M. SUNDARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein faced prosecution before the learned Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner (Vigilance), Kozhikode in C.C No. 7/2001 on the allegation that on 27.1.2000 while working as Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Major Section, Baypore, Kozhikode, he received an amount of Rs. 250/ - as illegal gratification, from one police constable of the Railway Police, Kozhikode as a reward for making necessary official endorsements for remittance of the required fee for electricity connection on the application made by the father of the said police constable. The prosecution case is that a demand for Rs. 500/ - was made by the appellant on 24.1.2000, but on a bargain the amount was reduced to Rs. 250/ -, agreed to be paid on 27.1.2000. The Police Constable made a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau), Kozhikode on 27.1.2000, and accordingly, the VACB arranged a trap. The amount of Rs. 250/ - brought by the complainant was seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, as per mahazar, and after demonstration of Phenolphthalein test the complainant was instructed to make payment of the amount to the accused. Accordingly, the complainant and one witness proceeded to the office of the appellant, followed by the Deputy Superintendent VACB and the team. At about 3.30 pm on 27.1.2000, the complainant made payment of the amount, and as informed by him over telephone, the vigilance party reached at the office of the accused, seized the currency, and arrested the accused. This is, in short, the prosecution case.

(2.) ON the complaint of the police constable the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, registered a crime under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act (for short 'the P.C Act). After investigation, the vigilance submitted final report before the trial court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the learned trial judge under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act and he claimed to be tried. The case of the accused is that he had not at any time demanded or accepted any illegal gratification from the complainant, that the complainant and some others in fact arranged a vicious trap to wreak vengeance for the reason that he had detected theft of electricity under his jurisdiction, and that the tainted money was in fact put in the drawer of his table without his knowledge or consent by the complainant, as part of the said vicious trap.

(3.) ON an appreciation of the evidence adduced from both sides, the trial court found that the demand for illegal gratification as alleged by the prosecution stands not in any manner proved, that the evidence of the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution is not acceptable due to some material contradictions in his evidence, but recovery of phenolphthalein tainted currency from the accused stands proved. Accordingly, the learned trial judge found the accused guilty under Section 7 of the P.C Act, but acquitted him of the offence under Section 13(2) of the P.C Act, by judgment dated 25.1.2006 in C.C No. 7/2001. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - under Section 7 of the P.C Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up in appeal.