AHAMMED NIZAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment dtd. 13/1/2022 in C.C No.16/2011 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The appellant in Crl.A No.124/2022 is the sole accused. The appellant in Crl.A No.155/2022 is the defacto complainant. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). While disposing of the Case, the Trial Court held that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into the offence punishable under Sec. 193 IPC against the defacto complainant (PW1) and directed to file a complaint against him. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.124 of 2022 Prosecution Case:

(2.) The accused was a Village Officer of Mundur-1 Village in Palakkad District in 2009. The defacto complainant (PW1) owned the landed property covered by sale deed No.1855/07/1 of SRO, Parali. His father had 'verumpattom right' over the land, having an extent of 24.75 cents. PW1 purchased the said right from his father under Ext.P3 sale deed in 2007. A thandaper number had been assigned to the property in favour of the father of PW1 and he had been remitting the property tax in the thandaper number before the registration of Ext.P3 sale deed. On 20/8/2009, PW1 approached the accused for effecting mutation regarding the property in his name and to remit the property tax. The accused insisted on measuring the property. After measuring the property on 21/8/2009, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,500.00 as a bribe for effecting mutation. The accused accepted Rs.1,000.00 on 21/8/2009 at 12.00 p.m at the Village Office, Mundur-1. He demanded Rs.500.00 more from PW1. As PW1 had not possessed the money as demanded by the accused, he returned to his native place at Ootty. The accused continued demanding the balance sum of Rs.500.00. PW1 finally complained to the Dy.SP, VACB, Palakkad (PW9) on 7/9/2009. Based on the complaint, PW9 registered Ext.P1(a) FIR, and a trap was laid. On 8/9/2009, PW1 handed over Rs.500.00 which the accused accepted. The accused was arrested along with the trap money. Phenolphthalein test was conducted on the currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused. The test turned positive.

(3.) The accused is, therefore, alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.