IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 CRL.A.No. 1493 of 2004(C) ------------------------- CC.10/2002 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- U.P. PADMAKUMAR, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, FORMER U.D. CLERK, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SRI.M.A.ASIF. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.10641/2004 IN CRL.A.NO.1493/2004 DISMISSED 27/05/2011 SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ================== Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 ================== Dated this the 27th May, 2011. JUDGMENT The appellant was convicted by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thrissur for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'PC' Act), and Section 170 I.P.C. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 7 of the PC Act. For offence under Section 13(2) of PC Act, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. For offence under Section 170 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The above conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal. 2. PW14, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Idukki, filed a final report in Cr.No.5/95 alleging offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1) (d) of the PC Act and Section 419 IPC with an allegation that the appellant was working as Upper Division Clerk during the years 1993 and 1994 in Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 2 the District Employment Exchange at Kattappana in Idukki District and as such he was a public servant coming under Section 2(c) of the PC Act and that he demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from PW2 Sundaram for arranging a job as a peon in the Panchayath School at Elappara and a sum of Rs.1,000/- was obtained as illegal gratification from PW2 on 5.5.1994 at Kattappana. The appellant also demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- from PW3 Shylaja, another job seeker promising to arrange a job in any Insurance Company at Ernakulam. In pursuance to the said demand to PW3, he accepted a sum of Rs.500/- from late, Abdul Kader, the father of PW3 as illegal gratification in January, 1994 and accepted Rs.2,500/- from PW3 on 11.2.1994. It was further alleged that the appellant accepted a salary attachment order, addressed to the District Employment Officer, in E.P 40/93 in O.S.29/90 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Paravoor, whereby a sum of Rs.3,179/- was ordered to be attached at the rate of Rs.300/- per month from the salary of the appellant and remitted before the Munsiff Court. The appellant accepted the attachment order on 10.9.93 pretending to be the District Employment Officer and suppressed the said order with dishonest Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 3 intention to cheat by personation. 3. The learned Special Judge took cognizance and issued process responding to which the appellant entered appearance. On his appearance, the copy of the final report along with the copies of the documents and statements of the witnesses were furnished to the appellant. Thereafter, he was heard. On finding that there are materials to send the appellant for trial for offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (a) of the PC Act and under Section 419 of the IPC, a charge was framed. When read over and explained the appellant pleaded not guilty. Hence, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P31 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the appellant was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that he had not demanded or accepted any amount from PW2 or PW3 or from the father of PW3 and that he was not the Officer to give any employment to any person. No defence evidence was let in though he was given an opportunity to adduce the evidence. Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 4 The learned Special Judge, on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion of guilt for offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. For offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) the appellant was acquitted. The Special Judge further found that no offence under Section 419 IPC was established, but offence under Section 170 IPC was established. Therefore, while acquitting the appellant, for offence under Section 419 IPC, he was convicted for offence under Section 170 IPC as stated earlier. Consequently the appellant was sentenced as above. 4. I have heard Sri. T.A.Shaji, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. B.Vinod, the learned Government Pleader and perused the evidence on record. 5. The fact that the appellant was working as an Upper Division Clerk in District Employment Exchange was not only not disputed but also admitted by the appellant. PW4, the District Employment Officer, PW5, the Lower Division Clerk employed in the same office and PW9, Employment Officer had deposed that the appellant was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the District Employment Exchange. The Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 5 evidence of PWs. 4, 5 and 9 on that aspect was not at all challenged. The lower court believed the said evidence and arrived at a finding against the appellant. That finding is not assailed before me in this appeal. In the above circumstance, the finding of the lower court that the appellant was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the District Employment Exchange, Kattappana and as such he was a public servant is hereby confirmed. 