K M NARAYANASWAMI Vs. KERALA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in Calendar Case No.1/1955 on the file of the Special Judges Court at Coimbatore is the appellant. The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Coimbatore was appointed as the Special Judge for trying cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) and it was in that capacity as Special Judge that the case against the accused was tried. The accused is an employee under the Southern Railway and was functioning as the Assistant Goods Clerk attached to the Kasargode railway station during the relevant period i. e., between 25-8-1954 and 13-10-1954. On getting information that he was in the habit of receiving illegal gratification from persons who had to consign goods from the Kasargode railway station to other places, Pw. 15 the Special Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Special Police Establishment, Madras, proceeded to investigate into the matter after obtaining the necessary sanction and filed a charge sheet against the accused. When the case came on for trial, the Special Judge framed a charge against the accused under S.5(1)(a) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947). The following nine instances of the accused having received illegal gratification were mentioned in the charge:

(2.) After a due consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Special Judge found that the charges under counts 2 to 5 and 7 to 9 were not proved by any satisfactory and convincing evidence but that there was convincing and acceptable evidence in respect of the charges under counts 1 and 6. To sustain a charge under S.5(1)(a) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at least 3 instances of receipt of illegal gratification had to be proved against the accused. Since two such instances alone were found to be proved in this case, the Special Judge held that the accused could not be convicted under the aforesaid sections, but could only be convicted for the lesser offence punishable under S.161 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the accused was convicted under S.161 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. The appeal is against such conviction and sentence.

(3.) Apart from certain legal points urged against the sustainability of the conviction entered against the accused, it is also argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial Judge erred in holding that there is satisfactory and convincing evidence in proof of charges under counts 1 and 6. The question of reliability of such evidence may be considered at the outset before adverting to the legal points raised on behalf of the appellant.