BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was Block Extension Officer in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Perambra Block Panchayath, in February, 2000. One Korumbi, a member of Scheduled Tribe, had applied for financial assistance for house construction under the Peoples Programme 1999-2000 introduced by the Government. The initial payment of Rs.5,000/- was made on 15.2.2000. Later, she applied for the balance amount, and her step-son, Babu, approached the appellant herein with request to issue cheque for the balance amount. It is alleged that when he made such a request to the appellant at the work site on 14.02.2000, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification and he repeated the demand on 21.02.2000. On 23.02.2000, the said Babu approached the Dy.S.P., Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kozhikode, and made a complaint. On the said complaint, the Dy.S.P. arranged a trap.As instructed by the Dy.S.P., the complainant approached the appellant on 23.02.2000 at about 12.45 p.m., and made payment of the amount, outside the office, as insisted by the accused. Within no time, the phenolphthalein tainted currency was seized from his possession by the Vigilance team, and the accused was arrested on the spot. After investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode.

(2.) The appellant faced trial before the learned trial Judge in C.C.No.31/2001, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act'). The prosecution examined eight witnesses in the trial court including the complainant, the trap witness, and the Dy.S.P., who laid the trap. The prosecution also marked Exts.P1 to P25 documents and MO1 to MO8 properties including the tainted currency identified during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and submitted that the trap in this case was a vicious one arranged by the police and the complainant, at the instance of the active workers of the CPI(M).

(3.) When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without going to the facts of the case, this Court will have to set aside the conviction and release the appellant on the very important legal ground that the very cognizance in this case is barred under Section 19 of the P.C.Act for the reason that the prosecution sanction granted by the competent authority stands not properly and legally proved. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the case submitted that the case on facts stands well proved by the evidence of the complainant and the other material witnesses. As regards the prosecution sanction, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Ext.P24 sanction marked in the trial court will have sanctity as a public document, and so, it does not require formal proof.