FATHEELA BEEGOM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was an Upper Division Clerk in the Sub Regional Transport Office, Mattancherry during 1998. She faced prosecution before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur in C.C No.11/2003 on the final report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Ernakulam, alleging the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'P.C Act'). The VACB made investigation on a complaint made by one Joseph, who is an auto consultant. The case of Joseph in his complaint is that when he made an application for duplicate registration certificates relating to the vehicle Nos.KL-7/P 2757 and KL-7/P 2960 belonging to M/s. Vellappally Natesan and Company, the accused demanded an illegal gratification of 300/- for issuing duplicate registration certificates. His case is that such demand was made by the accused within a few days from the date of application, and she repeated the demand on 28.1.1998. As he was not inclined to make payment of bribe, he made a complaint before the VACB on 31.1.1998. On the said complaint, the VACB arranged a trap. The amount of 300/- brought by the complainant was seized as per mahazar, it was tainted with phenolphthalein, and after demonstrating the required the phenolphthalein test the complainant was instructed by the VACB to approach the accused and make payment. Accordingly, the complainant approached the accused at her office at about 2.45 pm on 31.1.1998 and tendered the amount. As instructed by the accused he placed the currency on the table top, which the accused removed to the table drawer with a pen. On getting signal from the complainant the vigilance team reached there, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency, and arrested the accused on the spot.

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against her by the trial court under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P21 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and submitted that she had not received anything from the complainant as illegal gratification, and that she had also no reason or occasion to receive any money from the complainant. In defence the accused did not examine anybody, but Exts.D1 and D2 documents were marked. The material objects including the tainted money were identified during trial as MO1 to MO7.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial judge found the accused guilty. On conviction she was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- under Section 7 of the P.C Act by judgment dated 9.4.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has come up in appeal.