Common Judgment

1. In these appeals filed under Sec. 374 (2) Cr.P.C. the appellants who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C.C. 78 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvnanathapuram, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1938 ("the P.C. Act" for short) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("the I.P.C." for short).

THE PROSECUTION CASE

2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:-

A1 (N.P. Ramadas) was working as the Food Inspector, Adoor Circle during the period from June -1996 to August 1998. A2 (S.A. Muhammed Salim Khan) was working as a Peon in the office of A1 during the period from June 1997 to August 1998. In furtherance of their common intention to obtain undue pecuniary advantage, A1 and A2 who were working as public servants abused their official position by A1 demanding a bribe of Rs.6,000/- from P.W.1 (N.N. Baby), the proprietor of a grocery shop by name "Naluthundil Stores", near Kadambanad Bazaar in Pathanamthitta District on 24-08-1998 at about 10.30 a.m. in the office of A1 at Adoor as a motive for saving P.W.1 from a Food Adulteration Case which would be launched against him in respect of turmeric (MALAYALAM) purchased by A1 accompanied by A2 from the shop of P.W.1 on 22-08-1998. On 26-08-1998 at 3.45 p.m. A1 repeated the demand from the premises of his office. In pursuance of his demand and in furtherance of the common intention of A1 and A2 to obtain undue pecuniary advantage, A2 accepted Rs.6,000/- in the form of tainted notes from P.W.1 at about 3.45 p.m. on 26-08-1998 when P.W.1 paid the said amount to A2 as directed by A1. A1 and A2 have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act and Sec. 34 I.P.C.

THE TRIAL

3. On the accused persons pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the court below for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 12 and got marked 21 documents as Exts. P1 to P21 and 8 material objects as Mos 1 to 8.

4. After the close of the prosecution evidence the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. The first accused had the following to submit before the court below:-

On 22-08-1998 he along with his office peon Muhammed Salim Khan (A2) had visited the grocery shop of P.W.1 (N.N. Baby) at Kadambanad. P.W.1 was at that time engaged in the sale of provisions. After introducing himself as the Food Inspector, A1 inspected the shop. About 50 kgms. of turmeric was kept for sale there in a gunny bag. He enquired with P.W.1 about the price, purchase bill etc. of turmeric for the purpose of taking samples therefrom. Thereupon P.W.1 wanted to be excused for a moment and he went out of the shop and contacted somebody over the phone. After sampling the turmeric A1 noted down the shop number, address of the licencee, licence details, particulars of the sample etc. other than the price of turmeric in an informal rough book kept by him and waited for P.W.1 to come. P.W.1 returned and told him that he was not in possession of the wholesale purchase bill of turmeric. Since the price of turmeric was not available, P.W1 was reluctant to sell the turmeric to the Food Inspector. P.W.1 then offered to sell any other commodity regarding the wholesale purchase bill was available with him. A1 gave Form VI notice to P.W. 1 and asked him to sell 750 gms. of black gram dhal. P.W.1 put his signature on the counterfoil of Form VI notice. Below the signature, instead of putting the date as 22-8-1998, P.W. 1 wrote 2 -8-