1. The appellants are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. 23/1998 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. In the final report, the 2nd accused was the 3rd accused. They were working as the Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer from 6.7.1990 to 28.2.1991 and 28.9.1990 to 1.11.1990 respectively in Kallada Irrigation Project LBC formation of Kottiyam branch canal from chainage 6486M to 8735M. Late K.Y. Abraham, who was originally arrayed as the second accused, was the contractor to whom the said work was awarded. Accepting the lowest tender submitted by late Abraham, Ext.P3(a) original agreement dated 24.8.1987 was executed between the Contractor Abraham and PW.4, the then Superintending Engineer. Work site was handed over on 16.12.97. After executing the agreement, it was brought to the notice that some changes were required in the levels. Consequently, proposals were made and in terms of the revised proposal supplemental agreement No.1, which was marked as Ext.P15 dated 13.9.1988, was executed between PW.4 and the contractor. The period for execution of the work was twelve months from 21.1.1988. Due to various reasons the contractor could not complete the work within the time frame. Hence, supplemental agreements No. 2 and 3, which were marked as Exts.P20 and P21 respectively, were executed on 22.2.1990 for extending the period for execution. During the course of the execution of the work, the contractor advanced certain claim for revised rates and extra claims. The claim by the contractor was duly processed and after a negotiation with the contractor, PW.6, the then Superintending Engineer, on 22.2.1990 itself, executed supplemental agreement No.4 which was marked as Ext.P23. The contractor continued to lodge claim for revision of rates and demanded payments as if various items of the work were extra. According to the prosecution, the present second accused, by Ext.P22(g) letter, recommended to treat the construction of the culvert as extra item. The prosecution would allege that the said letter was a result of the conspiracy between accused 1 and 2 and the contractor (original second accused) and in pursuance to Ext.P22(g), after negotiation between the first accused and the contractor, supplemental agreement No. 6 dated 19.10.1990, which was marked as Ext.P33 was executed agreeing for an exorbitant rate in respect of items of work covered by Ext.P33 whereby the Contractor got undue pecuniary advantage of Rs.8,40,010.69/-. The period for the execution of the work extended by Exts.P20 and P21 was further extended till 31.3.1991 by executing supplemental agreement No.5, which was marked as Ext.P39 on 19.10.1990, i.e. on the date on which Ext.P33 was executed. The contractor again requested for revision of rates and to make payments as if extra items as per letter dated 13.2.1991, copy of which was marked as Ext.P24(O). Simultaneously the 1st accused and contractor again conspired and in pursuance to the conspiracy between the first accused and the contractor, executed supplemental agreement No.7 which was marked as Ext.P25 on 20.2.1991 whereby the contractor had obtained undue pecuniary advantage amounting to 12,81,031.78/-.

2. The prosecution would allege that as a result of the conspiracy between accused 1 and 2 and the contractor, supplementary agreement No.6 was executed and thereafter, supplementary agreement No. 7 was executed as a result of the conspiracy between the first accused and the contractor and that accused 1 and 2 abused their office and committed misconduct whereby the contractor had obtained undue pecuniary advantage altogether amounting to Rs. 21,21,041.29 (Rs.8,40,161.69 + 12,81,031.78). Having brought to the notice of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, a preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein misconduct and conspiracy was revealed. Basing upon the report of the preliminary enquiry, PW.17, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti C