulam Panchayat, with an estimate of ₹50,000. After completing the work in 2003, he approached the appellant, then the Assistant Engineer of the Panchayat, to take measurements and pass the bill.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant took ₹1,000 from the complainant on 20.05.2003 for measuring the work. Later, he told the complainant that the work could be assessed only at ₹24,000, and that ₹10,000 would have to be paid to have the bill passed for the entire estimated amount. The demand was later reduced to ₹5,000, and the complainant agreed to pay ₹4,000.

The complainant lodged a complaint with the Vigilance. In 2003, as directed by the appellant, he went to a room of a tourist home at Moolamattom, where the appellant was staying with the measurement book (M-book). There, the appellant asked whether the money demanded had been brought and told him to put it in the M-book on the table. The trap team then reached the room, and the phenolphthalein-smeared notes were recovered from under the M-book.

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act and acquitted him of the charge under Section 120B of the IPC. The second accused, an Overseer on daily wages, was acquitted of all the offences. The appeal against the conviction had been pending before the High Court since 2010.

Contentions of the Parties

The appellant contended that the complainant’s evidence was not free from doubt. He pointed out that a copy of a petition the complainant had filed before the High Court to get his amount cleared contained a different version, namely that he had laid the trap at the instance of the Panchayat Vice President. He further submitted that there was no colour change when his hands were subjected to the phenolphthalein test, and that the notes had been forcefully put in the M-book to trap him.

The prosecution contended that the contradiction relied on was not legally tendered in evidence, as the complainant had stated that he could not read English and the contents of the petition were never put to him. It submitted that the place of occurrence and the manner in which the trap money was seized from the M-book relating to the complainant’s work showed that his evidence was of sterling quality. It added that the former Vice President had given candid evidence about the appellant’s demand for a bribe before the trap.

Observations/Findings of the Court

On the alleged contradiction, the Court noted that when the complainant was confronted with the petition, he said he could not read and understand English, and the trial court marked the document at that stage. It observed that the cross-examining counsel “made no attempt to explain the contents of Ext.D1, which were in English, in a language known to PW1 to make him to understood with option for him to either deny or accept the same.”

The Court held that the document, “though merely marked in evidence, was not used to contradict PW1, in a manner known to law.”

The Court held that the former Vice President’s evidence assumed significance in this context. He had deposed that when he met the appellant at the tourist home, the appellant told him that a cheque would be issued within two hours if ₹5,000 were paid.

Relying on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State, the Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and that it can be proved by direct oral or documentary evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the appellant demanded and accepted ₹4,000 in 2003 as bribe, in continuation of his earlier demand of ₹10,000, which was reduced to ₹5,000 and then to ₹4,000.

Accordingly, while confirming the conviction, the Court sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of ₹10,000 for each offence, with the substantive sentences to run concurrently. It cancelled the order suspending the sentence and directed him to surrender before the Special Court forthwith.

Cause Title: V.G. Balanchandraji v. State of Kerala [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:84870]

Appearances:

Appellant: Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu, Advocates P. Maya and P.M. Rafiq.

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Roy Thomas Muvattupuzha.

Click here to read/download the Judgment