C. MANIKANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "P.C. Act") in C.C. No. 26 of 2001 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode. Crime in this case was registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Malappuram on a complaint made by one Pramod. The said Pramod had a ration shop at Pathiyarakkara with ARD No. 22. Though the licensee was his uncle Sreedharan, the ration shop was in fact run and managed by Pramod. The appellant herein was the District Supply Officer, Malappuram in January, 2000. On 11.1.2000, the appellant herein made an inspection in the ration shop and found some serious irregularities. The licence was accordingly suspended on 11.1.2000 itself by the appellant, and with the object of avoiding inconvenience and hardship to the public, the ration shop No. ARD 22 was attached to another ration shop No. ARD 140. Pramod and his uncle Sreedharan approached the appellant herein at his room No. 126 in the Prasanth Tourist Home, Up -Hill, Malappuram on 18.1.2000 with request to revoke the suspension of licence. The prosecution case is that when Pramod and his uncle made such a request on 18.1.2000, the appellant made a demand for Rs. 2000/ - as illegal gratification for revoking the suspension of licence, and asked them to come with the amount on 20.1.2000. The licensee Sreedharan was not inclined to pay illegal gratification. He and Pramod thought of making a complaint against the appellant before the vigilance. Accordingly, they approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Malappuram with a complaint. On the said complaint, the VACB registered a crime. The amount of Rs. 2000/ - brought by them was treated with phenolphthalein, and after demonstrating phenolphthalein test to them and the other witnesses, Pramod was instructed to hand over the amount to the appellant on demand. Accordingly, Pramod and Sreedharan approached the appellant at about 7.00 p.m. on 20.1.2000 and paid the said amount on demand. Within no time, on getting signal from the complainant, the vigilance team rushed to the appellant's room, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency and arrested the accused on the spot. After investigation, the vigilance submitted final report before the court below.

(2.) AFTER complying with the formalities prescribed under the law, the learned trial Judge framed a charge against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2), read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses including the complainant Pramod, his uncle Sreedharan, the Detecting Officer and the trap witness, and also marked Exts. P1 to P37 documents including Ext. P37 prosecution sanction granted under Section 19 of the P.C. Act by the Government by order of the Governor of Kerala, and published as G.O.(Ms) No. 119/00/Vig. Dated 22.12.2000. The prosecution also marked MO1 to MO9 properties including the amount of Rs. 2000/ - seized from the possession of the accused.

(3.) WHEN this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted on facts that the prosecution case stands not properly proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the evidence of P.W. 11 Sreedharan is not acceptable and believable when the complainant Pramod turned fully hostile to the prosecution, and that the appellant had not in fact received anything to revoke the suspension of licence, because he was not in fact the authority to revoke such suspension of licence. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor -in -charge of the case submitted that the evidence of P.W. 11 is fully believable as independent witness, though the complainant turned hostile for his own reasons to help the accused, that the recovery of tainted money stands well proved, and that the conviction is only to be confirmed in appeal.