Kerala High Court
Joy Varghese vs State on 20 January, 2009
Author: V.K.Mohanan
Bench: V.K.Mohanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 2339 of 2006()
1. JOY VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :20/01/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
CRL.A. No.2339 of 2006
----------------------------------------------
Dated, 20th January, 2009
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the sole accused in C.C.No.27/2004 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the above Court as per its judgment dated 30.11.2006.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused who was working as U.D.Clerk in the office of the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam, on October, 15, 2001, in the noon from his office, he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- from the de facto complainant as a motive or reward for settling the undervaluation case in respect of the sale deeds in favour of the said person and that the accused repeated the demand of bribe on November 12, 2001, at 12.30 in the noon from his office and that in pursuance of those demands, he demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from the said person on November 13, 2001 between 12 and 12.30 in the noon from his office for the same purpose and thereby Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:2:- committed the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `P.C.Act' only) and also under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C Act on the ground that by the above said illegal act, the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtained for himself a pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. On the basis of the above allegation, V.C.No.3/2001 of V.A.C.B., Ernakulam was registered for the said offences and after investigation, final report was filed before the said court based upon which C.C.No.27/2004 was instituted. When the accused appeared before the trial court, after hearing both the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge was framed under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act which was read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty as a result of which the trial was further proceeded during which PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 are marked as documentary evidence from the side of prosecution. Besides the above, Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:3:- material objects such as M.Os 1 to 12 were identified and marked from the side of the prosecution, After the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when the incriminating circumstances, which emerged during the prosecution evidence, put to the accused, he denied the same. It is his further case that the amount which he received was entrusted with him by PW2 stating that those amounts were to be paid towards the stamp duty and penalty. From the side of the defence, one witness was examined as DW1. On the basis of the prosecution allegation and materials and also considering the rival pleadings, the trial court formulated 7 issues for its consideration. Finally, the court found that the accused demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from the de facto complainant - PW2, on November 13, 2001 between 12 and 12.30 in the noon from his office and thus the accused has obtained a pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.10,000/- by abusing his position as a public servant and accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:4:- with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act. On convicting the accused and after hearing him on sentence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C.Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this appeal.
3. The prosecution cited PW2, who was the de facto complainant and intended to establish its case through him. But PW2 turned hostile. The other witnesses relied on by the prosecution to prove its case mainly are PWs 5, 6 and, PW9 - the investigating officer. To understand the prosecution case as such, even though PW2 turned hostile, it is worthwhile to note the Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:5:- facts sought to be proved through PW2. According to prosecution, PW2 along with one C.V.Nazar purchased 2 = cents of land at Masjid Lane in S.R.M Road from Sri P.C. Abdul Nazar by sale deed No.4020/2001 of Sub Registrar's office, Ernakulam for Rs.75,000/-. According to him, P.C. Abdul Nazar had 8 cents of land. The balance 6 = cents were purchased by Sri Sajith and Sri. Marzook by sale deed Nos.4019/2001 and 4018/2001 of the Sub Registrar's office, Ernakulam. According to prosecution, the said Nazar told PW2 that the proceedings have been initiated for undervaluation by the District Registrar and that Rs.25,000/- has to be paid to the accused who was then working as U.D.Clerk in the office for setting it right. Thus on October 15, 2001, PW2 went along with Nazar to the office of the accused and Nazar introduced the accused to PW2. Then the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000/- to set right the case of under valuation. When PW2 expressed his inability to pay and requested to reduce the bribe amount, the accused re-fixed the amount as Rs.15,000/- by reducing the amount. It is also the case of prosecution that Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:6:- PW2 was told by the accused that notice regarding under valuation was already issued to PW2, Sajith and Marzook and the accused asked PW2 to bring the notice and amount and thereafter only the accused will return the sale deeds to PW2. PW2 brought the notice issued to him in his address at Kannur. The said Sajith also brought the notice. Thus PW2 and Sajith met the accused in his office. The accused then told PW2 that only if PW2 pays the bribe, he can return the sale deeds and that if PW2 does not pay the amount by November 9 , 2001 he will send the sale deeds to District Registrar. It is the further case of prosecution that on November 12, 2001, he met the accused in his office at 12.30 in the noon and he was told by the accused that he has sent the notice to the District Registrar and that, only if PW2 pays Rs.15,000/-, the matter can be set right. Again, according to PW2, when he pleaded, the accused reduced the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/- and asked PW2 to come on the next day with the amount. Accordingly, the accused gave his mobile phone number to PW2. Then, according to PW2, he was not interested in giving Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:7:- money to the accused, he straight away went to the office of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti- corruption Bureau, Ernakulam - PW9, at about 3.30 p.m on November 12,2001 and lodged a complaint before him. On recording the statement of PW2, PW9 obtained the signature of PW2 in Ext.P2 F.I.Statement on the basis of which, PW9 registered a case as V.C.3/2001.
