V.O.KUNJUKUNJU (DIED) Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused in C.C.No.41/2002 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode.

(2.) During the period 2000, the accused was serving as the Secretary of Kayakkodi Grama Panchayat in Kozhikode District. The allegation of the prosecution was that, while so, the defacto complainant submitted an application for issuing license for installing a 10 H.P. motor to run a flour Mill, in a building taken on rent from his mother. It was alleged by the prosecution that for the purpose of issuing the license, the accused abusing his official position, demanded a sum of Rs.2,000,/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as bribe on 15.05.2000. Thereafter, it was negotiated and reduced to Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only). He complained to the vigilance, who laid a trap. A Five Hundred Rupee note smeared with Phenolphthalein was handed over to the defacto complainant, who handed it over to the accused on 16.05.2000 at 4.10 p.m. at his office of the Grama Panchayat. The Detecting Officer and his team intercepted the accused, recovered the Phenolphthalein smeared Rs.500/- note, prepared the mahazar. On dipping the hands of the accused in chemical water, it turned pink and the Phenolphthalein test was completed. After preparation of the initial formalities, he was arrested and remanded. After completion of investigation final report was laid for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded innocence. Thereupon prosecution tendered oral and documentary evidence. On the side of the prosecution PWs1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P30 were marked. MO1 to MO7 were identified. On the side of the accused there was no defence evidence, though a contradiction in the statement of PW4 was marked as Ext.D1.

(3.) On an evaluation of the entire evidence, the Court below found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only)and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for offence under Section 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The substantive sentences were directed to be undergone concurrently. Set off was also granted. Aggrieved by the above sentence, the accused has preferred the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the accused expired and his wife got herself impleaded as additional 2nd appellant by order dated 24.10.2006 in Crl.MA No.6322/2016.