P BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the allegation of acceptance of illegal gratification from a Police Constable, on 29.12.2005 and on 31.12.2005, while working as Village Man in the Kolazhi Village office in Thrissur District, as a reward for recommending his application for earth filling to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the appellant herein faced trial in C.C No.15/2007 before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thrissur registered a crime against the appellant on the complaint of the said Police Constable Sudhakaran, dated 30.12.2005. As the Village Man was not present in office on 30th, the VACB arranged a trap on the next day. The complainant Sudhakaran has purchased 10 cents of property from one Mohandas. He wanted to fill 5 cents out of the 10 cents for constructing a house. On 19.12.2005 he submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, and it was forwarded to the Village Officer. When he approached the Village Officer on 23.12.2005 he was asked to submit no objection certificate from the adjacent owners. Accordingly, on 29.12.2005 he procured such certificates and approached the Village Officer. As instructed by the Village Officer he met the village man on 29.12.2005 itself. At that time, it is alleged, the Village Man demanded an amount of 1,000/- saying that some amount is required for preparing the village sketch, for taking copies of the BTR, village plan etc. and that without getting the amount nothing could be done. Immediately, the complainant paid 500/- to the village man. But he was not satisfied. He demanded the balance amount of 500/- and affirmed his stand that he will not recommend his application to the Revenue Divisional Officer without getting the balance amount. The aggrieved Police Constable approached the VACB with complaint on 30.12.2005. On the said complaint the Deputy Superintendent of Police arranged a trap. The amount of 500/- brought by the complainant was received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 31.12.2005 as per a mahazar, and after demonstrating the required phenolphthalein test to the complainant and the other witnesses, the complainant was instructed to approach the village man, and to make payment if he made further demand. Accordingly the complainant approached the village man on 31.12.2005, and when the village man again demanded the balance amount, the complainant paid the tainted money. On getting signal from the complainant the vigilance team led by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, rushed to the village office, sized the phenolphthalein tainted currency, and after conducting phenolphthalein test, which turned positive, the Deputy Superintendent of Police arrested the village man on the spot. After investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the learned trial judge.

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C Act). The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P19 documents. MO1 to MO5 properties including the MO1 series tainted money seized from the possession of the accused were also identified and marked during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances, and submitted that the trap was in fact a vicious one arranged by the police constable at the instigation of the former village officer Jayachandran, and that the amount meant as donation for the revenue adalath organized by the revenue department was misutilized by the complainant for the said trap. He believed that the amount was paid by the complainant as donation for the Lok Adalath, and it was not received by him as illegal gratification for any purpose. The accused examined his own wife as defence witness and marked Exts.D1 to D3 in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced on both sides the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of 1,000/- each under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of the P.C Act by judgment dated 20.6.2013. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is doubtful, and that a vicious trap was in fact laid against the appellant by the police constable as instructed by the appellant's enemy Jayachandran, who was a former Village Officer, and that money was in fact paid by the police constable under the pretext that it was donation for the revenue adalath. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that there is absolutely nothing doubtful in the prosecution case, and the Village Man was trapped on a genuine complaint.