SHIJU M. THANKACHAN, S/O. THANKACHAN. K., MADATHARAYIL, PANATHADY VILLAGE, (LINEMAN GRADE I, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION RAJAPURAM) Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in C.C.35/2001 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, is the appellant herein. The appellant was charge-sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kasaragod in VC-8/2000 of VACB, Kasaragod under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the P.C. Act).

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nut shell was that, while the accused was working as Lineman Grade-I, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Kasaragod District, being a public servant abused his official position, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.1000.00 for himself from Sri. Shyamkumar, son of Raghavan, cousin of CW1, in Sept. 2000, at the shop of the complainant for changing the faulty electrical meter of his shop and after some days the accused again demanded another sum of Rs.1,000.00 for himself from CW1 at the office of the accused and reiterated the said demand on 06.10.2000 and 12.10.2000 over telephone and on 13.10.2000 when he came for changing the meter in the shop of CW1, he demanded the amount and accepted the same after changing the meter and installing the new one and thereby he had committed the above said offence.

(3.) After investigation, final report was filed before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode and it was taken on file as C.C.No.35/2001. When the accused appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, charge under Sec. 7 and 13(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed and the same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P25, P1(a) to P1(e), P4(a) to P4(e), P5(a), P6(a), P7(a), P9(a), P10 (a), P11(a) to (c), P12(a), P13(a), P14(a) and P18(a), MO1 series and MO2 to MO9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence. He had further stated that as directed by his higher officials, he had disconnected electric connection to consumer No.1419, as they have not remitted the consumption charge. Thereafter on 13.10.2000 as instructed and entrusted by his higher official, he came to the shop for changing the meter and after changing the old meter, he removed his shirt and climbed the post for giving re-connection and thereafter he came and took the shirt and wore the same and took the old meter and came out side the shop. When he reached near his motor bike, PW3 and some people came there and surrounded him and obtained the shirt, PW3 informed that he was Vigilance Deputy Superintendent of Police and pointed at PW1 and told that he was arrested by him for receiving bribe from him. There was no electric connection for consumer No.1419 due to non-remittance of electric bill and he had to remit more than Rs.5,000.00 towards arrears of electric charges, fine, deposit and re-connection charge etc., and he had misconception that he was responsible for the same and on account of that misconception, a false complaint was filed against him. Deputy Superintendent of Police never asked him whether he received the amount and he never told the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the amount was in his pocket. He was working in the KSEB since 1991 and he was doing his work with integrity and in full dedication. He never demanded any amount and received any amount. No defence evidence was adduced on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found the appellant guilty under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the P.C. Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each for the offence sunder Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the P.C. Act and directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently. Set off was allowed for the period of detention already undergone by him. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused before the court below.