G. ALEX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the Estate Manager of the Kerala SIDCO Ltd. (Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.) in its branch at the Industrial Estate at Ettumannoor in May 2003. The shed No. 5 belonging to the SIDCO was allotted to one V.K. Soman some time back under an agreement. Later, Soman sublet the room to one Rodento unauthorisedly. The said Rodento along with his partner Senny Johnson, started an Electroplating unit in the said building. It is alleged that on coming to know of the unauthorised entrustment, the Estate Manager started threatening Rodento and his partner that they would be evicted, and that he would submit report to the higher authorities regarding this unauthorised occupation. It is alleged that when Rodento made a request to the Estate Manager to allot the said room No. 5 to him and to make necessary transfer in the registers, the Estate Manager demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/ - as illegal gratification and he even received an amount of Rs. 500/ - from Rodento on 15.5.2003. The Estate Manager was not satisfied with Rs. 500/ -. He made a demand for the balance amount of Rs. 1500/ - and directed Rodento to bring the said amount on 29.5.2003. The Estate Manager threatened Rodento, that if the amount is not paid fully, steps would be taken to evict him from the building. As Rodento was not inclined to make payment further, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kottayam and made a complaint. The Deputy Superintendent of Police registered a crime on the said complaint and arranged a trap. On 29.5.2003 itself, the VACB arranged a trap witness with the permission of the District Collector, received the amount of Rs. 1500/ - brought by Rodento, as per a mahazar, and after demonstrating the required phenolphthalein test to the complainant and the trap witness, Rodento was instructed to meet the Estate Manager at his office and make payment, on demand. Accordingly, Rodento, along with the trap witness Balanchandran (Child Development Officer, Vadavattoor at that time) proceeded to the office of the accused and met him at his office. The trap witness Balachandran remained outside, and the complainant Rodento alone entered the room and made payment of the tainted money on demand, at about 1.30 p.m., it is alleged. On getting signal from the complainant, the Dy. S.P. and his team approached the Estate Manager at his office, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency from his possession, and arrested the accused (Estate Manager) on the spot. A detection mahazar was also prepared on the spot. After conducting investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur, who took cognizance on the final report as C.C 41 of 2004.

(2.) THE accused (appellant) entered appearance before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the P.C. Act") to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in the trial court and marked Exts. P1 to P15 documents. The prosecution also marked MO1 to MO8 properties including the tainted currency of Rs. 1500/ - seized from the possession of the accused.

(3.) ON an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of four years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, by judgment dated 31.10.2006. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.