Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The prosecution case is that the 1 st accused, while 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 working as Village Officer, and 2nd accused, while working as Village man in Konny village, being public servants, entered into criminal conspiracy. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 26.02.2004, the 2nd accused demanded ₹500 from Sri.Saseendran for himself and for the 1st accused, and he accepted ₹200 from Sri.Saseendran on the same day, as illegal gratification for effecting mutation in respect of 11.5 cents of property in survey No.500/3/H/1/1 Konny village owned by Sri.Saseendran. The further case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused demanded the balance bribe of ₹300 from Sri.Saseendran on 26.02.2004 itself. The 2 nd accused again demanded bribe from Sri.Saseendran on 03.03.2004 at Konny village office for the same purpose and in pursuance of that, at 1:00 pm on 06.03.2004, at the office room of village office Konny, 1st accused accepted ₹200 and the 2nd accused 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 accepted ₹100 from Sri.Saseendran. Thereby they abused their official position and obtained undue pecuniary advantage for themselves. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) by the accused.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 mainly contended that there is no convincing evidence available in this case to prove the demand of bribe either by the 1 st accused or by the 2nd accused. It is pointed out that PW1 given evidence that he visited the village office on 03.03.2004 and met the Village Officer for the purpose of effecting the mutation. However, as per Ext.P11, the attendance register for the relevant period, which was tendered in evidence through PW6, it could be gathered that on 03.03.2004, the 1st accused was on casual leave. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 in this regard is incorrect. It is pointed out further that, in this case, as per the 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 prosecution allegation, the complainant, who was examined as PW1, deposed that he had put up an application for effecting mutation on 26.02.2004 before the Village Officer and he had remitted the fee for the same, for which receipt also was issued by the Village Officer and on the same day, the Village Officer and the Village Assistant (in fact, referred the Village Assistant, the 2nd accused, as the village man) demanded ₹500 for effecting mutation after tracing out the records. It is further pointed out that during evidence also, PW1 deposed about 'something was asked by the Village Officer' but in the Chief Examination, he did not state anything regarding any demand made by the 2nd accused. Therefore, the points pressed by the learned senior counsel for the accused is that there is no evidence to prove the demand of bribe by accused Nos. 1 and 2.

2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010

7. Apart from that, he pointed out the non-conduct of pre-trap verification in this case. According to him, even though CW6, the Village Man, was cited as a witness on the side of the prosecution, he was not examined.

8. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, even though the prosecution suppressed the documents recovered as per Ext.P4, without producing the same before the Special Court, by examining DW1, the Special Village Officer, Ext.D3, i.e., Form A prepared on 26.02.2004 for the purpose of effecting mutation in respect of the property of PW1 was proved through DW1. According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, since the application submitted by PW1, for effecting mutation, where there was subdivision of the property, was forwarded as 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 early on 27.02.2004, there is no grievance for the petitioner to pay bribe in the matter of mutation. Thus, the prosecution case otherwise is in the midst of doubts. The learned senior counsel would submit that the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt in this matter. In support of this contention, he has placed decision of the Apex Court in State by Lokayuktha Police Davanagere v. C. B. Nagaraj, reported in 2025 KHC 6519, where the Apex Court held as under:

22. In the instant case, the prime contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that, there was no demand of bribe by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010

2. On scanning the evidence of PW1, it could be seen that the prosecution alleges hatching of conspiracy in between accused Nos.1 and 2 in the matter of demand of ₹500 from PW1 for effecting mutation acting on the application submitted by PW1 on 26.02.2004 in respect of 11.5 cents of property purchased by PW1 from one Shaila in 1994. PW1 categorically deposed that the Village Officer, Sri.Raju Abraham and the Village Assistant, Sri. Sainalabdheen, who were at the dock, said to him that in order to effect mutation, there would be delay to search out the documents and both of them said to PW1 that if ₹500 would be paid to them, the mutation process would be expedited. PW1 has a specific version that on 26.02.2004, ie., on the date of application, he handed over ₹200 to the Village Assistant as demanded and was accepted by him. According to PW1, then the 2nd accused agreed to effect the mutation if he would reach 2025:KER:90775 CRL.A.NOS 852 & 880 OF 2010 the office along with the balance amount. In continuation of the same, on the date of trap, when he entered the office of the Village Officer, he asked as to whether the other item ( മറ്റേത് ) was brought and he replied that the same was brought. Then the Village Officer demanded to give the same. Accordingly, he had paid ₹200 to the Village Officer and ₹100 to the Village Assistant and the Village Assistant agreed to ready the records on getting the money.