N.A. ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. They faced prosecution before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Kozhikode in C.C No. 6/2001 on the allegation that as part of a conspiracy hatched by them to derive some benefits illegally from the police department in connection with their unauthorised sandal wood business and sand wood oil factory, the two accused visited the office of the then District Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod on 6.4.1997 at about 11.50 am and offered an amount of Rs. 5,000/ - as bribe. The District Superintendent of Police called the Circle Inspector of Police, Kasaragod to his office, lodged a written complaint, on which the Circle Inspector registered a case against the two accused, and later the case was re -registered by the Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau (VACB). After investigation the VACB submitted final report in court against the two accused on the allegation that they committed the offence of abetment of accepting illegal gratification, punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) THE two accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined five witnesses in the trial court including the District Superintendent of Police who lodged the complaint, and also marked Exts. P1 to P12 and the MO1 cover. One witness was examined by the accused in defence as DW1, and Ext. D1 series documents were also marked. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the two accused had in fact offered illegal gratification to the Superintendent of Police, and accordingly found them guilty under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court also found that the two accused committed the said offence in prosecution of a conspiracy hatched by them. On conviction, the two accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/ - each under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - each under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, by judgment dated 22.12.2005. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the two accused have come up in appeal.

(3.) NOW let me come to the facts and analyse the evidence to see whether the prosecution case stands proved on facts. Thereafter, I will go to the legal aspect raised by the appellants.