“Even ₹200, if accepted as a bribe by a public servant, is enough to attract the full weight of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
Sasi vs. C.B.I., Cochin – Kerala HC confirms the conviction of a telecom mechanic for taking a bribe of Rs. 200 in a CBI trap case. The court modified the sentence to the statutory minimum under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court recently upheld the conviction of a public servant in a corruption case but reduced his sentence. The appeal was filed by Sasi, a Telecom Mechanic, challenging his conviction and punishment for accepting a bribe.
The case originated from events in 2005. The prosecution, led by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleged that Sasi demanded Rs. 500 from a woman (PW1) as an illegal gratification for providing a telephone connection under the OYT Scheme. He initially accepted Rs. 200 and persistently demanded the remaining Rs. 300. Frustrated by the repeated demands, the complainant informed the CBI, which laid a trap. During the trap, the accused was caught red-handed accepting the remaining Rs. 200 at the complainant’s residence. He was subsequently charged undersection. 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The accused’s lawyer argued that the entire trap was illegal. A key contention was that the First Information Report (FIR) was registered after the trap had already been executed. He also claimed that the recorded telephone conversations (Exts.P3 and P7) showed no explicit demand for a bribe and that the complainant had allegedly induced his client.
The court however rejected this arguments. Justice A. Badharudeen meticulously examined the evidence, including the testimonies of the complainant (PW1), a female police constable who was part of the trap team (PW3), and an independent witness from the State Bank of India (PW7). The court found their accounts of the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe money to be consistent and reliable.
The judgment emphasized the legal principles governing such cases, referencing Supreme Court precedents.no bribe is too small to escape prosecution. The law does not discriminate between petty corruption and grand scams what matters is intent, demand, and acceptance.