4. The next stage of the prosecution case deals with the steps taken by PW9 to prepare the trap etc. As per Ext.P2 statement of PW2, PW9 directed him to come on the next day with the trap money. In the meanwhile, PW9 arranged two trap witnesses namely, PW3 and PW6. Thus at about 10 a.m., on November 12, 2001, PW2, PW3 and PW6 reported before the investigating officer. PW9 introduced the independent witnesses to PW2. Thereafter, PW9 formed a trap party consisting of PW9 himself, PW2, PWs 3 and 6 and certain other persons. It is the further case of the prosecution that as instructed by PW9, PW2 produced the trap money i.e., 20 currency notes of Rs.500/- Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:8:- denomination and the details of the notes were separately noted and identification marks were put on the notes. M.O1 series are those currency notes. One of the Constables demonstrated the Phenolphthalein Sodium Carbonate solution test by using a ten rupees currency note as instructed by PW9. M.O.2 is the sample of the Sodium Carbonate solution which remained colourless even though he dipped the currency note in the solution. M.O3 is the sample of the solution which solution having pink colour. As per the instruction of PW.9, the Constable who smeared that currency note with Phenolphthalein powder on M.O1 series currency notes and placed it in the left pocket of the shirt worn by PW2. It is the case of the prosecution that PW9 instructed PW2 that the amount should be given to the accused only on a specific demand on the part of the accused. Thus as instructed by PW9, PW2 gave signal by rubbing his hair with hand once the accused has received the bribe amount. Thereafter Ext.P9 mahazar was prepared to which PWs 9, 3 and 6 put their signatures.
5. Thereafter all of them proceeded to the Sub Registrar's Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:9:- office, Ernakulam and at the instruction of PW9, PWs 2 and 6 proceeded to the office of the accused and others waited outside. Then it is the case of PW2 that when he entered in the office of the accused, the accused asked for the amount but, PW2 did not pay the amount at that time as he doubted whether accused will settle the undervaluation case. PW2 came out of the office of the accused and met PW9. PW9 instructed him to go inside and to give the amount. Then, according to PW2, he told the accused that he was going to Kannur and before he returns, the matter will have to be settled and that he has brought the amount. Thus the accused extended his hand and received the Phenolphthalein tainted currency notes offered by PW2 and put it in his pant pocket. PW2 came out side and gave the pre- arranged signal. On receipt of signal, the witnesses and the members of the trap party rushed to the office of the accused. PW9 identified himself by showing his identity card and he introduced the members of the trap team to the accused. According to the prosecution, when PW9 asked the accused Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:10:- whether he received any amount from PW2, he had answered positively. Thereafter mutual search was conducted and no other currency notes were found with the trap team members. Thereafter on the instruction of PW9, a Head Constable took Sodium Carbonate solution in a glass tumbler and the fingers of PW9, PW3 and PW6 were dipped in the same and there was no colour change. M.O.4 is the sample of that solution. Thereafter, hand wash of the accused was taken in a separate Sodium Carbonate solution. Then, according to the prosecution, when right hand fingers of the accused were dipped in the Sodium Carbonate solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. M.O.5 is the sample of that solution. When the left hand fingers of the accused were dipped in a separate Sodium Carbonate solution, there was no colour change. M.O.6 is the sample of that solution. Thus, PW9 arrested the accused at 12.20 in the noon and took into custody the mobile phone, which was with the accused. The corner portion of MO1 series currency notes were dipped in separate sodium carbonate solution and the dipped portion of the Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:11:- currency notes and the solution turned pink. MO7 is the sample of that solution. Thereafter, hand wash of PW3 was taken. M.O8 is the sample of that pink coloured solution. After giving a dhothi to the accused, the pant of the accused was removed and sodium carbonate solution was sprinkled on the inner portion of the right pocket of the pant. Pink stains developed on the inner portion of the right pocket of the pant. M.O9 is that pant. Ext.P10 mahazar was prepared by PW10 in which PW3, PW6 and PW9 put their signatures. On the arrest of the accused, he was produced before the court with remand report and thereafter, PW9 undertook further investigation.
