RAMESH K N Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is mere recovery of tainted money from possession of accused during trap sufficient to convict him for offence under S.7 or S.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act', for short) Is mere receipt of money by a person from another sufficient to prove "acceptance" of any "gratification", for purpose of S.7 of the Act Mainly, these two questions arise for consideration in this case.

(2.) According to prosecution, PW 1 was working as Secretary of a Co - operative Society. Certain allegations were made against him that he misappropriated ' 30,000/- from the Society. Hence an enquiry was conducted against him by PW 4, a Senior Co - operative Inspector, attached to the Office of the Deputy Director of Dairy Development. The appellant and PW 4 shared the same chamber in the office and both of them went for inspection of the Society in the same car. To settle the enquiry in favour of PW 1, and as a motive or reward for doing so, appellant demanded ' 3,000/- as bribe from PW 1 on 31/12/1998 at his office. He again made demand for bribe over phone on 06/01/1999. But, PW 1 was not prepared to pay bribe. He informed PW 6, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau ('VACB' for short) and a trap was arranged.

(3.) A complaint (Ext. P1) was made by PW 1 to PW 6, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on 07/01/1999 at about 4 pm, based on which, Ext. P1(f) FIR was registered by PW 6. On the next day, on 08/01/1999 at about 11 am, as arranged, PW 1 handed over tainted currency notes (MO 1 series) to appellant at his office and it was accepted by accused. Thereafter, signals were given by PW 1, which were further conveyed by PW 2 to PW 6. Thereafter, officials rushed to the cabin of accused and Phenolphthalein test was done and it was confirmed that accused accepted ' 3,000/- (MO 1 series) from PW 1.