T. K. KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted as per the judgment dtd. 29/6/2009 by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam in C.C.No.84 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The said judgment of conviction and consequent sentence are under challenge in this appeal filed under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).

(2.) The appellant was the Village Officer, Vathikudi. PW1 approached him to get the property in the name of his father mutated and land tax paid. The appellant allegedly demanded bribe of Rs.250.00. PW1 lodged a complaint and after registering a crime based on that complaint, PW6, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption Bureau (VACB), laid a trap. PW1 offered a bribe of Rs.250.00 at about 12.30 p.m. on 24/1/2001 and the appellant accepted it at the village office. That resulted in the prosecution.

(3.) When the charge was framed and read over, the appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, therefore, examined PWs.1 to 8 and proved Exts.P1 to P18 and identified MOs.1 to 12 to prove the charge. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Sec. 313(1) (b) of the Code. He denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in evidence. He filed a statement as well. In the statement he stated that PW1 came to his office 2-3 days before and when there occurred some delay in searching out his file, he got infuriated and left the office. On 24/1/2001 he came again to pay the tax. The appellant asked CW4 Soman, who was the staff in the village office, to prepare the receipt for receiving land tax from PW1. He then placed money on the table. The appellant believing that that was a Rs.100.00 note took it. Immediately, 5-6 persons rammed inside and arrested him. Thus, he maintained that he was innocent. No defence evidence was let in. The trial court found that the evidence tendered by the prosecution was sufficient to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant. The appellant assails those findings entered into by the Special Court and also his conviction.