Point of Law : Court reiterated that to attract procedure under Section 340, person concerned should have intentionally given false evidence for purpose of being used in a judicial procedure.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 13.01.2022 in C.C No.16/2011 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The appellant in Crl.A No.124/2022 is the sole accused. The appellant in Crl.A No.155/2022 is the defacto complainant. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). While disposing of the Case, the Trial Court held that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC against the defacto complainant (PW1) and directed to file a complaint against him.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.124 of 2022

Prosecution Case:

2. The accused was a Village Officer of Mundur-1 Village in Palakkad District in 2009. The defacto complainant (PW1) owned the landed property covered by sale deed No.1855/07/1 of SRO, Parali. His father had 'verumpattom right' over the land, having an extent of 24.75 cents. PW1 purchased the said right from his father under Ext.P3 sale deed in 2007. A thandaper number had been assigned to the property in favour of the father of PW1 and he had been remitting the property tax in the thandaper number before the registration of Ext.P3 sale deed. On 20.08.2009, PW1 approached the accused for effecting mutation regarding the property in his name and to remit the property tax. The accused insisted on measuring the property. After measuring the property on 21.08.2009, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/-as a bribe for effecting mutation. The accused accepted Rs.1,000/-on 21.08.2009 at 12.00 p.m. at the Village Office, Mundur-1. He demanded Rs.500/-more from PW1. As PW1 had not possessed the money as demanded by the accused, he returned to his native place at Ootty. The accused continued demanding the balance sum of Rs.500/-. PW1 finally complained to the Dy.SP, VACB, Palakkad (PW9) on 07.09.2009. Based on the complaint, PW9 registered Ext.P1(a) FIR, and a trap was laid. On 08.09.2009, PW1 handed over Rs.500/-which the accused accepted. The accused was arrested along with the trap money. Phenolphthalein test was conducted on the currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused. The test turned positive.

3. The accused is, therefore, alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and proved Exts.P1 to P32 and MOs 1 to 5. Exhibits D1 to D4 were marked on the side of the defence.

5. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is a relative of PW1. PW3, an independent witness, was examined to prove the trap. PW4 was an officer of the Revenue Department who was examined to prove the recovery of certain documents from the office of the accused. PW5, who was holding additional charge of the Assistant Executive Engineer (PWD), prepared the sketch of the place of occurrence. PW6 is the Village Officer who succeeded the accused. PWs 7 and 8 were examined to prove the seizure mahazar. PW9 is the DySP, VACB, the Trap Lying Officer who seized MO1 currency notes.

Defence Case:

6. PW1 approached the accused on 20.08.2009 to remit the tax for the property covered by Ext.P3 sale deed, along with the tax receipt of the year 2007 and a possession certificate. Exhibit P3 sale deed appeared as a 'created document' as there were no prior documents. PW1 had yet to regularly remit the tax after 2007. The accused informed PW1 that only after measuring the property and verifying the relevant documents, could tax be remitted for the property in respect of the extent he claimed. On 21.08.2009, the accused visited the property and measured the same. Since the pathway situated on the northern and eastern sides was widened, the property had an extent of only 17.5 cents as against 24.75 cents claimed by PW1. The accused represented to PW1 that he could accept tax only in r