K.T. SAMUEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the Secretary of the Aranmula Grama Panchayat during October 2000 -February, 2001. During the said period, the work of tarring of Kotta -Mayyavu Circular Road in Ward No. X of Aranmula Grama Panchayat was entrusted to a beneficiary committee on a total estimated cost of Rs. 1.17 lakhs. As convenor of the committee, the work was carried out by one K.N. Retnarajan, and he was also granted an advance payment of Rs.57,614/ -. He completed the work on 21.1.2001, and the work was check measured by the concerned Assistant Engineer, and also the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Aranmula Minor Irrigation Sub Division. Thereafter, the said Ratnarajan submitted the final bill before the appellant on 29.1.2001. It is alleged that, at that time, the appellant asked Ratnarajan to meet him at his office on 30.1.2001. Accordingly, Ratnarajan met the Secretary at his office on 30.1.2001 and made request to sanction the claim for the balance amount. The prosecution case is that, at that time, the Panchayat Secretary received an amount of Rs. 400/ - as bribe, and the Secretary made a further demand for Rs. 600/ - as a reward for sanctioning the claim and issuing the cheque for the balance amount. Ratnarajan made repeated requests to sanction the final bill, but the Secretary did not heed to the request, and he repeated his demand for Rs. 600/ -. It is alleged that as Ratnarajan was not inclined to make further payment to sanction the final bill, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Pathanamthitta, and made a complaint on 14.2.2001. On the said complaint, the Dy.S.P., registered a crime and arranged a trap. The Dy.S.P. received the amount of Rs. 600/ - brought by the complainant as per mahazar, applied phenolphthalein on the currency, and instructed the complainant and the trap witnesses to approach the accused at his office on that day itself and make payment, if the Secretary made further demand. Accordingly, the complainant Ratnarajan went to the Panchayat office on 14.2.2001 itself in the afternoon, but the Secretary could not be found there. He returned to the vigilance office and reported what transpired. The phenolphthalein tainted currency was received back by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as per mahazar, and the complainant and the others were instructed to come on the next day. After demonstrating phenolphthalein test again on 15.2.2001, the Dy.S.P. Instructed the complainant to approach the accused at his office and make payment on demand. The complainant Ratnarajan and the trap witness proceeded to the Panchayat office, and the vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P followed them. It is alleged that when the complainant met the Secretary at his office on that day, the Secretary demanded the amount, and on demand Ratnarajan paid the phenolphthalein tainted currency of Rs. 600/ -. The Secretary received the currency in his right hand, and after counting the currency, he placed it under some files on the table. On signal given by the complainant, the vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P rushed to the office of the Secretary, the Dy.S.P seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency from the possession of the accused, and after conducting phenolphthalein test, arrested the Secretary on the spot. After investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) THE accused entered appearance before the learned Trial Judge and claimed to be tried by pleading 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 "P.C Act").

(3.) WHEN this appeal came up for haring, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole evidence given by the complainant in this case is really suspicious, that the complainant was determined to trap him somehow for the reason that he was not inclined to heed to his unlawful requests, and with the help of the vigilance, he arranged a vicious trap. The learned counsel submitted that the accused had not demanded anything from the complainant, and he had not received anything from him as illegal gratification. The learned counsel also submitted that the accused would have been present in office on 14.2.2001 to receive payment, if he had in fact made such demand. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is nothing suspicious in the evidence of the complainant, and that the complainant decided to make a complaint against the Secretary when he declined to sanction the amount legitimately due to the complainant. Besides pleading for an acquittal on merits, the learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the prosecution sanction in this case stands not proved according to law, and so, the whole prosecution is barred under Section 19 of the P.C Act.