In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by Sivakumar, a former Lower Division Clerk (LDC) of Venganoor Grama Panchayat, seeking to quash corruption charges against him. The case, Crl.M.C No. 6594 of 2025, was heard by Justice A. Badharudeen, who upheld the prosecution's allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by Nishant Rajan, whose mother, Sasikumari, had applied for the regularization and assignment of building numbers for sheds on her property in Venganoor Village. The applications were submitted to the Venganoor Grama Panchayat in June 2012. However, no action was taken, and the complainant alleged that the Panchayat officials demanded bribes to process the applications.
The prosecution accused Sivakumar (the petitioner) and the late Sreekumaran Nair, the former Panchayat Secretary, of demanding Rs. 12,000/- as illegal gratification. Specifically, Rs. 10,000/- was allegedly for the Secretary, and Rs. 2,000/- was for Sivakumar. The bribe was reportedly accepted on January 17, 2013, at the complainant's residence.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Petition to Quash FIR in Domestic Violence Case Citing Abuse of Court Process
Arguments Presented in Court
Sivakumar's counsel argued that there was no evidence of the petitioner demanding a bribe, a crucial element to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. They contended that the charges should be quashed due to the lack of a direct demand by the petitioner.
On the other hand, the prosecution relied on the complainant's statement, which detailed the demand and acceptance of the bribe. They emphasized that the trial court had already reviewed the evidence and found sufficient grounds to proceed with the case.
Justice Badharudeen referred to the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Neeraj Dutta Vs State (AIR 2023 SC 330), which outlined the essentials for proving corruption charges under the PC Act. The Court highlighted the following key points:
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Advocate’s Request to Transfer Cases
"Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. The prosecution can prove this through direct or circumstantial evidence, and the Court may raise a presumption of fact if foundational evidence is presented."
The Court noted that the complainant's statement and other prosecution materials prima facie established the demand and acceptance of the bribe by Sivakumar. Even if the bribe was allegedly for the Secretary, the petitioner's involvement in the transaction was evident.
Case Title: Sivakumar v. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau & State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.M.C No. 6594 of 2025