AUGUSTINE KUNJUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C. No. 31/1999 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur is the appellant herein. The appellant was charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam in VC 4/97 of VACB, Ernakulam under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act for short').

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the appellant while working as Head Clerk at the village panchayat office, Parakadavu, demanded a sum of Rs. 500/ - from PW 1, a contractor authorized to collect sand from Chalakudy river coming within the jurisdiction of Parakadavu village panchayat for the year 1996 -97 on 19.4.1997 at 11.30 a.m. from the panchayat office as a motive or reward for the release of E.M.D. of Rs. 5000/ - on the termination of the period of contract and accepted Rs. 300/ - as illegal gratification on 22.4.1997 at about 9.45 a.m. from the panchayat office and thereby he committed the offences punishable under sections 7and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

(3.) WHEN the appellant appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, charge under sections 7and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. 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, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exts. P1, P1(a), P2, P2(a), P2(b), P3, P3(a), P4 to P12 and MOI series and MOII series were marked on the side of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence. He had further stated that on 22.4.1997 at about 9.45 a.m., he came to the office and engaged in his work. He was dealing with the account of the volley ball tournament conducted by the YMCA of Poovathussery for which, there was a decision taken to give Rs. 500/ - from the panchayat and the account was not closed and for the purpose of getting clarification of the request given by the tournament chairman, he went to the Secretary's room and he was talking with him. At that time, the panchayat President came and the Secretary told that he will explain the same later and accordingly he came out of the Secretary's room. At that time, he saw PW 1 standing near his table. On seeing him, he came near him immediately and held his hand. The appellant was holding the tournament file in his right hand and PW 1 holding his left hand requested him to expedite his application on the same day and the appellant told that it was not carried out in the deposit register and asked PW 1 to sit for half an hour and thereafter the appellant kept the file on the table and sat in his seat. While he was about to start his work, some people came and introduced themselves as persons coming from the Vigilance Department and the Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced himself as Paulose. They wanted others not to move from there and PW 1 pointed at him and told the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he had given bribe to him and the appellant told that he did not demand any bribe and did not receive anything from any one. Then the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked the person who came along with him to take the amount kept under the file in the table and asked how this amount has come and the appellant told that he did not ask money to any one and he did not receive any amount and he did not know about the same. Thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken a glass and poured some water and dipped his pocket and there was no colour change. Appellant's right hand was also dipped in the water and there was no colour change and when his left hand was dipped, there was some colour change and at that time, he came to understand that PW 1 had pressed his hand with the note smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, after completing the formalities, he was arrested by the vigilance people and taken from there. He was an artist and there were no disciplinary proceedings initiated against him during his service. His wife has undertone uterus operation and since he was strict in following procedure, staff was having grudge against him. He used to make the staff to follow the procedure as per law. No defence evidence was adduced on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the special judge found the appellant guilty under sections 7and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and convicted him there under and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under section 7 of the P.C. Act and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and directed the substantive sentences run concurrently. Set off was allowed for the period of detention already undergone by him under section 428 of the Code. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused before the court below.