6. PW1, the Director of Employments, Kerala, would depose that the report of investigation along with the connected records were sent to him and after verifying the records, he had issued Ext.P1 order according sanction to prosecute the appellant and that he was the authority competent to remove the appellant from service. The above evidence of PW1 was also not at all impeached in cross examination. The trial court relied upon the above evidence. I find no reason to diverge with. Hence, I concur with the lower court and find that appellant was prosecuted with due sanction. 7. PW2 would depose that the appellant was known to him as an employee in Employment Exchange, Kattappana and that PW2 had Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 6 registered his name before the Employment Exchange as a job seeker and that appellant was introduced to him by his friend Shanavas and that appellant promised to arrange the job of a Peon at Panchayath School at Elappara. For that he demanded Rs.5,000/- and he accepted Rs.1,000/- as first instalment. Ext.P3 was produced as a letter written to PW2 by the appellant reiterating the demand for illegal gratification. PW2 would further depose that the appellant did not arrange the job as promised. Hence he submitted a complaint before the District Employment Officer, Idukki at Kattappana and that Ext.P2 is the complaint. A reading of Ext.P3 would show that it would corroborate with the evidence of PW2 regarding the demand of illegal gratification. In Ext.P2 also, PW2 had stated that the appellant demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for arranging the job of a Peon in a Panchayath School, at Elappara and a sum of Rs.1,000/- was received in advance. In Ext.P2, there is mention about Ext.P3 and request for taking steps for return of the amount. In fact Ext.P2 and P3 corroborate with the evidence of PW2. 8. PW3 would depose that she is a graduate and that she had Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 7 registered her name in Employment Exchange, Idukki at Kattappana and that the appellant had promised to arrange a job for PW3 in an Insurance Company for which the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Out of that Rs.500/- was accepted by the appellant from her father who was cited as witness NO. 2 in the final report. The balance Rs.2,500/- was accepted from her on 11.2.94 at the house of her distant relative Shanavas. 9. PW4, the District Employment Officer would depose that Ext.P2 complaint was given to him by PW2 and that the same was forwarded to the Director of Employment along with a D.O letter, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4. He would further depose that he was acquainted with the handwriting of the appellant and that Ext.P3 is in the handwriting and signature of the appellant. PW4 had also identified the handwriting and signature of the appellant contained in Exts.P14, P15, P17, P18, P19, P20, P22, P23, P24 and P25. Ext.P14, is a report given by the appellant to join duty on expiry of the earned leave. Exts.P15, P16, P17 and P19 are submissions by the appellant for casual leave. Exts.P18, P20 and P22 to P25 are applications Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 8 submitted by the appellant for earned leave. He would further depose that the salary attachment order issued in O.S.No.29/90 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Paravoor, whereby the salary of the appellant was attached at the rate of Rs.3,00/- per month was acknowledged by the appellant and it was suppressed and that PW4 came to know about the order only when he got Ext.P5 letter from the Munsiff Court, North Paravoor, for which he had sent Ext.P6 reply. He had also proved the attendance register marked as Ext.P7, P7(a) and P7(b). Ext.P8 and P9 are the copy of the distribution register and file maintained in the office of PW4. 10. PW5 would depose that he was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the District Employment Exchange, Idukki from 12.4.1991 to 22.12.95 and that the appellant was working in his office and he was familiar with handwriting and signature of the appellant and that Ext.P3 is written and signed by the appellant. He would further depose that 10.9.1993, the District Employment Officer was on leave and that 9.8.93 was a declared holiday. Ext.P26 is the order of attachment issued from the Munsiff Court, Paravoor in E.P 40/93 in O.S 29/90 Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 9 whereby the salary of the appellant was attached. It was seen served on 10.9.93. But the appellant who acknowledged the same put the date of receipt as 9.8.93. 11. PW6, is the Assistant Director (documents) in Forensic Science laboratary, Thiruvananthapuram. He would depose that he examined the handwriting and signature contained in Ext.P3 and compared the same with the admitted handwriting and signatures of the appellant contained in Ext.P15 to P25 and that the handwriting and signature in Ext.P3 letter are that of the appellant. 12. PW7 was examined to prove Ext.P26 attachment order issued in E.P 40/93 in O.S 29/90 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Paravoor. PW8, the process server attached to Sub Court, Kattapana would depose that Ext.26 order was obtained to him for serving to the District Employment Officer, Kattappana and that on 10.9.93, the appellant acknowledged the same; but he put the date of acceptance as 9.8.93. 