DR. N. ANANTHA NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment in C.C. No. 15 of 2001 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The appellant 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").

(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellant was that while the appellant was working as Anaesthesiologist at Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha, he demanded a sum of Rs. 300/ - from PW.2 for giving anaesthesia to his sister, one Nabeeza (CW.5) who was admitted in the said hospital for undergoing Thyroidectomy surgery. The further case of the prosecution was that the demand was made at about 7 p.m. on19.3.1999 at his residence in the Housing Board Colony, Muvattupuzha and that PW.2, who was not willing to give bribe, approached PW.12, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam and gave Ext.P2 first information statement. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the basis of Ext.P2, PW.12 laid a trap against the appellant and when the appellant came to his official consultation room at the hospital at 11 a.m. on 24.3.1999, PW.2 went inside the room along with his brother and PW.3, the official witness and in furtherance of the demand made by the appellant PW.2 gave him three currency notes of hundred rupee denomination which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder at the office of PW.12. The said currency notes were recovered from the appellant and the appellant was arrested at 12.10 p.m. on 24.3.1999 from his official consultation room. To prove the case against the appellant, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and produced Exts.P1 to P17 as well as MOs.1 to 9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. On closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that the case was foisted against him on the advise of the Vigilance Officer, one George and some persons of the D.Y.F.I who had demanded Rs. 1000/ - from him towards certain fund and he had given only Rs. 300/ -. The appellant further stated that the surgery of the sister of PW.2 was provisionally posted to 24.3.1999 on the advise of Dr.Nathaniel Thomas and that on examination, the pulse rate of the patient was found to be very high and since it was risky to administer anaesthesia at that stage, he had prescribed tablets to reduce the pulse rate. He further stated that on 24.3.1999 while he was in the consultation room at the hospital and examining patients, three persons entered the room and enquired about the surgery of the sister of PW.2 and immediately PW.12 entered the room and asked him to remove his brief case from the table and that when he did so, he found some currency notes kept under the brief case. The appellant further stated that the said currency notes when subjected to phenolphthalein test gave positive result. However, relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The appellant was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The appellant was also given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. The above conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.

(3.) THE prosecution examined PW.1 who was the Additional Secretary of the Health Department to prove Ext.P1 sanction order to prosecute the appellant under the P.C. Act. This witness had given evidence to the effect that Ext.P1 sanction order was issued after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials collected by the Vigilance Department and after satisfying that the charges levelled against the appellant requires to be tried under the provisions of the P.C. Act. Though Ext.P1 sanction order was challenged by the defence, the trial court correctly accepted Ext.P1 as having been properly issued as per the provisions of the P.C. Act.