IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1040 of 2010() ------------------------ (JUDGMENT DATED 6.8.2009 IN C.C.No.32/2008 PASSED BY THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM, (ORIGINALLY CC 44/2005/TVPM/VC.03/2002/ALAPPUZHA) APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.B.VINOD, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SUGUNAN V., (FORMER VILLAGE OFFICER, KURATTISSERY), S/O. P.K.VASU, VRINDAVANAM, KALLELIBHAGAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. NOW RESIDING AT C/O.SUJATHA NARAYANAN, SUMANAPARAMBIL, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-4. BY SHRI. SUGUNAN V.(PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No.1040 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against an order of acquittal recorded by the court of Enquiry Commissioner & Spl. Judge, Kottayam, in C.C.No.32/2008. 2. The prosecution case is that, the accused/respondent being a public servant while working as Village Officer in Korattesseri Village, demanded illegal gratification on 19.8.2002 at 11 A.M. at the village office as a motive for issuing income certificate, from the defacto complainant-Madhusoodhanan and accepted Rs.400/- from him. It is the further case of the prosecution that, the accused also demanded Rs.500/- more on 2.9.2002 at 11 A.M. for issuing the income certificate and that he had accepted Rs.500/- as bribe from Madhusoodhanan on 3.9.2002 in the afternoon and thus the accused obtained undue advantage by abusing his official position and thereby the accused committed the offences u/s.7 and S.13(2) r/w. S.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. With the above allegation Crl. Appeal No.1040 of 2010 2 V.C.3/2002 was registered in the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Alleppey. After investigation, the report was filed, based upon which, cognizance was taken in the Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Trivandrum, as C.C.No.44/2005, from where the case was transferred to the present trial court, wherein the case was re-numbered as C.C.No.32/2008. 3. During the trial of the case, from the side of the prosecution Pws.1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 documents were marked. Though no witness was examined from the side of the defence, D1 and D2 were marked as documentary evidence. After an elaborate consideration of the materials and evidence on record, the trial court found that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond doubt that, the accused demanded and accepted bribe on 19.8.2002 and on 3.9.2002 and he obtained undue advantage by abusing his official position and thereby the accused committed the offences u/s.7 and S.13(2) r/w. S.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly he is acquitted. It is the above order of Crl. Appeal No.1040 of 2010 3 acquittal challenged by the State in this appeal. 4. I have heard Adv.Sri.B.Vinod, Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant/state and heard Mr.V.Sugunan, the accused who appeared in person. 5. It is to be noted that during the trial, the case was defended by the accused himself. After the analysis of the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence, the trial court has found that, Ext.P1 application is dated 16.8.2002. It is an application to obtain a document showing the possession of PW1 over the property in Korattissery Village. The said Ext.P1 application is not dated 19.8.2002. But PW1 says that the said application was given on 19.8.2002. The trial court has mooted a question as to, why in the application the date happened to be noted as 16.8.2002, if actually the same was presented on 19.8.2002 and there was no satisfactory explanation forthcoming from the part of the prosecution. The trial court further found that in the FI statement given by PW1 also, the date is shown as 19.8.2002 and therefore it can not be said that, the date was mistakenly shown as 16.8.2002. PW4 when Crl. Appeal No.1040 of 2010 4 examined, he had also not assigned any reason, especially when he is the person who wrote the application for PW1. The trial court further found that Ext.P8 income certificate is dated 16.8.2002 and it is noted in Ext.P9 that the income certificate was issued on 16.8.2002. After the verification of the records, the trial court has also found that similar certificates were issued on 24.8.2002, 27.8.2002, 31.8.2002 and on 2.9.2002. Thus according to the learned Judge, the above facts evidencely shows that the entry in Ext.P9, with respect to the issue of Ext.P8 income certificate issued in the name of PW1, was recorded on 16.8.2002 itself. Though PW1 deposed that, he did not obtained the income certificate, the Dy.S.P. who was examined as PW6, during his cross examination has stated that the income certificate was not actually issued to PW1 but it was prepared and kept by the accused in order to give it to PW1. Thus from the discussion contained in the trial court judgment and also from the materials referred to by the learned Spl. Judge, it appears that the main plank of the prosecution case that, PW1 approached the accused on 19.8.2002 and gave the Crl. Appeal No.1040 of 2010 5 application on 19.8.2002 seen broken. The above finding of fact, which is purely based upon the evidence and materials on record, is not liable to interfered with, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction of this court and to reverse the findings of the trial court and to impose the view of the appellate court, even if there is a possibility for another view. In the decision reported in 2009(1) Supreme 67 (Batchu Venkateshwarlu & Ors. Vs. P P of A.P.High Court), 2009(1) Supreme 355 (Arun Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu) and 2008(8) Supreme 776 (State of Punjab Vs. Sukhchain Singh & anr.), the apex court has held that, 'unless there is compelling and substantial reasons, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with'. 6. Going by the materials referred to by the Spl. Judge and the discussions contained in the impugned judgment, I am of the view that there is no compelling and substantial reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court and to disturb the double presumption available in favour of the Crl. Appeal No.1040 of 2010 6 accused. As such, there is no merit in the appeal so as to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Accordingly, confirming the acquittal recorded by the trial court, this appeal is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/