N.T. KUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) in the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam in the year 2000. On 17.8.2000, a suo motu proceeding initiated at the instance of one Treasa and Emily on the claim of tenancy (SMP No. 62/91) was decided by the appellant as against one Gangadharan, and others. On 14.9.2000, at about 2 p.m the said Gangandharan approached the appellant for the certified copy of the order in SMP No. 62/91 for the purpose of preferring appeal against the order. It is alleged that at that time, the appellant told Gangadharan that he would manipulate the order, the copy of which was not given to the other side, and would make some additions and of loop holes, so that Gangadharan and others could win the case in appeal. For making such a favour, or for manipulating the order in SMP 62/91 for the ultimate success of Gangadharan and others, the Special Tahsildar demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. Gandharan did not say anything on 14.9.2000, when the Special Tahsildar made such a demand, but he told about this to his brother Ramachandran. It is alleged that thereafter on two occasions, the Special Tahsildar contacted Sri. Ramachandran over telephone and repeated his demand. When Ramachandran told the Tahsildar that he could not pay Rs. 10,000/ - as demanded by him, the Tahsildar reduced the claim to Rs. 5,000/ - on 23.10.2000 over telephone. When Ramachandran repeated that he was not in a position to pay Rs. 5,000/ -, the Tahsildar again contacted him over telephone on 23.10.2000 and asked Ramachandran to come on 24.10.2000 with Rs. 2,000/ - as he was badly in need of some money. As Ramachandran was not inclined to make payment of bribe, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Ernakulam, and preferred a complaint. On the said complaint of Ramachandran, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered a crime and arranged a trap. The amount of Rs. 2,000/ - brought by Ramachandran was utilised for the trap and, after treating the currency (20 x Rs. 100) with phenolphthalein, Ramachandran and the trap witnesses were instructed to approach the Tahsildar at his office and make payment. Accordingly, Ramachandran met the Special Tahsildar at his office at about 3 p.m on 24.10.2000 and made payment, when the Special Tahsildar repeated his demand. Within no time, on getting signal from the complainant and the trap witness, the vigilance team reached there, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency from the possession of the Special Tahsildar and arrested him on the spot. After due investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur.

(2.) THE appellant entered appearance before the learned Trial Judge in C.C No. 32/2002 and claimed to be tried on a plea of not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P.C Act").

(3.) ON an appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - under Section 7 of the P.C Act, and to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C Act by judgment dated 19.6.2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.