N. K. BALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment in CC No. 24 of 2002 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant, the sole accused in the above case, faced trial for the offences punishable under S.7 and 13(1)(a) and (d) read with S.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 he was working as Village Assistant of Chethackal Village, Ranni Taluk, he demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- from PW 1 as bribe for giving valuation certificate of the property belonging to the father of PW 1 and accepted a sum of Rs.500/- at 11 a.m. on 07/02/2000. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant used to receive bribe from the public habitually for performing his official functions as Village Assistant and thereby committed the offences alleged against him. To prove the case against the appellant, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and produced Exts. P1 to P25 as well as MOs. 1 to 12. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under S.313 CrPC. Denying the prosecution allegations, the appellant stated that the case was foisted against him by PW 1 and others who wanted to obtain valuation certificates for more than the actual value of the property. He further stated that the amount recovered from him was the amount he had collected for the village account and not the amount received from PW 1 as alleged by the prosecution. However, relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty under S.7 of the P.C. Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The appellant was found not guilty of the offence punishable under S.13(1)(a) and (d) read with S.13(2) of the P. C. Act and he was acquitted of those charges. The above conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the Trial Court that the appellant demanded bribe and received a sum of Rs.500/- from PW 1 is not supported by any legally acceptable evidence as there is no independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW 1. Counsel further submits that the alleged recovery of an amount of Rs.300/- from the appellant by PW 12 in the presence of PW 2 ought not to have been accepted by the Trial Court as there was no other evidence to prove that the appellant was in possession of the tainted currency notes. That apart, counsel submits that though the prosecution case was that PW 1 had given Rs.500/- to the appellant, only Rs.300/- was recovered from the appellant. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that PW 1 and PW 13 being interested witnesses, their evidence should not have been accepted by the Trial Court. Lastly, counsel submits that the sentence awarded is excessive and that even if the entire evidence is accepted, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court ought to have taken a lenient view.