K.K. SUMANGALA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was an Upper Division Clerk in the Sub Registrar's Office, Vellangalloor (Thrissur District) in September 2001. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thrissur registered a crime against her on 17.9.2001 on the complaint of one Ram Mohan, that the appellant demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 200/ - for issuing the certified copy of a document, on his application. The demand was allegedly made on 15.9.2001, and the amount was accepted, according to the prosecution, on 17.9.2001. The complaint itself shows that the complainant himself had offered whatever is required for the copy immediately. Accepting such an offer, the appellant asked to him to come on 17.9.2001 with Rs. 200/ -, and also said that copy will be given only on payment of the amount. On 17.9.2001, Ram Mohan approached the VACB and made a complaint. The VACB accordingly arranged a trap, and instructed the complainant to approach appellant and make payment on demand. Accordingly, the complainant approached the appellant at her office between 12 noon and 1 p.m on 17.9.2001 and made payment of the amount on demand. Within no time, on getting signal from the complainant, the vigilance party reached there, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency from the possession of the accused, and arrested the accused on the spot. After investigation, the vigilance submitted final report before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (VACB), Thrissur.

(2.) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against her by the trial court under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C Act'). The prosecution examined nine witnesses in the trial court and also marked Exts. P1 to P13 documents. MO1 to MO7 properties including the tainted money seized from the possession of the accused, were identified and marked on the side of prosecution. When examined under the Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances, and submitted that she had not demanded or accepted anything illegally from the complainant, and that the trap in this case is a vicious trap arranged by the complainant, with the help of the police, only because he could not get the certified copy of the document immediately or within the shortest possible time, as demanded by him. In defence, the accused did not examine anybody, but Exts. D1 to D9 documents were marked during trial.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted before this Court that the whole prosecution case is really suspicious and that the trap in this case was viciously arranged by the police on a false complaint of PW1. The learned counsel also submitted that apart from the suspicious evidence of the complainant, there is nothing in this case to prove the alleged demand and acceptance. But the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trap was arranged on a genuine complaint, and that there is nothing suspicious.