CHERIAN LUKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by one Cherian Lukose who was a staff nurse attached to the taluk Headquarters hospital, Karunagapally He has been convicted by the Special judge Trivandrum under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) THE appellant was prosecuted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, X-Branch, Quilon under the Act on the allegation that while functioning as the Staff nurse of the above said hospital he demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 from one Raghavan for providing him a bed in the hospital. The demand is stated to have been made at 9. 45 a. m. on 26-9-64. Raghavan was being treated as an out-patient for stomach disorder; but later when he was examined by the doctor it was found that he required further treatment and for that he had to be admitted as an inpatient. Accordingly he was provided with admission ticket No. 59081. In the afternoon of 26-9-64 when Raghavan went to the hospital for being admitted as an inpatient the accused is stated to have told him he would get him admitted and provided with a cot in case he gave him a gratification of Rs. 5. Raghavan then met the Dy. Superintendent of Police ,x-branch at the kayamkulam Travellers Bungalow at about 2. 30 p. m. that day and told him that the accused was demanding illegal gratification for providing him with a bed in the hospital. The Dy. S. P. took a signed statement from him in respect of the matter and also the five-rupee note which was intended by Raghavan to be presented to the accused. A mahazar was prepared showing the number etc. , of the currency note The Dy. S. P. then sent two constables (Pws. 11 and 12') to the hospital along with Raghavan to watch what was happening there. Raghavan proceeded in advance with the marked note followed by Pws. 11 and 12. Pw. 11 stood at the entrance of the hospital room and Pw. 12 a little away, in the courtyard. Raghavan went inside the room from where the medicines are usually supplied to the patients By that time, Pw. 13 the Dy, S. P. also arrived in a car and waited on the road side in front of the hospital. Pw. 1 is a patient who had come to obtain medicine and he was also standing nearby and watching the scene. Raghavan went near the accused and presented him with the marked five-rupee note wrapped in a piece of paper. The accused received it and put it in his shirt pocket. Pw. 11 seeing the delivery of the currency note to the accused signalled to Pw. 12 and the latter in his turn signalled to the Dy. S. P. who was waiting outside. He immediately came to the hospital and the accused was pointed out to him by Pw 11. The Dy. Director of Health Services also happened to be present in the hospital that day and the Dy. S. P. apprised him of what had happened, and requisitioned the help of a doctor to watch the body search of the accused. Accordingly, Pw. 4 the Lady Doctor of the hospital was deputed to witness the search. The Dy. S. P. then searched the person of the accused in the presence of Pw. 4 and seized from his shirt pocket the five-rupee note that Raghavan had paid him. Pw. 2 Mytheen kunju is another witness who was present at the time of the search. Ext. P-l is the search list and M. O. 1 Is the five-rupee note recovered from his shirt pocket. The accused had also in his pocket another two-rupee note M. O. 3, which was also wrapped up in a paper and 2 np. kept in a money purse. After the search the Dy. S. P. returned to Quilon, and registered crime No. 10 of 1664; Ext. P-10 is the F. I. R.

(3.) THE accused when questioned by the learned Judge at the close of the prosecution evidence, denied the charge in toto. He stated that on 26-9-64 he had not even seen Raghavan anywhere in the hospital. He was also not aware of Ext. P-2 prescription slip, having been issued to Raghavan. He has never asked for any money from Raghavan and no amount was ever received from him. The alleged search of his person was also denied by him. M. O. 1 was never recovered from his shirt pocket. He further stated that this false charge was foisted on him at the instance of Mohammed Kunju and Jalal-uddin, both employees of the hospital who were ill-disposed to him. He had no witnesses to be examined on his side. The learned Special Judge accepting the prosecution version in full has entered the conviction.