THIPPANNA G M Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the accused in C.C.4/2002 on the file of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam. He was the Plant Quarantine and Fumigating Instructor/Technical Officer- III/Plant Quarantine Inspector in Plant Quarantine and Fumigation Station, Wellington Island, Cochin and as such he is a public servant coming under the definition of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For exporting plant products like spices, grains, cashew etc. a Phytosanitary certificate certifying that the consignment is free from pests and diseases is required. For import goods also such a certificate is required. As soon as the goods are ready for shipment, an application for the certificate addressed to the Plant Quarantine Officer has to be filed. In pursuance to such application, the goods proposed to be exported would be inspected by the Plant Quarantine Inspector and only after satisfying that the goods proposed to be exported are free from pests, the goods should be allowed to be stuffed in containers for export. As soon as the goods are stuffed in the container and shipped, a certificate would be issued by the Plant Quarantine Officer, in the event it is recommended by the Plant Quarantine Inspector that the goods are free from pests and disease. On 27.4.2001 at 9.30a.m a fax message, which is marked as Ext.P1, was obtained to the office of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Cochin, who was on leave. PW2, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was in charge of the Superintendent of Police, earmarked Ext.P1 to PW1, the Sub Inspector. In Ext.P1, it is stated that the appellant had been habitually demanding and accepting illegal gratification for issuing the Phytosanitary Certificates and that the appellant had been proposing to leave to Bangalore with lakhs of rupees thus collected. PW1, on getting Ext.P1, deputed a Constable by name Somanathan to have a discrete enquiry. In Ext.P1, the official as well as the residential address of the appellant was mentioned along with telephone numbers. The Constable located the house of the appellant and realised that the appellant had been planning to go out in an ambassador taxi car. Message was conveyed to PW1. PW1 along with PW18, another Inspector, and two independent witnesses of whom one was examined as PW9 proceeded to the house of the appellant. The appellant was about to board the taxi car bearing No.KLO-6988. PW1 disclosed his identity and enquired as to whether the appellant was carrying any cash or valuables with him. The appellant answered negatively. Later, he told that he was carrying a few thousands of rupees in the suitcase. The suitcase was offered to PW1. It was opened and examined. In the pockets of the two, out of the three, pants found inside the bag, there were currency notes totally amounting to rupees 82,950/-. There was a jewellery box containing a gold necklace weighing about 2-1/2 sovereigns. It was stated by the appellant that the necklace was purchased by him from Alappat Jewellery, M.G.Road. The appellant conceded that the amount carried by him in the briefcase was collected by him as bribe during his discharge of his official duties. The cash and the gold ornaments along with the briefcase were seized after preparing Ext.P2 recovery mahazar. PW1 enquired the matter with Alappat Jewellery and satisfied that the necklace was purchased from Alappat Jewellery. Returning to the office, PW1, as instructed by PW2, registered a case as RC 13/A by Ext.P3 FIR. MO1 series are the currency notes and MO2 is the necklace seized as per Ext.P2. As instructed by PW2, PW18 searched the office and residence of the appellant. Ext.P19 is the search list prepared after the searching of the house. Ext.P20 series are certain documents searched out. Ext.P22 is the search list prepared for searching the office from where Ext.P23 series documents were seized. The investigation was taken over by PW21, another Inspector. PW21 after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet alleging offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act'.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and issued process responding to which the appellant entered appearance. After furnishing copies of the final report and copies of connected documents, the prosecution and the appellant were heard. On finding that there are materials to send the appellant for trial, a charge for the above offence was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty when the charge was read over and explained. Hence, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution PWs1 to 21 were examined and Exts.P1 to P61 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he admitted his official status and denied the incriminating evidence. Further, he stated that the amount seized was the money that the appellant obtained as loan and that the appellant was innocent and that he was prosecuted with ulterior motives. A Draftsman attached to the Cochin Shipyard and a Clerk attached to a private company were examined as DWs1 and 2. DW1 had deposed that on 18.4.2001, he pledged some ornaments of his wife and obtained a sum of Rs.22,000/- and that on 26.4.2001, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was advanced to the appellant, who is a close friend and neighbour. DW2 had deposed that he had given a loan of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- on 8.3.2001 and 19.3.2001 respectively after pledging the ornaments of his wife. A Plant Protection Officer attached to Regional Plant Quarantine Station, Madras was examined as DW3, through whom Ext.D2 Register was marked.

(3.) The learned Judge, upon hearing the arguments on either side and perusing the evidence on record, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded to establish that the appellant had been habitually demanding and receiving illegal gratification for the discharge of his official duties. Consequently, the appellant was found guilty for offence under Section 13(1)(a) read with under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. MO1 series currency notes amounting to Rs.82,950/- were found as the amount of bribe accepted by the appellant. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. MO1 series were ordered to be confiscated. MO2 was ordered to be returned to the appellant. Assailing the above conviction and sentence this appeal was filed.