E T VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the 2nd accused in V.C.NO.10/2000 of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Wayanad for quashing the first information report and the entire proceedings in the crime. Petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer, Karapuzha Irrigation Project Section II / III Sulthan Batheri in Wayanad District in the Irrigation Department in Kerala Government Service. In connection with the "Janakiyasuthranam" the work of construction of kitchen room to Anganwadi building in ward No. IV of Nenmeni Panchayat was given by the Panchayat to one Mr. A.K. Chandran. He was the Convener of the above work. On the basis of the complaint made by Chandran in respect of the above work, Vigilance case 10/2000 was registered against the petitioner and 1st accused Mr. Soloman who was Overseer in-charge of the work. The allegation in the case is that the 1st accused and the petitioner demanded illegal gratification for getting the final bill for the work of the construction of kitchen to the Anganwadi building from Sri. Chandran and they accepted bribe amount of Rs .1,000/- from him.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the allegations against the accused in the above crime will not make out any offence against the petitioner which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act .It is stated for and on behalf of the petitioner that the statements in the first information report and the recovery mahazar and other documents will not go to show that the petitioner has committed any offence under the Act . The case of the petitioner is that on going through the F.I.R and other documents it will be seen that there is no allegation of demand of bribe illegal gratification made by the petitioner . The submission is that the 1st accused was the Overseer in - charge of Nenmeni Panchayat in connection with the work and the allegation is that the demand for bribe was made by the Overseer. There is allegation that Chandran , the Convener of the work met the petitioner in his office and made a demand to inspect the work after the completion of the work and then the petitioner told him that since the work was a small work it need only be supervised , checked and bill prepared by the Overseer , the 1st accused . The submission made for and on behalf of the petitioner is that the complaint of Chandran is that when he approached the petitioner for getting the payment under the bill for the work done by him, the petitioner told him that if he had to put his signature in the bill, he had to be treated by spending money . According to the learned council appearing for the petitioner, such a statement alleged to have been made by the petitioner, even if it is accepted as true, cannot be said to be a demand made by the petitioner for bribe or illegal gratification .

(3.) Pursuant to the complaint made by Chandran , a trap was made under the leadership of vigilance deputy S.P , wayanad on 26-7-2000 . The petitioner would say that on 20-7-2000 first accused borrowed an amount of Rs.400 from the petitioner and on 26-7-2000 at about 6 p.m complainant came to the petitioner's quarters and while the petitioner and Chandran were talking, the first accused Solomon came to the room in the quarters and while the petitioner and Chandran were talking, the 1st accused Soloman came to the room in the quarters and asked Chandran to go out of the quarters so that he could talk to him. It is the case of the petitioner that 1st accused and Chandran went out of the room and after some time, 1st accused came back to the room where the petitioner was sitting and handed over to the petitioner Rs. 400/- towards repayment of the loan taken from the petitioner on 20-7-2000. Then the Dy.S.P., Vigilance and two tahsildars came inside the room and introduced themselves and thereafter, Chandran also came to the room. According to the petitioner, the Dy.S.P. asked Chandran who actually demanded money from him and then Chandran told the Dy.S.P. that it was the Overseer Soloman who demanded money and he gave 10 hundred rupee notes to Soloman. Six 100 rupee notes were taken from the pocket of Soloman and four 100 rupee notes were taken from the pocket of Soloman and four 100 notes were taken from the pocket of the shirt of the petitioner. Then phenolphthalein test was conducted. Petitioner and the 1st accused were arrested by the Dy.S.P., Vigilance and were taken into custody and produced before Court.