J JOSEPH FRANCIS @ BOBAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was Sub Engineer in the electrical section of the KSEB at Rajapuram, Kasargod, in October- November, 2003. On the allegation that he received an amount of 400/- from one Thomas as a reward for giving electricity service connection to his father's house under the OYEC Scheme, on 23.10.2003 and on 06.11.2003, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge(Vigilance), Kozhikode in C.C.No.13 of 2005. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (V.A.C.B.), Kasargod, registered the crime against the accused on the complaint of the said Thomas, dated 06.11.2003, alleging that "as a reward for giving electricity service connection, the accused demanded a total amount of 500/-, but he reduced the claim to 400/-, when the complainant met him at his residence on 23.10.2003, the complainant paid 250/- then and there, but the accused asked the complainant to bring the balance amount also, the accused repeated the demand for the balance on 05.11.2003, and asked the complainant to come with the amount on 06.11.2003". As the complainant Joseph was not inclined to make payment of bribe any more, he approached the VACB on 06.11.2003, and made complaint.

(2.) The 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 Prevention of Corruption Act(PC Act). The prosecution examined ten witnesses in the trial court, and also marked Exts. P1 to P23 documents. MO1 to MO5 material objects including the tainted currency were identified and marked during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and submitted that he had not received anything illegal from the complainant, and that the amount of 150 was given to him by the complainant under the pretext that it was the expenses for conducting some offerings in his name in the church. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act by judgment dated 28.01.2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) When this appeal came up for hearing, the leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution does not have any evidence to corroborate the interested testimony of the complainant as regards the essentials like demand and acceptance, and that the trap in this case arranged by the VACB, was in fact a vicious trap. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the evidence given by the complainant is blemishless, it proves all the essentials, and his evidence is well supported by the evidence of the trap witness and the recovery officer.