LINGOM K Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, the accused in C.C. No. 6/2003 on the file of the Special Judge, SPE/CBI-I, Ernakulam was convicted by the learned Special Judge for offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act'). Consequently, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. For offence under Section 13(2), the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal was preferred. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

(2.) The learned Special Judge took cognizance and issued process responding to which the appellant entered appearance. On his appearance, copies of the final report and connected documents were furnished. Thereafter, the appellant and the prosecution were heard. On finding that there are materials to send the appellant for trial, a charge for the earlier said offence was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty when the charge was read over and explained. Therefore, the appellant was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 10 were examined. Exts. P1 to P22 were marked. MOs 1 to 10 were also marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the appellant was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant stated that he was supervising the work executed by CW 1 till 26.5.2002 and thereafter the work was being supervised by P W3 and that payments were effected to CW 1 for the works executed till the appellant was supervising. The appellant further stated that there was a practice of sending labour money to sub contractors by the contractors through railway employees. Two sub contractors were examined by the appellant as DWs 1 and 2 to establish that there was a practice of sending money by the contractor to the sub contractor through the railway employees. The learned Judge, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) The fact that the appellant was working as a Junior Engineer in Railway as alleged by the prosecution is not only not disputed but also admitted. In support of that allegation of prosecution, PW 3, another Junior Engineer, who was working under the appellant; and the Executive Engineer, who was examined as PW 8 had given evidence. Supporting the evidence of PWs 3 and 8, there is the evidence of the Chief Engineer as PW 9 who had accorded sanction to prosecute the appellant. The evidence of PWs 3, 8 and 9 that the appellant was working as a Junior Engineer remains unimpeached. Ext. P7, order according sanction to prosecute the appellant, issued by PW 9 also remains unimpeached. No argument was advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the evidence of the above witnesses and Ext. P7. In the above circumstance, I concur with the lower court and find that the appellant was working as a Junior Engineer, Gr. I in Railways as alleged by the prosecution and as such he was a public servant coming under Section 2(c) of the PC Act and that the prosecution was launched with due sanction obtained from PW 9 who was the authority competent to accord sanction to prosecute the appellant