ABRAHAM Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, convicted and sentenced the appellant under S.161, I.P.C. and under S.5(2) read with S.5(1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to rigorous imprisonment for two years each with an additional sentence of Rs.5,000 fine for the latter with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months, with permission to suffer the substantive terms concurrently.

(2.) APPELLANT was the Administrative Officer in the Head Office of F.A.C.T. in charge of purchase P.W.1 was the Divisional Manager of a Company by name 'Logic Systems Pvt Limited' with which the F.A.C.T. placed order for purchase of electric typewriters. The charge is that missing his official position the appellant demanded and received Rs.2,000 as illicit gratification from P.W.1.

(3.) EXT.P.5 is the trap mahazar and EXT.P.6 is the recovery mahazar. Recovery is not disputed. Hands and pocket of the appellant were positive to the tests and the notes recovered were also identical. The questions is only whether the payment was as alleged by the prosecution or the defence. The evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,6,9 and 12 is that the amount was recovered from the pocket whereas the defence version is that the appellant was caught when the amount was in his hand in an attempt to give it back. If P.Ws. 1, 2 ,6, 9 and 12 are believed, the defence version of payment may be improbable. Even if that be the position the demand alleged by the prosecution and the attitude of P.W.1 in having a bargain and making an unwilling payment are improbable in view of the facts stated above.