V.M. KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was Assistant Engineer in the Block Development Office, Kasaragod in April, 2000. The Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kasaragod registered a crime against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P.C Act") on the complaint of one Abbas, who was the Chairman of the Beneficiary Committee formed in the Block Panchayat for the Black Topping of Koliyadukkam -Naduvilekunnu Public Road. The said work was completed by the Beneficiary Committee by March, 2000 and the work was carried out by the said Abbas as the Chairman of the Beneficiary Committee. His case in the complaint lodged by him is that when he requested the Assistant Engineer to measure the work and sanction payment, he demanded an amount of Rs. 7,000/ - as illegal gratification. As the first installment, the appellant accepted an amount of Rs. 3000/ - on 23.3.2000 and the second installment of Rs. 2000/ - was accepted on 25.3.2000. The appellant demanded the balance amount, and asked the complainant on 17.4.2000 to bring the balance amount of Rs. 2000/ - on 19.4.2000. On the said day, the complainant approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kasaragod and preferred complaint. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, applied phenolphthalein on the currency of Rs. 2000/ - brought by the complainant, and after demonstrating the required phenolphthalein test to the complainant and the witnesses, he instructed the complainant to make payment to the Engineer on demand. Accordingly, the complainant approached the appellant at his office at about 11.15 a.m on 19.4.2000 and made payment when the appellant again demanded money. Within no time, on getting signal from the complainant, the vigilance team reached there, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency, and arrested the accused on the spot. After investigation, the vigilance 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. 44 of 2001 and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The prosecution examined six witnesses in the trial court, and also marked Exts.P1 to P14 documents.. The prosecution also marked MO1 to MO6 properties including the amount of Rs. 2000/ - seized from the possession of the accused.

(3.) WHEN this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant argued for acquittal on factual as well as legal grounds. As regards the factual aspects, the argument advanced by the learned counsel is that there is only the evidence of the complainant in this case to prove the prosecution case, but the said evidence is not believable in view of the fact that he had some grudge against the appellant. On legal aspects, the learned counsel argued that Ext. P14 prosecution sanction granted under Section 19 of the P.C. Act stands not properly and legally proved, and that the very cognizance is barred under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Before going to the legal aspects, let me discuss the evidence on factual aspects. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case on facts stands well proved, and that the prosecution sanction does not require formal proof, since it is a public document.