M.G. VALSALAKUMAR, FORMERLY SPECIAL GRADE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are filed against the judgment in C.C. No. 2 of 2002 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Crl. Appeal No. 345 of 2002 is filed by the first accused and Crl. No. 346 of 2002 is filed by the second accused in the Calendar Case. Both the appellants faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C. Act") read with Section 120B I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellants - accused was that while the accused ,who were Special Grade Auditors, were engaged in auditing the accounts of Mannancherry South Milk Producer's Co -operatives Society (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") for the year 1995 -96, they detected misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 40,000/ - and in order to close the matter without reporting to the police, they demanded 50% of the misappropriated amount as bribe from PW. 2, the Secretary of the Society. It was the further case of the prosecution that though PW. 2 paid Rs. 15,000/ - to the first accused on 19.3.1997, he made a demand for the balance amount of Rs. 5,000/ - and that the said amount of Rs. 5000/ - was received by the second accused from PW. 2 at about 2.30 p.m. on 21.3.1997. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and produced Exts.P1 to P23 as well as MOs. 1 to 6.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 345 of 2002 has raised the following contentions in challenging the judgment of the trial court : (i) the finding of the trial court that the appellant - first accused demanded bribe from PW. 2 is not based on any evidence as neither the evidence adduced by PW. 2 before the court nor Ext.P1 first information statement given by him would prove that such a demand was made by the first accused, (ii) the finding of the trial court that the appellant committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 120B I.P.C. on the basis of the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the second accused is not sustainable as there is no evidence to show the involvement of the appellant at the time when the second accused accepted the money and (iii) the finding of the trial court that the appellant and the second accused had conspired together to commit the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act is without any legally acceptable evidence.