Back
2010 Supreme(Ker) 877
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Hema, J.
K.N. Ramesh, S/o Nanu, Formerly Senior Co-Operative Inspector - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 697 of 2001 (A) and Crl. M.C. No. 1648 of 2004
Decided On : 04-11-2010
For the Appellant :S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, Senior Advocate, K. Jayakumar, Senior Advocate, Sri. K. Jaju Babu, Sri. Brijesh Mohan, Smt. Resmi G. Nair, P.B. Krishnan, R. Suraj Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sri. B. Vinod, Public Prosecutor
The prosecution must prove that the accused made an effort to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, and for the offence under Section 7, it must be shown that the accused accepted gratification that gave him pleasure or satisfaction. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn without proof of acceptance or obtaining of gratification.
Headnote:
tainted money - Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, Section 13(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public servant, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from a co-operative society secretary. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 3,000 as a bribe and accepted the tainted currency notes. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant demanded or accepted the bribe. The court also noted discrepancies in the evidence and found that the appellant's explanation for receiving the money was credible. The court held that the mere recovery of tainted currency notes and the appellant's admission of receipt were not sufficient to establish guilt.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe, and whether the prosecution proved the essential elements of the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to establish the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, the prosecution must prove that the accused made an effort to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, such as by demand or request. The court also emphasized that for the offence under Section 7, it may be enough to prove that the accused accepted gratification, but the gratification must give the accused pleasure or satisfaction. The court further noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be drawn as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused obtained or accepted the gratification.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was found not guilty and acquitted of the offences. All adverse observations made against another individual were expunged, and the direction for initiating immediate action against that individual was set aside.
Mrs. K. Hema, J.
Is mere recovery of tainted money from possession of accused during trap sufficient to convict him for offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act', for short) ? Is mere receipt of money by a person from another sufficient to prove "acceptance" of any "gratification", for purpose of Section 7 of the Act ? Mainly, these two questions arise for consideration in this case.
2. According to prosecution, PW1 was working as Secretary of a Co-operative Society. Certain allegations were made against him that he misappropriated Rs. 30,000/- from the Society. Hence an enquiry was conducted against him by PW4, a Senior Co-operative Inspector, attached to the Office of the Deputy Director of Dairy Development. The appellant and PW4 shared the same chamber in the office and both of them went for inspection of the Society in the same car. To settle the enquiry in favour of PW1, and as a motive or reward for doing so, appellant demanded Rs. 3,000/- as bribe from PW1 on 31.12.1998 at his office. He again made demand for bribe over phone on 06.01.1999. But, PW1 was not prepared to pay bribe. He informed PW6, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau ('VACB' for short) and a trap was arranged.
3. A complaint (Exhibit P1) was made by PW1 to PW6, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on 07.01.1999 at about 4 p.m., based on which, Exhibit P1(f) FIR was registered by PW6. On the next day, on 08.01.1999 at about 11 a.m., as arranged, PW1 handed over tainted currency notes (MO1 series) to appellant at his office and it was accepted by accused. Thereafter, signals were given by PW1, which were further conveyed by PW2 to PW6. Thereafter, officials rushed to the cabin of accused and Phenolphthalein test was done and it was confirmed that accused accepted Rs. 3,000/- (MO1 series) from PW1.
4. Investigation was conducted and on competition of the same, charge sheet was laid by PW6 against appellant before Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge ('Special Judge' for short) for offences Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act. The trial court framed charge against the appellant as follows:
"That you the accused being a public servant while working as Senior Co-operative Inspector in the Office of the Deputy Director, Dairy Development, Pullikkada, Kollam on 31.12.1998 at your office demanded Rs. 3,000/- from CW1 Yesodharan, the Former Secretary of the Ambalakkara Ksheerothpadaka Co-operative Society and repeated your demand over phone on 6.1.1999; and accepted Rs. 3,000/- as gratification other than remuneration at 11.10 a.m. On 8.1.1999 at your office mentioned above, as a reward for settling the complaint sent by the Board of Directors of the Ksheerothpadaka Co-operative Society, Ambalakkara and thereby you the accused obtained pecuniary advantage and such you committed the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court."
5. Prosecution examined PW1 to 7 and marked Exhibits P1 to P17 on its side. MO1 to MO7 were also marked. The accused was questioned under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). He pleaded innocence and made a detailed statement. For appreciation of the contentions raised by both sides, it is necessary to refer to portions of his statement as follows:
"Appellant did not make any demand to PW1 nor did he accept any bribe. PW4 and appellant were working in the same office in the same capacity as Co-operative Inspectors and specific local jurisdiction was also fixed for each of them. PW1's Society falls within the jurisdiction of PW4 and appellant had no occasion to go to the said Society for any inspection. He also has no authority to inspect any records of the said Society.
The records of the society were all inspected by PW4 himself and not by appellant. On 26.11.1998, PW4 alone went to the Society of PW1 for inspection, a
