IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 CRL.A.No. 2001 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.19/1999 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL.JUDGE, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:- -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR. P.N. SUKUMARAN, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------- T.M. LUCY, W/O. JOSE, ALAPPAT HOUSE, BANK ROAD, ALATHUR, TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No. 2001 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT In this appeal filed by the State, the order of acquittal passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode as against A2 (T.M. Lucy) is challenged. She along with A1 was charged for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She was a U.D. Clerk in the Melarcode Grama Panchayat office. The allegation against her was that she received a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe from PW2 for showing an official favour. The court below did not accept the testimony of PWs 2 and 3 with regard to the alleged acceptance of bribe. Admittedly, PWs 2 and 3 have no case that the bribe money was handed over to the 2nd accused. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of A2 showed negative results indicating that she did not have any contact with the marked notes smeared with Crl. Appeal No. 2001/2009 : 2 : phenolphthalein powder. The only evidence was the alleged recovery of Rs.150/- from her drawer. In this connection, the court below has relied on the testimony of DW2 to the effect that at the relevant time, she was talking with the Standing Committee Chairman of the Panchayat in the room of the President of the Panchayat. If so, even if the sum of Rs.150/- has been recovered from her drawer, it cannot be inferred that she had consciously accepted the said amount as bribe. The trial Judge who had the unique advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility, was not inclined to accept the testimony of PWs 2 and 3. That court has also relied on the testimony of DW2 in support of the alibi set up by A2. Under these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal as against A2. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. Rv Crl. Appeal No. 2001/2009 : 3 : V. RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.2001 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- 7th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Crl. Appeal No. 2001/2009 : 4 :