A.R. RAPHEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the P.C. Act'). He was a Village Officer in August, 1998. The prosecution case against him is that while working as Village Officer of Mulavukadu Village in August 1998, he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ - from one Hariharan as a motive or reward for delaying the revenue recovery proceedings against Hariharan, and he accepted an amount Rs. 500/ - on 01.09.1998 at about 1.20 p.m., at his office at Mulavukadu. When the accused repeated his demand, Hariharan made a complaint before the Dy. S.P., Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Ernakulam. The money brought by Hariharan for arranging trap was seized by the Dy. S.P. as per mahazar, and after demonstrating phenolphthalein test in the presence of witnesses, Hariharan was sent to the office of the accused by the Dy. S.P., with instruction to hand over the currency on demand. Accordingly, at about 1.20 p.m. on 01.09.1998, Hariharan paid Rs. 500/ - to the accused, and he received it at his office. Within no time, on signal, the police party led by the Dy. S.P. reached at the office of the accused, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency of Rs. 500/ - from his possession, and arrested the accused on the spot. After investigation, the police submitted final report before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur. The learned trial Judge took cognizance as C.C. No. 25/2001, and the appellant faced trial before the learned trial Judge. He pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the learned trial Judge under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

(2.) THE prosecution examined ten witnesses in the trial court, and also marked Exts. P1 to P11. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and maintained a defence that he had not in fact accepted any illegal gratification from the complainant, Hariharan. In defence the accused examined three witnesses, and also marked Exts. D1 series documents. MOI and MOII series properties (currency) were also marked on the side of the prosecution. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, and to undergo another period of rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, by judgment dated 30.03.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) BEFORE going to the legal aspect regarding prosecution sanction, let me discuss the evidence on facts. PW2 is the complainant Hariharan, PW9 is the Dy. S.P. who arranged the trap in this case, and PW3 is another witness arranged by the Dy. S.P. to witness the trap. Ext. P4 is the complaint made by PW2 before the Dy. S.P. The case of the prosecution is that the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ - for delaying the revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant, Hariharan. That there was a revenue recovery proceeding against Hariharan is proved by his own evidence, and also by Ext. P2 revenue recovery notice. On these aspects there is no dispute. The complainant, examined as PW2, has given definite and consistent evidence proving the alleged demand and acceptance of gratification by the accused. He, PW9, and PW3 have given satisfactory evidence regarding the trap, and also the pre -trap and the post trap procedures involved in the case. PW2 and PW3 are consistent and definite that before proceeding to arrest the accused, the Dy. S.P. had demonstrated the phenolphthalein test and that the amount of Rs. 500/ - brought by PW2 was seized as per mahazar by Dy. S.P. Recovery of the very same currency tainted with phenolphthalein is well proved by the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW9. The accused does not have any satisfactory explanation for the seizure of phenolphthalein tainted currency from his possession. Repeated demands made by the accused also stands well proved by the evidence of PW2. Of course, it is true that the evidence of PW3 and the evidence of PW9 will have only supportive value. However, when the case on facts is well proved by the evidence of the complainant himself, the evidence of the police officer and the trap witness will definitely have supportive value. I find that PW9 and PW3 have well corroborated PW2 on all material aspects including the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused.