STATE OF KERALA Vs. M. KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the facts and circumstances of the case and the offence alleged against the accused is punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the issue involved in the present appeal is a pure question of law and facts, therefore, the delay caused in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned. Leave granted.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, accused Nos. 1 and 2 while working as Excise Prevention Officers, Excise Range, Hosdurg visited Toddy Shop No.36, Ambalathara, Hosdurg, Taluk at about 7:30 pm on 21/3/2001 and threatened Shri P.J. Joseph, who was looking after the affairs of the shop and demanded Rs.2,000.00­ from him. They asked him to bring the said amount at the Excise Range Office on 24/3/2001. As PW1 - original complainant lodged a complaint against the accused persons with the Vigilance Department on 24/3/2001, a FIR was registered on the said complaint by the Vigilance Dy.SP. After completing the necessary formalities at 3:15 pm the raid party and PW8 reached the Excise Range Office and the PW1 was informed to give signal to the Policemen who were standing on the road side after giving the money to the accused persons. As per the case of the prosecution, in pursuance of the demand, accused Nos. 1 and 2 accepted an amount of Rs.1,000.00­ and Rs.500.00­, respectively from the complainant at 3:35 pm on 24/3/2001 at the Excise Range Office and thereby, committed offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigating officer filed the chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Both came to be tried by the learned Special Court and they denied the charges levelled against them.

(3.) Having gone through the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused for the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is apparent that the High Court has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the twin conditions of demand and acceptance has not been established and proved. The High Court has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his LR Vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 8 SCC 136. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied upon a three­judge bench decision of this Court in the case of M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P.; (2001) 1 SCC 691.