P.C. GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the Sub Treasury Officer, Iritty, in Kannur District, in October, 2001. He faced prosecution under Ss. 7 and 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short " the P.C Act) before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kohikode in C.C 42 of 2002 on a final report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kannur, after investigation, on a complaint filed against him by one Jayaprakash, who was a Field Officer in the Animal Husbandry Department. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - was sanctioned as N.R.A to the said Jayaprakash from his Provident Fund Account, and accordingly he submitted a bill before the Sub Treasury Officer for payment. It was objected on the ground that for any amount above Rs. 1 lakh, clearance from the Finance Department will have to be obtained. In view of such an objection, the said Jayaprakash obtained clearance from the Finance Department and submitted another bill for Rs. 1 lakh on 9.10.2011. Along with the bill, a copy of the clearance obtained from the Finance Department was also submitted by Jayaprakash. But the bill was objected by the Sub Treasury Officer on the ground that copy of clearance from the Finance Department will have to be obtained directly by post, or otherwise, and that the copy produced by the claimant without the seal of the office cannot be accepted to honour the bill. The bill was so objected on 9.10.2001 itself, and thereafter Jayaprakash met the accused on 11.10.2001 with request to sanction payment. On that day also, he could not obtain money. It is alleged that on 11.10.2001, the Sub Treasury Officer demanded an amount of Rs. 500/ - as illegal gratification for honouring the N.R.A Bill, and told Jayaprakash that as and when the said amount is paid, the bill would be sanctioned. As Jayaprakash was not inclined to make payment of bribe, he approached the Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau (VACB) with a complaint on 12.10.2001. On the said complaint, the VACB registered a crime and arranged a trap. The amount brought by Jayaprakash was treated with phenolphthalein, and after demonstrating the required phenolphthalein test to the complainant and the others, Jayaprakash was instructed by the Dy.S.P. (VACB) to approach the accused, and make payment. Accordingly, Jayaprakash met the accused at his office at about 12.10 p.m and made payment of the phenolphthalein tainted currency when the Sub Treasury Officer repeated the demand. On getting the prearranged signal, the vigilance team led by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reached there, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency and arrested the accused on the spot. After investigation, final report was submitted in court by the VACB. This is the prosecution case.

(2.) The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Ss. 7 and 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of the P.C Act. Thus he claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined nine witnesses including the complainant Jayaprakash and marked Exts. P1 to P23 documents. M.O 1 to M.O 5 properties including the tainted currency were also identified and marked during trial.

(3.) When examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and submitted that a vicious and illegitimate trap was arranged by the VACB to trap him at the instance of the complainant for the reason that he had grudge against him, and that the phenolphthalein tainted currency was in fact put on the office table by the complainant. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence in defence, but Exts. D1 and D2 were marked on his side.