PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some students of the Engineering College Trivandrum, were lured into paying gratification money to the Examiner for giving them pass marks, but the bribe receivers were caught red-handed by the Vigilance Officers. This is the gist of the case in which three accused were convicted and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment and fine. These appeals are in challenge of the said conviction and sentence.

(2.) The examination (called Survey Practical Examination) was held on 24 II. j 98 3 for which the second accused was the External Examiner and the third accused was the Internal Examiner. Some of the participants in the examination were appearing for the third chance in the examination and a failure this time would have resulted in losing one year in this academic course. For such students, the examination held on 24/11/1983 was termed as critical examination. The second accused was, at the relevant time, working on deputation as Controller of Examinations in Gandhiji University and the third accused was then working as Assistant Professor of Civil Department in the Engineering College, Trivandrum. Altogether twenty students appeared for the praclical examination, but only three of them secured pass marks. The prosecution case can now be narrated in the aforesaid background.

(3.) P.W. 1, a student in the Vth Semester came to know that the second accused would add up marks to those who approach him with money and that the first accused would act as go-between. (First accused was the second grade Skilled Assistant of the Engineering College). Other students who were anxious to have more marks also had the same information. A few among them met the third accused for advice, but he told them that the only way to get out of the situation was to meet the second accused who is a money minded man, Taking the cue from the third accused, those students decided to approach the second accused. The guardians of some of them directly approached the second accused and paid him rupees one thousand each. Some of the students used the services of the first accused to hand over the cash to the Examiner. P.Ws. 1 and 4 were classmates who did the survey practical examination. They ventured to elicit from the second accused the result of the examination. But the second accused declined to divulge the results to them but told them that they had sufficient time to co-operate However, they collected information from the first accused that P. W. 4 was among the failed candidates. First accused gave them sufficient hint that if the amount demanded was paid to him, the second accused would do the needful. Third accused advised them to act in the same way as the other students did.