GEORGE VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in C.C.29/1999 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, is the revision petitioner herein. The appellant was charge-sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Ernakulam, in VC-9/97 of VACB, Ernakulam, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the P.C. Act).

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nut shell was that, while the appellant was working as Assistant Engineer, NH ADB Section I/II/II, Edappally, during 1997 abused his official position and demanded Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification from PW2 and accepted Rs. 200/- earlier and thereafter reiterated the demand for the balance amount of Rs. 1,800/- on 29.03.1997 at 3.00 p.m., from his office at Edappally and thereafter fixed the amount as Rs. 1,000/- and in furtherance of that demand accepted Rs. 800/- from PW2 on 31.03.1997 at 10.30 a.m./10.50 a.m., from his office at Edappally, as a motive or reward for showing a favour and rendering his service in the official function and as such he had committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. After investigation, final report was filed before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur and the learned Special Judge had taken cognisance of the case as C.C.No.29/1999.

(3.) When the appellant appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act was framed and the same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. Since there was some error crept in stating the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act in the original charge, that alone was amended later and after amendment, the amended change was read over and explained to him again and he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 and MOs 1 to 13 were marked on their side. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence. He had further stated that he had not committed any offence and he had not made any demand and he had only asked for the restoration charges payable by PW2 for the purpose of ratifying the illegal act committed by him by filling the earth to connect his property with the national high way as required under law and as such he had not committed any offence. In order to prove his case, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1, contradiction of PW3 in his 161 statement, D2 file and D2(a) and D2(b), D3, D3(a) and D3(b) through PW6 were marked on the side of the defence. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found the appellant guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) for the P.C. Act and convicted him there under and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 7 of the P.C Act and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and directed the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ accused before the court below.