6. The above mentioned facts and details are sought to be proved and established by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation against the accused. As indicated earlier, in order prove the above facts, the prosecution mainly intended to adduce evidence through PW2, the de facto complainant. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the F.I.R. was registered on the basis of Ext.P2 statement given by PW2. In short, the Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:12:- investigation was set in motion at the instance of PW2. But when PW2 was examined in the court, he resiled from the versions given by him to PW9. Though PW2 was cross examined and he admitted signature in Ext.P2 on material particulars, he deferred from the prosecution allegation. During hearing of the case in the trial court, the prosecution still tried to press into service Ext.P2 statement of PW2 as a substantial evidence, which according to me is impermissible. An F.I.Statement can be used only for the purpose under Section 145 of Evidence Act and, at any rate, it cannot be treated as a substantial evidence. Going by the evidence of PW2, it can be seen that he had entrusted a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the accused to be given as penalty towards undervaluation proceedings when the District Registrar comes on the next day since on that day he had intended to go to Kannur. After the examination of PW2, towards prosecution allegation, except the evidence regarding entrustment of Rs.10,000/-, there is no other evidence to substantiate the prosecution allegation including the demand for bribe. However, Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:13:- the trial court, based upon the materials mentioned above, especially, on the basis of the evidence of PWs 3, 6, 5 and 9, came into the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. It is the above finding, conviction and sentence challenged in this appeal.
7. I have heard Sri B Raman Pillai, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri P.N.Sukumaran, the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the later part of the prosecution case regarding the entrustment of the amount by PW2 with the accused. He submitted that the accused has also admitted the receipt of a sum of Rs.10,000/- as entrusted by PW2, but not as bribe as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted that PW2 and the accused have got prior acquaintance and the said amount was entrusted with the accused for the purpose of giving to the District Registrar as penalty for undervaluation. The learned Counsel further submitted that, even if, the same is Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:14:- treated as acceptance of bribe, for the arguments sake, no offence will be attracted unless it is pleaded and proved that the same was a gratification. In support of the above submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu [2006(1) SCC (Cri.) 401]. It is also the point argued by the learned counsel that as PW2 has turned hostile and no evidence was adduced regarding the demand of bribe, or illegal gratification, no presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act against the accused is proved. To substantiate the above proposition, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon.Supreme court in V.Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P. ( AIR 2007 S.C. 489). It is also pointed out the learned Counsel that the remaining evidence, especially, the oral evidence of PWs. 3 and 6 are not helpful for the prosecution to substantiate the allegation to connect the accused with the offence. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, absolutely there is no evidence to substantiate the prosecution Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:15:- case and therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, besides the decisions mentioned above, the learned Counsel very much placed reliance on the following decisions: Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1979 S.C. 1408); Punjabravo v. State of Maharashtra {(2002) 10 SCC 371}; M.Abbas v. State of Kerala (2002 SCC (Cri.)1270) ; Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1975 S.C 1432) ; Mahmoodkhan Mahmoodkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra ((AIR 1998 S.C. 2360).
