Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 938
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. UBAID, J.
K.T. SAMUEL - APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF KERALA - RESPONDENT
Crl. A. No. 2012 of 2006
Decided on : 19-08-2015
Advocate Appeared:
SRI. B. RAMAN PILLAI, SRI. R. ANIL, SRI. ANIL K. MOHAMMED, SRI. SUJESH MENON V.B., SRI. SHYAM ARAVIND
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of independent corroboration and proper proof of prosecution sanction in corruption cases, emphasizing the requirement of independent application of mind in the process of granting sanction.
Headnote:
Corruption - Public Servant - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, as the Secretary of the Aranmula Grama Panchayat, was accused of demanding and receiving a bribe for sanctioning a claim and issuing a cheque for a balance amount related to a road construction project. The prosecution alleged that the appellant received an amount as a bribe and demanded a further amount as a reward for sanctioning the claim. A trap was arranged by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, resulting in the appellant's arrest and subsequent conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence given by the complainant to be suspicious and not corroborated by independent evidence. It also found the trap arranged by the Vigilance to be suspicious and not legitimate. Additionally, the court held that the prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not properly and legally proved. As a result, the appellant was acquitted on both factual and legal grounds.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the complainant's evidence, the legitimacy of the trap arranged by the Vigilance, and the proper proof of prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the suspicious nature of the evidence given by the complainant, the lack of independent corroboration, and the failure to properly prove the prosecution sanction. The court also emphasized the necessity of independent application of mind in the process of granting sanction and the responsibility of proving essential elements as regards sanction.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on both factual and legal grounds. The appellant was released from prosecution, and any bail bond executed by him was discharged.
The appellant herein was the Secretary of the Aranmula Grama Panchayat during October 2000- February,2001. During the said period, the work of tarring of Kotta-Mayyavu Circular Road in Ward No.X of Aranmula Grama Panchayat was entrusted to a beneficiary committee on a total estimated cost of 1.17 lakhs. As convenor of the committee, the work was carried out by one K.N. Retnarajan, and he was also granted an advance payment of 57,614/-. He completed the work on 21.1.2001, and the work was check measured by the concerned Assistant Engineer, and also the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Aranmula Minor Irrigation Sub Division. Thereafter, the said Ratnarajan submitted the final bill before the appellant on 29.1.2001. It is alleged that, at that time, the appellant asked Ratnarajan to meet him at his office on 30.1.2001. Accordingly, Ratnarajan met the Secretary at his office on 30.1.2001 and made request to sanction the claim for the balance amount. The prosecution case is that, at that time, the Panchayat Secretary received an amount of 400/- as bribe, and the Secretary made a further demand for 600/- as a reward for sanctioning the claim and issuing the cheque for the balance amount. Ratnarajan made repeated requests to sanction the final bill, but the Secretary did not heed to the request, and he repeated his demand for 600/-. It is alleged that as Ratnarajan was not inclined to make further payment to sanction the final bill, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Pathanamthitta, and made a complaint on 14.2.2001. On the said complaint, the Dy.S.P., registered a crime and arranged a trap. The Dy.S.P. received the amount of 600/- brought by the complainant as per mahazar, applied phenolphthalein on the currency, and instructed the complainant and the trap witnesses to approach the accused at his office on that day itself and make payment, if the Secretary made further demand. Accordingly, the complainant Ratnarajan went to the Panchayat office on 14.2.2001 itself in the afternoon, but the Secretary could not be found there. He returned to the vigilance office and reported what transpired. The phenolphthalein tainted currency was received back by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as per mahazar, and the complainant and the others were instructed to come on the next day. After demonstrating phenolphthalein test again on 15.2.2001, the Dy.S.P. Instructed the complainant to approach the accused at his office and make payment on demand. The complainant Ratnarajan and the trap witness proceeded to the Panchayat office, and the vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P followed them. It is alleged that when the complainant met the Secretary at his office on that day, the Secretary demanded the amount, and on demand Ratnarajan paid the phenolphthalein tainted currency of 600/-. The Secretary received the currency in his right hand, and after counting the currency, he placed it under some files on the table. On signal given by the complainant, the vigilance team led by the Dy.S.P rushed to the office of the Secretary, the Dy.S.P seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency from the possession of the accused, and after conducting phenolphthalein test, arrested the Secretary on the spot. After investigation, the VACB submitted final report before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The accused entered appearance before the learned Trial Judge and claimed to be tried by pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( for short "P.C Act").
3. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P21 documents, and also MO1 to MO7 properties identified during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and submitted that he had not received illegal gratification from the complainant, and
