P KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C.Act) in C.C.No.61 of 2004 of the Special Court(Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. He faced trial on the allegation that while working as a Warder of the Attakulangara Sub Jail, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.1,000/- as bribe from one Lawrence for permitting him to visit his co-accused who had been in judicial custody in a crime of the Thiruvananthapuram Fort Police Station. The special Investigation Unit of the Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered the crime on the complaint made by the said Lawrence. He and the co-accused had been in judicial custody in connection with a theft case of the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. After a short period of custody, Lawrence was released on bail. The other accused continued in custody, and Lawrence used to visit his co-accused in jail after he was released on bail. His complaint is that the different Warders of the Attakulangara Sub Jail including the accused herein had accepted money from him on many occasions for permitting him to visit his co-accused, that even his wife had to pay bribe to the Warders for permission to visit him when he was in jail, and that when he came to the jail on 18.11.1998 for visiting his co-accused, this accused and the other Warders Madhu, Gopan and Subramanian accepted Rs.100/- each from him, and on that day this accused even demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- secretly. Accepting the demand, he offered payment and agreed to come back on 20.11.1998. On 19.11.1998, Lawrence approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram Unit. He was asked to come on the next day with the required trap money. Accordingly, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 20.11.1998 and made a complaint. On the said complaint, the VACB registered a crime and received the trap money as per a mahazar. After demonstrating phenolphthalein test, Lawrence was instructed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to meet the accused at the Sub Jail, and make payment of bribe, if demanded. Accordingly, Lawrence went to the jail, followed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the others including a public servant arranged as trap witness. The Dy.S.P. and others remained outside at a distance, and Lawrence went to the Sub Jail to meet the accused. On seeing Lawrence, the accused came outside and met Lawrence at a shed in front of the Sub Jail. At the said shed, Lawrence made payment of the phenolphthalein tainted money when demanded by the accused, and Lawrence conveyed the pre-arranged signal. On getting the signal, the Vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P. reached the spot, seized the tainted money from the possession of the accused, and arrested the accused on the spot.

(2.) The accused appeared before the learned trial Judge, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P19 documents in the trial court. The MO1 to MO7 properties were also identified during trial. 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 with the help of the Vigilance Officers. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence, but, Ext.D1 was marked on his side.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, and to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for three years, and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 25.4.2008, the accused has come up in appeal.