G. THANKAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the Secretary of the Mylam Grama Panchayat in June, 2002. On the allegation that he received illegal gratification from one Saji George for issuing licence for starting a cashew nut roasting unit in the name of his wife Shiji, on 13.06.2002, and on 18.06.2002, the appellant faced prosecution before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No. 14/2003. On the complaint of Saji George, the Dy. S.P., Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kollam unit registered a crime and arranged a trap. The amount brought by the complainant was treated with phenolphthalein, and he was instructed to hand it over to the appellant, on demand. Accordingly, the complainant approached the appellant in his office on 18.06.2002, and paid the illegal gratification. Within no time he was arrested by the Dy. S.P., and the tainted money was seized as per mahazar. After investigation, the Vigilance submitted final report in the trial court under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the P.C. Act').

(2.) THE appellant (accused) 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 P.C. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty. The case thus proceeded for trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in the trial court, and marked Exts. P1 to P18 documents and also MO1 to MO7 properties. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. No oral evidence was adduced in defence by the accused. However, Exts. D1 to D3 were marked. On an appreciation of the evidence the learned trial Judge found the accused not guilty under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, but found him guilty under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, by judgment dated 23.05.2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) OF the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW2 is the complainant, who made Ext. P13 complaint, PW6 is his wife in whose name the application for D& O Traders Licence was applied for, PW3 is the trap witness arranged by the Vigilance, and PW9 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who detected the offence.