IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 721 of 2000() --------------------------------- CC.52/1999 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: ACCUSED ------------------- P.K.SREEDHARAN, S/O. KARUTHAKUNJU, AGED 54, FORMERLY ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM, PATHENAMTHITTA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT EDATHARAYIL HOUSE, MULAKKUZHA, CHENGANNUR BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.A. NO.721/2000 ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.5183/2000 IN CRL.A. 721/2000 DISMISSED 30.06.2008 SD/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A. No. 721 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 Judgment Appellant was tried before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananhapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the Act for short). The court below found the appellant guilty and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. It was directed that the substantial sentences shall run concurrently. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that the appellant/accused while he was working as Asst.Sub Inspector of Police at Pandalam Police Station had demanded and received a sum of Rs.1000/- as bribe in order to release the auto rickshaw belonging to Pw.1 which was involved in a road accident. 3. Prosecution had examined Pw.1 to 10 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and M.Os. 1 to 8. Dws.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked on the side of the defence. The learned “Special Judge after an elaborate and careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record found that the prosecution had successfully established the charge against the appellant/accused. The witnesses examined on the side of the Crl.A.721/2000 2 prosecution had categorically stated that the accused in his capacity as a public servant had demanded bribe from Pw.1 and accepted the same in the presence of the witnesses. 4. However it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge ought to have looked into the several contradictions in the deposition of the material witnesses, particularly that of Pw.1. 5. It was not disputed by the accused that Pw.1 was the driver-cum- owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL.3C-9698 and that the said vehicle was involved in a road accident on June 28, 1998. In the said accident a cyclist had sustained some injuries. The prosecution case was that the autorickshaw was taken to the Police Station by the accused after the incident on the same day. It was released to Pw.1 only on July 3, 1998 and that too only after he was forced to pay Rs.500/- as demanded by the accused. Pws.4 and 5 who were the colleagues of Pw.1 working in the same autorickshaw stand, had deposed before the Court that they had accompanied Pw.1 when he went to the Police Station to get the vehicle released and that they had seen Pw.1 making payment of Rs.500/- to the accused as demanded by him. The further case of the prosecution was that even after the release of the vehicle, the accused went to the autorickshaw stand in the evening on the same day and demanded a further sum of Rs.500/- being the balance of Rs.1,000/- demanded by him earlier. Pw.1 agreed to pay the same. According to Pw.1 he requested for two days' time to make the payment. When he went to the Police Station to get the FIR in the morning of July 8, 1998 the accused demanded for payment of the balance. At that time Pw.1 agreed that he would make the payment. The accused then directed Pw.1 to meet him at Prakash hotel in the town in the evening on that day. It was at that stage that Pw.1 had lodged the Crl.A.721/2000 3 complaint before Pw.9, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The trap was laid as instructed by Pw.9. It is unnecessary to refer to the procedure followed by Pw.9 for preparation of the trap. Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.9 had deposed about the preparation made in this regard. Ext.P2 entrustment mahazar would show that the formalities were complied with. After laying the trap, Pw.8 and 9 along with Pws.1 and 2 had gone to Prakash hotel. When Pw. 1 reached the hotel and met the accused , he was asked by the accused to buy him liquor. According to Pw.6 he had purchased the liquor. According to Pw.6 he paid Rs. 110/- to Pw.1 in order to purchase the liquor as demanded by the accused. M.O.2 is the liquor bottle with remnants of the brandy. 6. I have been taken through the depositions of all the prosecution witnesses and also that of the defence witnesses. Though learned counsel for the appellant has tried to highlight some minor contradictions in the deposition of Pw.1 and some of the other witnesses, I am not satisfied that those minor contradictions would in any way affect the prosecution case. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that apart from those contradictions, the prosecution might have succeeded in establishing that the accused had fallen in the trap. Having gone through the entire materials, I do not find any reason to discard the prosecution case. The evidence of Pws.1 , 2 and 9 coupled with that of Pws. 3, 4 and 5 and also of Pw.6 would undoubtedly show that the prosecution had established its case quite satisfactorily. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of guilty entered by the learned Special Judge. Therefore the order of conviction is confirmed. 7. However in the matter of sentence, the appellant is entitled to a lenient treatment, particularly since it has come out on record that he was Crl.A.721/2000 4 on the verge of his retirement when the above crime was committed by him. He was past 54 at the time when he was caught red handed. The incident had taken place way back in the year 1998. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he has a large family to look after. 8. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances I am satisfied that the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant can be modified and reduced. In lieu of the sentence of imprisonment for 2 ½ years under Section 7 of the Act, appellant would suffer imprisonment for one year. Similarly for the offence under Section 13(1))d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. However the appellant shall remit the amounts of fine imposed on him under the above two counts . The sentences shall run concurrently. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. A.K. BASHEER Judge an.