P KUNHIKRISHNAN NELLIYADUKKAM HOUSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the 2nd Grade Overseer of the Nileswar Grama Panchayat in June 2002. The improvement work on a road within the Panchayat, by name "Mundemmad road", sanctioned by the Panchayat under the Peoples' Campaign Programme for the year 2001-2002 was entrusted to one M.V.Bharathan as the Convener of the committee formed for the purpose with the participation of the people, and the estimated amount was Rs.50,000/-. The work was carried out by the said M.V.Bharathan, it was check-measured by the Engineers and also the Overseer, and finally, the said M.V.Bharathan submitted bill for payment. It was the duty of the 2 nd Grade Overseer of the Panchayat to prepare memo of payment after the works being check-measured by him and the Engineers, and accordingly, the said M.V.Bharathan approached the accused, and requested him to prepare the memo of payment. He first met the Panchayat Secretary, and as asked by the Secretary, Bharathan met the accused. The prosecution case is that for preparing memo of payment the accused demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the said Bharathan on 25.06.2002, and on bargain the amount was reduced to Rs.1,500/-. Accordingly, Bharathan was required by the accused to meet him at his office on 27.06.2002 before noon for making such payment. As Bharathan was not inclined to make payment of bribe, he contacted the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kasaragod. As instructed by the Dy. S.P., Bharathan made a complaint on 27.06.2002 itself. On the said complaint, the Dy. S.P., VACB registered a crime, an amount of Rs.1,500/- (three currency notes of Rs.500/-) was received as per an entrustment mahazar, and the required phenolphthalein test was demonstrated to the complainant and others, for trapping the accused. At about 12.45 p.m., the said M.V.Bhararathan, followed by the vigilance team reached the Nileswar Grama Panchayat office, and Bharathan met the accused at his office. When the accused repeated his demand, Bharathan made payment of the phenolphthalein tainted currency of Rs.1,500/- to the accused, and conveyed the pre-arranged signal to the vigilance team. On getting the signal conveyed by a member of the team, the Dy.S.P. reached the spot, and interrogated the accused. When the Dy.S.P. questioned the accused whether he had received bribe from Bharathan he denied, but the result of the phenolphthalein test conducted by the Dy.S.P. on the spot turned positive. When further questioned, the accused stated where he had kept the phenolphthalein tainted currency. As shown by him, it was taken from inside the files kept on the rack near the seat of the accused. The accused was arrested on the spot, and the phenolphthalein tainted currency was seized as per a mahazar. The Dy.S.P. himself conducted investigation, and he submitted final report in Court.

(2.) On the allegation of acceptance of illegal gratification for discharging his official duty of preparing memo of payment, the accused faced trial before the Special Court (Vigilance), Kozhikode in C.C. No. 51 of 2003. He entered appearance before the trial court, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the PC Act"). The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P23 documents in the trial court. The MO1 to MO3 properties including the phenolphthalein tainted currency notes seized from the possession of the accused were also identified.

(3.) The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., and projected a defence that he was viciously trapped by the complainant at the instigation of the other employees and Panchayat authorities for the reason that he had, on many occasions, pointed out some irregularities and malfeasance on the part of the other employees. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence, but Ext.D1 was marked on his side.