“Natural Response Would Be To Give Back At Least ₹1,000”: Kerala High Court Upholds Bribery Conviction Of Village Assistant, Rejects Land-Tax Receipt Defence
The Bench noted that demand and acceptance proved by complainant’s unshaken evidence, decoy witness and trap officer; statutory minimum sentence under Prevention of Corruption Act confirmed.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that where an accused public servant receives ₹5,000 for land tax of less than ₹4,000, his natural response would be to return the balance, not pocket the money. The Court said an accused who instead kept the cash in his back pocket cannot claim it was a tax payment.
It dismissed the appeal of Anil Kumar R, a former Village Assistant, and confirmed his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It held that the receipt for ₹3,017 did not show that the ₹5,000 was tax, because the receipt was issued in addition to the bribe.
A Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “…It is relevant to note that, if the contention raised by the appellant that ₹ 5,000/- was entrusted by PW1 on the date of trap towards the payment of land tax arrears and contribution towards the Kerala Agriculture Workers’ Welfare Fund, since the amount is less than ₹ 4,000/- (i.e. 3,017/- only), there was no necessity for the accused to accept ₹ 5,000/- and put the same in his pocket. Then on acceptance of ₹5,000/-, the natural response of the accused in such circumstances would be to give back at least 1,000/- immediately on receipt of ₹ 5,000/-, noting the fact that only 3,017/- towards the land tax, ie., an amount less than ₹ 4,000/- and above ₹ 3,000/- to be obtained. Instead of doing so, the accused placed the money in his pocket from where the same was recovered by the Dy.S.P. and the trap team and the same showed pink colour change when subjected to phenolphthalein test”.
Advocate Jelson J. Edampadam appeared for the appellant K. Biju, Senior Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant, posted at the Marakkara village office in Malappuram, demanded ₹5,000 from PW1 on February 23, 2015 to remit land tax with arrears on family property, repeated the demand the next day, and accepted the money on February 25, 2015. The Vigilance trap team recovered the marked notes from his back pocket, and the phenolphthalein test turned pink.
The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode, convicted him on November 12, 2024. He was sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and four years under Section 13(2), with ₹50,000 fine on each count, to run concurrently.
His counsel argued that demand was not proved, that the complaint was not produced, that the constable who verified the demand was not examined, and that call records were not filed. He contended that the ₹5,000 was only tax plus a welfare-fund contribution, totalling ₹3,292, for which a receipt was issued.
The Court restated the principles in Neeraj Dutta v. State, including that proof of demand and acceptance is indispensable. It found PW1’s evidence consistent and unshaken in cross-examination. PW1 denied paying the welfare-fund amount, and said the ₹3,017 receipt was issued for tax paid in addition to the bribe. The decoy witness PW2 corroborated that the accused pocketed the notes and issued a receipt after PW1 paid again. The trap officer PW6 said he heard the accused demand the money on a recorded call. The Court noted that the accused admitted receiving ₹5,000, and that the defence evidence did not show that this money was tax. The Court held that demand and acceptance were established.
Cause Title: Anil Kumar R v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:77546)
Appearances:
Appellant: Jelson J. Edampadam and Saju John, Advocates.
Respondent: K. Biju, Senior Public Prosecutor.