JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is a Sub Inspector of Police having a good service entry to his credit. He faced prosecution before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) Kozhikode in C.C No.39 of 2002 on the allegation that on 15.3.2001, he accepted an amount of 250/- from one Abdul Gafoor as a reward for releasing the registration certificate and other documents relating to the vehicle No.KL-3A/7765 seized by the Sub Inspector on 13.3.2001. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) Wayanad registered a crime against the appellant on the complaint of the said Abdul Gafoor on 15.3.2001. The case of the complainant is that his vehicle KL-3A/7765 was seized by the Sub Inspector on 13.3.2001 on the ground that tax was not paid up todate, and that he had no badge to drive transport vehicle, and on 14.3.2001 the vehicle was released to him when he produced the documents including the document showing remittance of tax. However,for releasing the registration certificate and other documents relating to the vehicle, the Sub Inspector demanded an amount of 250/- on 14.3.2001. He was required to come on 15.3.2001 with the amount. As Abdul Gafoor and the registered owner of the vehicle were not inclined to make payment of bribe, Abdul Gafoor approached the VACB and made a complaint. On the said complaint, the Dy.S.P arranged a trap. The amount of 250/- brought by the complainant was treated with phenolphthalein, and the complainant was instructed to approach the Sub Inspector, and make payment, if demanded further. It is alleged that accordingly the complainant approached the Sub Inspector and made payment of the phenolphthalein tainted currency of 250/-when he repeated the demand. Within no time, on getting signal, the vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P reached there, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency, and arrested him on the spot.After investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the court below.

(2.) The appellant entered appearance before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the P.C Act). The prosecution examined twelve witnesses in the trial court and also proved Exts.P1 to P21 documents including the complaint and the prosecution sanction granted under Section 19 of the P.C Act. MO1 to MO6 properties including the tainted currency were also identified and marked during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and submitted that he was viciously trapped by the owner of the vehicle for the reason that he was not inclined to release the vehicle on the spot as demanded by the registered owner, who is a political leader,and that he had not demanded or accepted any illegal gratification from the complainant, or the registered owner. The accused examined one witness in defence as DW1. During trial, the complainant turned fully hostile to the prosecution. However, on an appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty. On conviction, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of 2000/- each under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction dated 25.2.2009, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution does not have any material to prove the essentials of the offence alleged, that the complainant disowned his complaint and turned hostile to the prosecution, and that the appellant is entitled for acquittal. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the complainant turned hostile, there are other materials and circumstances to prove the alleged offence.