N.R. SEKHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein faced prosecution before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) Thiruvananthapuram in C.C No. 29/2002 at the age of 64 on the allegation that, on behalf of a relative of him, who has a building rented out for a pre-metric hostel under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department of the Government of Kerala , approached one Subbiah, the Secretary to the Government, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department, and offered illegal gratification for expediting the proceedings for disbursement of the rent arrear due to his relative. Such an offer was allegedly made on 24.3.2000 at the office chamber of the Government Secretary Subbaiah. The Government Secretary immediately called the Police through the Chief Secretary and made a complaint. A cover containing currency was seized by the Cantonment Police, and a crime was registered against the appellant in the Cantonment Police Station. Later, the crime was transferred to the Vigilance Department, and the crime was re- registered there as Crime No. VC 18/2000/TVM on 21.11.2000. After investigation, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) submitted final report in court against the appellant under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( for short 'P.C Act'.) alleging that the appellant abetted the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 12 of the P.C Act, and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P11 documents in the trial court. MO1 series currencies seized by the Cantonment Police on the complaint of the Government Secretary were also marked during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, no evidence in defence was adduced by him.

(2.) On an appreciation of the evidence given by the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty under Section 12 of the P.C Act. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of L 3000/- by judgment dated 1.3.2005 in C.C No. 29/02. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) The very short point for decision in this appeal is whether a mere offer to pay bribe or illegal gratification is punishable as abetment under Section 12 of the P.C Act. What is alleged in this case by the prosecution is that the appellant herein abetted the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C Act. The prosecution has no case that illegal gratification was in fact paid by the appellant herein. The evidence of PW1, and also his Ext.P1 complaint is that on 24.3.2000, the appellant came in his office at about 11.25 a.m and made a request to expedite steps for disbursement of the rent arrear due to his relative Jayakumar. The building belonging to Jayakumar is being occupied by the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Department for running a pre-metric hostel. It is really strange and unbelievable that this old man came to the chamber of the Government Secretary with request to expedite steps for disbursement of the rent arrear belonging to his relative Jayakumar. It is not known why the the building owner Jayakumar himself did not come there to make such a request. Anyway, the allegation is that while making such a request, the appellant offered illegal gratification. Finding a cover in his hands, the Government Secretary immediately called the Police through the Chief Secretary, and lodged a complaint. Ext.P1 complaint, and the evidence of PW1, shows that even without opening the cover, to see what it actually contained, the Government Secretary lodged complaint through the Chief Secretary. Thus, it is definite that there was no actual payment of illegal gratification by the accused.