T.T. MANOJLAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was Sub Engineer in the Electrical Major Section, Kanjikode in January -February 2000. On the allegation that he received an amount of Rs. 500/ - from one Thankavelu as a reward for giving electricity connection for agricultural purposes to the property of his mother Sethu Ammal, on 8.2.2000, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode in C.C. 23 of 2001. On the complaint of the said Thankavelu on 8.2.2000, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Palakkad registered crime against the appellant and arranged a trap. The amount of Rs. 500/ - brought by the complainant as reward, as demanded by the accused, was received by the Dy. S.P. as per mahazar, and after demonstrating the required phenolphthalein test, the complainant and the trap witness were instructed to approach the accused and make payment, if he demanded money further. Accordingly, the complainant proceeded to the office of the accused along with one Kandamuthan, and made payment of the tainted money on demand, it is alleged. On getting signal from the complainant, the vigilance team led by the Dy. S.P. reached there, recovered the tainted money and arrested the accused on the spot. After investigation, the vigilance submitted final report before the trial court.

(2.) THE accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C. Act'). The prosecution examined twelve witnesses in the trial court and marked Exts. P1 to P31 including the prosecution sanction granted under Section 19 of the P.C. Act.

(3.) WHEN this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the complainant is really doubtful, that there is no consistency between the complainant and the material witness regarding payment of money, and that the amount of Rs. 500/ - received as the cost for installing an additional electric post was misused by the complainant for arranging a trap, only because the request for domestic connection was first declined by the Sub Engineer. The learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution sanction stands not proved in this case, and so the accused is entitled for acquittal on the said legal ground also. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer has proved the prosecution sanction to the satisfaction of the court, and that the evidence given by the complainant and the other witnesses is really blemishless.