Accusation under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires credible evidence of misconduct, and procedures for collecting evidence must be strictly adhered to, particularly with regards to handwriting identification.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises from the judgment dated 30.11.2010 in C.C.No.160/2008 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The appellant is the accused No.2. The appellant faces charges under Sections 13 (1) (c) & (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , and Sections 409 , 465, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The prosecution case unfolded from the materials before the Court is as follows:- 2.1. The appellant (accused No.2) was a member of Vazhoor Grama Panchayath. Accused No.1 was a clerk in the office of the Grama Panchayath. Sri. Jim Aby Jacob had owned a factory in the name and style Iravikulagara Polymers. PW1 was a partner of the firm.

2.2. PW1 approached the appellant to get licence as provided in the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules (D & O Licence). The appellant received Rs.1,240/- as licence fee from PW1. After that, the appellant and the other accused entered into a criminal conspiracy in March 2000. In furtherance of it, they forged Ext.P3 licence and handed it over to PW4, an employee of PW1, representing that the same was a genuine licence. The appellant and the other accused thus misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,240/-.

3. The appellant and the other accused appeared in response to the summons, and charges were framed against them, alleging the offences mentioned above. They denied the charges.

4. The Court below proceeded with the trial. PWs 1 to 17 were examined on the side of the prosecution, and Exts.P1 to P40 were marked. DWs 1 and 2 were examined, and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the accused.

5. After the Trial, the Court acquitted accused No.1. The Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused No.2 for the offences under Section 13 (1)(d) read with (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409 , 465, 471 read with

120B of IPC . The Court below sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act. The Court below also sentenced the appellant for one year each under Sections 406 and 465 of .

6. The Trial Court relied on the following pieces of evidence to conclude that the appellant committed the offences alleged :

(a) The oral evidence of PWs 6, 7, and 10 to the effect that the appellant wrote the entries in Ext.P3, Ext.P16, P29 and P31.

(b) The oral evidence of PWs 14 and 17 corroborated by Exts.P3 and P27 writings, and Ext.P39 report.

7. Heard Sri.K.A. Hassan assisted by Smt.Juliya Priya Reshmi the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Rajesh A., the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the oral evidence of PWs 6, 7, and 10 to the effect that the writings contained in Ext.P3 are that of the appellant is not acceptable as the requirements of Section 47 of the Evidence Act were not satisfied. The learned counsel further contended that Ext.P39 Expert's opinion proved through PW17 is not reliable as the writings stated to have been taken from the accused during the investigation, which was used as the admitted writings to compare with the disputed writing in Ext.P3, had not been obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Identification of the Prisoners Act, 1920.

9. The learned Special Government Pleader, per contra, contended that the evidence of PWs 6, 7, 10, 14, and 17 is reliable, and there is nothing to discredit Ext.P39 report of the expert.

10. To bring home the offences alleged against the appellant, the prosecution has to establish the following facts:

(a) The appellant intentionally prepared Ext.P3 and used it as genuine and handed over the same to PW1.

(b) The appellant obtained a sum of Rs.1,240/- from PW1 by abusing his official position.

11. The prosecution relied on the oral evidence of PWs 6, 7, and 10 primarily to establish that the entries in Ext.P3 were made by the appella