2015 Supreme(Ker) 1333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
K. Mani - Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, Special C.B.I., Kochi - Respondent
Crl. A. Nos. 434 & 439 of 2001
Decided On : 16-12-2015

The court held that the sanction granted for the prosecution of the appellants was valid and that there was no failure of justice.

Headnote:

The court convicted the appellants for the offences under sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The appellants challenged the conviction on various grounds, including the validity of the sanction granted for their prosecution, the sufficiency of evidence, and the propriety of the sentence imposed.

Fact of the Case:

PW1, a subramonian, applied for the post of peon in RVTI, Kazhakoottam. Accused 1, the Principal of RVTI, and accused 2, his friend, conspired to demand a bribe from PW1 for providing employment. Accused 2 accompanied accused 1 to PW1's house and made the demand. PW1 did not have the money, so he did not pay the bribe. Accused 1 continued to demand the bribe, and PW1 eventually filed a complaint with the CBI. The CBI laid a trap and caught accused 1 accepting the bribe. Accused 1 and 2 were arrested and charged with the offences under sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had conspired to demand and accept illegal gratification from PW1, which amounted to misconduct and thereby committed the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The court also found that the sanction granted for the prosecution of the appellants was valid and that there was no failure of justice.

Issues: 1. Whether the court below was justified in holding that the prosecution established conspiracy between the first and second accused for the purpose of making demand of illegal gratification in respect of appointment of PW1 to the post of Peon in RVTI, Kazhakkooottam? 2. Whether the court below was justified in holding that the prosecution has proved that in pursuance of the conspiracy accused 1 and 2 went to the house of Pw1 and made the demand? 3. Whether the court below was justified in holding that the first accused had continued in making demand or persisted his demand and compelled PW1 to pay the amount as illegal gratification? 4. Whether the court below was justified in holding that the prosecution has proved that the first accused had made demand and accepted the illegal gratification in abuse of his official position to get unlawful gain while discharging as a public servant? 5. whether the court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that the sanction accorded is valid? 6. Whether the court below was justified in holding that the first accused has committed the offence punishable under section 120B of the P.C. Act read with section 7 of the P.C. Act? 7. Whether the court below was justified in holding that the first accused had committed the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act? 8. If so the sentence imposed is proper and legal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, and Ext.P1 to prove the conspiracy between the appellants. It also relied on the evidence of PW10, the daughter of accused 2, to prove that accused 2 had admitted to accompanying accused 1 to PW1's house to make the demand. The court found that the evidence of these witnesses was corroborated by the entries in Exts.P15 and P26 and the evidence of PW18, the investigating officer. 2. The court relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to prove that the appellants went to PW1's house and made the demand. The court found that the evidence of these witnesses was corroborated by the entries in Exts.P15 and P26 and the evidence of PW18. 3. The court relied on the evidence of PW1 to prove that the first accused continued to demand the bribe even after PW1 joined duty. The court found that the evidence of PW1 was corroborated by the evidence of PW12. 4. The court relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 9, and 14 to prove that the first accused had demanded and accepted the bribe. The court found that the evidence of these witnesses was corroborated by the recovery of the bribe money from the first accused. 5. The court relied on the evidence of PW15, the Secretary who signed the sanction order, to prove that the sanction was valid. The court found that the evidence of PW15 was corroborated by the documents in the sanction file, Exts.D4 and D4(a). 6. The court relied on the evidence discussed above to find that the first accused had committed the offence punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. 7. The court relied on the evidence discussed above to find that the first accused had committed the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 8. The court found that the sentence imposed by the court below was just and proper.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below were confirmed.