Kerala High Court Upholds Police ASI's Conviction; Reiterates Demand And Acceptance Of Bribe Must Be Proved Under PC Act

The Bench noted that the complainant’s testimony was reliable and corroborated by the decoy witness and the vigilance officials who witnessed the trap proceedings. The Court observed that minor inconsistencies in testimony recorded several years after the incident cannot be treated as material contradictions.

Justice A. Badharudeen considered the fact that the bribe money was recovered redhandedly from the possession of the accused immediately after he demanded and accepted the same. While referring to another judgment of the Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala 2025 KHC OnLine 983 further noted that proof of demand is a sine qua non for the offences to be established under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act, which was sufficiently met in the present case.

In the matter, the accused argued that the prosecution sanction was invalid, that the complainant’s testimony contained contradictions, and that the alleged demand was unclear because the accused had only asked whether the “other item” had been brought. It was also argued that the presence of a ganja packet in the drawer raised doubts about whether the demand referred to money.

However, rejecting the argument, the Bench noted, “On scrutiny of the evidence, no anomaly could be noticed in the evidence of PW1, supported by that of PW2, PW4, PW7 and other witnesses where bribe money was recovered redhandedly from the possession of the accused immediately after he demanded and accepted the same. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that ganja also was seized from the table of the accused and therefore when PW1 given evidence that the accused asked `other item’ whether it was meant for the said ganja also makes to believe the evidence of PW1 in the matter of demand, in fact, evidence of PW1 along with other evidence when read in toto in no way suggests even such a remote possibility. Thus this contention also must fail. Regarding the contention that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, no material contradiction to be found to read the same as sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case. Thus none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are found tenable”.

Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai, appeared for the appellant and Rajesh A, Special Public Prosecutor and Rekha S, Senior Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.

The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by Sudarsanan, an ASI attached to Chavara Police Station in Kollam district, challenging his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

According to the prosecution, the complainant had approached the police with a grievance regarding a property transaction dispute, and was entrusted to the accused ASI for inquiry.

It was alleged that the officer demanded ₹25,000 as bribe to take action on the complaint, later agreeing to accept ₹5,000. Acting on a vigilance complaint, officials arranged a trap on 22-04-2009, during which the complainant handed over ₹2,000 in marked currency notes to the accused at the police station.

The vigilance team conducted phenolphthalein testing and recovered the marked currency notes from the drawer of the accused’s table. The Special Court had earlier convicted the officer and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment for each offence.

On evaluating the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution had successfully established both demand and acceptance of the bribe, and therefore the conviction recorded by the Special Court did not require interference.

However, considering the circumstances of the case, the Court reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum. The Court sentenced the accused to six months’ rigorous imprisonment with a ₹5,000 fine for the offence under Section 7, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a ₹10,000 fine for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), with the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

Cause Title: Sudarsanan v. State Of Kerala CRL.A NO. 1229 OF 2014

Appearances:

Appellant: B. Raman Pillai, Senior Advocate, R. Anil, T. Anil Kumar, Manu Tom, Sujesh Menon V.B., Thomas Abraham, M. VIVEK, Advocates.

Respondent: Rajesh A, Special Public Prosecutor, Rekha S, Senior Public Prosecutor.

Click here to read/download the Judgment