9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the nature of the particular facts and circumstances involved in the case, the question to be considered is whether the explanation offered by the accused is acceptable to discharge him from the penal liability. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Ext.P2, the signed statement of PW2, is the basic document upon which the investigation undertaken by the investigating agency. In Ext.P2, PW2 had stated the entire facts and circumstances which led to the demand of bribe and Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:16:- acceptance of Rs.10,000/- by the accused as bribe. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the other evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the charges levelled against him. On the strength of the decision reported in M.Narasinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (A.I.R.2001 SC 318), the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even if the de facto complainant turned hostile, on the basis of the acceptable and available evidence, the accused can be convicted. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, going by Ext.P2 statement, even though PW2 turned hostile, coupled with the other evidence, it can be seen that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the impugned judgment and its observation and finding are based upon the evidence and materials and no interference is warranted.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant as well as the Public Prosecutor and also perused the evidence and materials available on record. On Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:17:- examination of the evidence on record, especially, on exclusion of the statement contained in Ext.P2, one can see that absolutely, there is no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the specific allegation raised by the prosecution against the accused is that the accused had demanded initially Rs.25,000/-, subsequently reduced it to Rs.15,000/- and again to Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of settling the proceedings of undervaluation connected with the documents namely, sale deed and for that purpose, the accused had received the said amount and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section13(2) of the P.C.Act. Section 7 comes under Chapter III of the P.C.Act deals with public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. In the decision in Mahmoodkhan Mahmoodkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1998 SC 2360), the Apex Court has held that the word "gratification" is used in S.4(1) (old Act), to denote acceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfaction of the recipient. If the money paid is not for personal satisfaction or pleasure of the Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:18:- recipient it is not gratification in the sense it is used in the Section. In other words unless the prosecution proves that the money paid was not towards any lawful collection or legal remuneration the Court cannot take recourse to the presumption of law contemplated in Section 4(1) of the Act, though the Court is not precluded from drawing appropriate presumption of fact as envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act at any stage. In the present case, PW2 deposed before the court that he had entrusted Rs.10,000/- with the accused, for the purpose of giving the same to the District Registrar on the next day, being the penalty for undervaluation. The accused has also admitted the receipt of such amount for the said purpose. If that be so, in the absence of contra evidence, no presumption can be drawn against the accused, especially, in the light of the above decision of the Hon.Supreme Court.
11. On the strength of the decision in Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police A.P. (AIR 2007 S.C.
489), the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the presumption drawn by the court below against the accused under Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:19:- Section 20 is highly arbitrary and illegal. According to the learned counsel, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to substantiate the allegation that the accused had demanded bribe or illegal gratification from PW2. When PW2 was examined, he did not depose before the court to that effect. In paragraph 24 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Venkata Subbarao's case (cited supra), it was held as follows:
"24. Submission of the learned Counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. It reads as under:
"20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.- (1) where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-
Section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:20:- any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate"
In the present case, it is true that initially the prosecution had a case that the accused demanded bribe from PW2 and the whole prosecution case is initiated on the basis of statement given by PW2. But PW2, when examined before the court, had resiled from his previous statement and nothing is deposed before the court regarding the demand alleged to have made by the accused. Going by the prosecution case, especially, PW3 and PW6, though their evidence is shabby in nature, the attempt made by the prosecution is to prove only the acceptance of the amount by the accused. But, with regard to the demand, even that shabby evidence is also absent. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant is perfectly justified in his submission that the presumption drawn by the court below against the accused by Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:21:- invoking Section 20 of the P.C.Act 1988 is illegal and incorrect. The deposition of PW3 and 6, the trap witnesses and their evidence are not capable to instill the confidence of this court. PW3 says nothing about the demand and the acceptance. PW6 has also not deposed anything on the material point. PW6 has stated that he did not see PW3 at the relevant time. PW6 has also stated nothing in his chief examination itself regarding the presence of PWs 2 and 3 . Thus on an over all consideration of the evidence and materials on record, and especially, in the absence of cogent evidence with regard to the demand and acceptance made by the accused, connected with the prosecution allegation, I hold that the finding of the court below is not sustainable.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the prosecution as well as the defence to adduce evidence, especially, in the light of the conflicting finding of the trial court appeared in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment. It is true that in the last line of paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, the trial court has held : "Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused demanded any bribe from PW1 on October 15, 2001 or on November 12, 2001, as alleged by the prosecution". In this juncture, it is relevant to Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:22:- note that the alleged offence had taken place , according to the prosecution, on 15.10.2001. Thereafter, the trial commenced on 9.5.2006 as there was delay in filing the final report before the court below. Now we are in the year 2009. About 8 years are over from the date of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, there is no meaning in directing the appellant/accused to face the de novo trial either for the reason of insufficiency of evidence from the side of the prosecution or for the reason that there is conflicting finding of the court in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the trial court.
In the result, this appeal is allowed. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and bail bond , if any, executed by him is cancelled and he is set at liberty.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-
Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:23:- V.K.MOHANAN, J.
No....
Judgment/Order Dated:
Crl.A.No.2339/06 -:24:-