13. PW9, the Employment Officer attached to Employment Exchange, Kattappana would depose that Ext.P2 complaint was written Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 10 by PW2 in his presence and that he is well acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the appellant. PW9 had identified the handwriting and signature of the appellant contained in Exts.P14 to P25 and that the acknowledgment of Ext.P26 was endorsed and signed by the appellant. PWs.10 and 11 were examined to prove the production of certain documents. PW12 is the Deputy Superintend of Police who registered the same for which Ext.P28 first information report was prepared. PWs.13 and 14 are the investigating officers. 14. The evidence of PW2 and 3 would show that there is demand for illegal gratification promising that the appellant would arrange job for PWs.2 and 3. From PW2, Rs.1,000/- was accepted. From PW3, Rs. 2,500/- was accepted and another sum of Rs.500/- was accepted from the father of PW3. Though PWs.2 and 3 were subjected to searching cross examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve them. The evidence of PW2 is corroborated by Ext.P3 letter. The evidence of PWs.2, 4, and 5 would show that Ext.P3 is in the handwriting of the appellant and it was signed by the appellant. Their evidence on that aspect is corroborated by the testimony of PW6, the Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 11 Handwriting Expert who had given Ext.P12 report certifying that Ext.P3 on comparison with Exts.P14 to P15 is found to be in the handwriting and signature of the appellant. The appellant has no much challenge against the evidence of PW6 and Ext.P12. I have also carefully gone through Exts.P3 and P14 to P25. It is evident that Ext.P3 was written by the appellant. Ext.P3 would corroborate with evidence of PW2 regarding the demand. As against Ext.P3, the appellant has no good explanation. There is also no case that Ext.P3 was concocted. Ext.P3 speaks volumes supporting the demand for illegal gratification. The evidence of PWs.4 and 9 would show that Ext.P2 complaint narrating the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was made to PW4 as early as 24.8.94. The acceptance of Rs.1,000/- was also stated in Ext.P2. The request in Ext.P2 to PW4 is to take steps for getting back the amount from the appellant. Ext.P2 was accompanied by Ext.P3. The same was forwarded to the Director of Employments, Kerala. The appellant has not succeeded to impeach the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. There is no suggestion to PWs.2 and 3 that they had got any axe to grind against the appellant to implicate Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 12 him with a false case. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Shanavas who was a politician, might have received bribe from various job seekers including PWs.2 and 3 and that since PWs.2 and 3 were afraid to complain against shanavas, the appellant was implicated. I find no merit in the submission. There is nothing on record to show that either from PW2 or PW3 Shanavas had accepted any amount so as to make any complaint against him. It is also revealed out that the appellant is a close friend of the Shanavas. There is no good reason suggested to PWs.2 and 3 for implicating the appellant after sparing Shanavas. It is in the above circumstances, the Special Judge on appraisal of the evidence on record arrived at a conclusion of guilt regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. I find no good reason to arrive at a divergent conclusion. The Special Judge had correctly appreciated the evidence. The conviction for offence under section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference. 15. The trial court had arrived at a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish evidence under Section 419 IPC. Instead the Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 13 trial court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 170 IPC. I have carefully gone through Section 415 and 416 IPC which define cheating and cheating by personation and Section 170 IPC, I find that the offence under Section 419 IPC and 170 IPC are entirely different and distinct. Since there is no charge for offence under Section 170 IPC, the trial court was not justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 170 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 170 IPC are not sustainable. Having taken into consideration of the status of the appellant and the nature of the offence, I find that sentence awarded for offence under Section 7 is quite appropriate, but for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, sentence awarded is a little bit exorbitant and that a minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 7 of the PC Act are confirmed. While confirming the conviction for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Crl.A.No.1493 OF 2004 14 Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. Conviction and sentence for offence under Section 170 IPC are set aside. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Under trial imprisonment, if any, shall be set off. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mns //true copy// P.A to Judge