MURALIDHARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the same accused who faced conviction under S.5(l)(d) read with S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1945 and under S.161 IPC as it stood at the material time and under S.420 IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence under S.5(2) and with a further direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence under S.420 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under S.161 IPC. He was found guilty in two separate cases which were filed against him, C.C.18/1991 and C.C.19/1991 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. These cases were charged by the Vigilance Police Station in Crime No.4/84. The crime was registered as per Ext. P34 FIR dated 10.2.1984. At that time the appellant figured as accused No.2 along with accused No. 1 the Assistant Engineer of Electrical Section concerned. Accused No.2, the appellant is alleged to have committed the offence with the connivance of the Assistant Engineer. But when final report was filed by PW 20, who investigated the case, the accusation was only against the appellant. There was no change against accused No. 1. Altogether PWs. 1 to 20 were examined in the first among the two cases and PWs. 1 to 16 were examined in the other case. 41 documents were marked in the first case and 26 documents were marked in the second case by the prosecution. In the first case two contradictions in the C.D. statements were marked as D1 and D2.

(2.) Appreciating the evidence on record the Court below found the appellant guilty of the offence charged against him and accordingly convicted as aforesaid. It is under challenge in these two appeals.

(3.) The primary contention raised before me is that the Assistant Engineer, the first accused in the case charged by the vigilance wing was cited as PW.2. He was the immediate superior officer of the appellant at the relevant point of time. Really he had obtained statements like Exts.P16, 20, 21, 25, 26 and 30 from the witnesses concerned. These were signed statements obtained by him for implicating the appellant/accused. It is stated that the tongues of the said witnesses were thus tied by PW 2, so that they cannot go back from the signed statements which were focused on the appellant alone. Thus PW 2 had taken steps to absolve himself from the accusation. In such circumstances such statements could not have been relied on as tangible evidence against the second accused, as it had been produced by the first accused so that he could escape. In this regard a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in State of Kerala v. Samuel, 1960 KLT 666 , is relied on.