S.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the Assistant Secretary of the Corporation of Thrissur in June -July,2003. On 28.7.2003, one Abdul Rahman filed a complaint against him before the Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thrissur, that when he made an application for conversion of the single phase electricity service connection to his welding institute by name 'Dubai Institute', into a three phase connection, and when he met the Assistant Secretary on 25.7.2003 in connection with the said request, the Assistant Secretary demanded an amount of 1000/ - as a reward for granting the said connection. On the complaint of Abdul Rahman, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (VACB) registered a crime, and arranged a trap. Accordingly, the amount of 1000/ - brought by the complainant was received as per mahazar, and after demonstrating phenolphthalein test to the complainant and others, the Dy.S.P Instructed the complainant to approach the Assistant Secretary at his office on 29.7.2003. At about 10.50 a.m on the said day, the complainant approached the accused and made payment of the amount, when he made further demand. Within no time, on getting signal, the vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P reached at the office of the accused, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency, and arrested the accused on the spot. After investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur. The trial court took cognizance on the final report as C.C.4 of 2005.

(2.) The appellant/accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C Act). The prosecution examined seven witnesses including the complainant and the Detecting Officer, and also proved Exts.P1 to P14 documents. The material objects including the tainted currency were identified during trial as MO1 to MO6. Ext.X1 was also marked during trial. The accused maintained a defence that he was trapped by the VACB at the instance of the complainant due to some previous enmity, that he had not demanded or accepted any amount from the complainant, and that the tainted money was in fact put on his table by the complainant without his knowledge or consent as part of trapping him illicitly. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence in spite opportunity granted by the court.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of 20,000/ - under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act, and to undergo another term of rigorous three years, and to pay a fine of imprisonment for 20,000/ - under Section 7 of the P.C Act, by judgment dated 17.3.2008. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.