Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The prosecution case is that the appellant/accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of 2025:KER:80023 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988' for short hereinafter). The precise allegation is that the accused, while working as Village Officer, Chittar-Seethathodu Village, demanded and accepted Rs.250/- from PW1 on 12.09.2005 and again demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- on 20.10.2005, for the purpose of effecting mutation in respect of 1.33 acres of land owned and possessed by him.

7. It is pointed out further that the prosecution case to the effect that the accused demanded and accepted bribe on the date of trap and prior to that, for the purpose of effecting mutation, is without any basis, since as per Ext.X3(a) proved through DW2, who was cited by the prosecution as CW4 and who is none other than the Village Assistant during relevant time that he had collected Rs.30/- as mutation fee on the date of trap and thereby effected mutation.

8. It is pointed out that though DW2 examined by the defense was cited as CW4 and DW3 examined by the defence was cited as CW5 from the side of the prosecution, the prosecution did not examine them to avoid the evidence as to what has been transpired on the date of trap.. It is pointed out further that on meticulous evaluation of the evidence of PW1, there are improbabilities and contradictions to disbelieve the prosecution case, which is the sole evidence relied on by the prosecution to find the ingredients of demand and acceptance to constitute the offences under 2025:KER:80023 Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. He also pointed out that in this case the evidence given by DW2 and DW3, elicited what had been transpired on the date of trap was ignored by the Special Court while giving emphasis to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to find that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused. Apart from the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel further that the accused has a specific case right from the very beginning that PW1 was in inimical terms with him since he had given an adverse report against PW1 in a LC case registered against him 18 years back. According to the learned Senior Counsel in order to wreak vengeance on the premise of the said animosity, this case has been foisted with the aid of the vigilance.

(iii) What is meant by contradictions in the eye of law and how the same be proved?

(iv) Is it necessary to interfere with the verdict impugned?

         (v)      The order to be passed?
Point Nos.(i) to (v)

15. The prosecution cited PW1 Sri P.M.John @ John, the complainant, as the crucial witness to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, as alleged by the prosecution. He deposed that he had obtained 1.33 acres of land from his father as per Ext.P1 Will (certified copy) and his father died in the year 2003. Ext.P2 is the copy of death certificate. His evidence further is that he had applied for effecting the mutation of the said property in the year 2005 and the Village Officer hesitated to accept the same. He identified the Village Officer as the accused at the dock. According to him, he lodged an application before the Tahsildar, Ranni Taluk on 07.07.2005 to effect the mutation and Ext.P3 is the said application and as per which the Tahsildar had given direction to the Village Officer to effect the mutation. On 12.09.2005, he 2025:KER:80023 had submitted necessary documents for effecting the mutation before the Village Officer and for this the Village Officer demanded and accepted Rs.250/- from him. According to him, Ext.P4 is the photocopy of the Power of Attorney executed by his brother Paul in favour of the wife of PW1 and Ext.P5 is the release deed executed on the strength of Ext.P4. PW1 had applied for effecting mutation of the said property as per Ext.P5 application and he had given necessary documents for the same on 15.10.2005. He had given the said application at the hands of the accused and soon he had seated PW1 on a chair in front of him and demanded Rs.5,000/- for effecting the mutation. On discussion, the amount was reduced to Rs.2,000/- and the appellant/accused had directed to bring the money on 17.10.2005. Since he was not well on that day, he didn't go. On 18.10.2005, he contacted the appellant/accused and the appellant/accused informed him to reach the office in the afternoon of 20.10.2005.

39. Ext.P3 in this case is an application put up by PW1 as on 19.07.2005 before the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ranni, and it was 2025:KER:80023 forwarded by the Additional Tahsildar to the Village Officer and it was recommended as per Ext.P3 that since there was no sub division in the property for which PW1 had applied for mutation, it was recommended to mutate the property. This aspect had been deposed by PW3, the Additional Tahsildar supporting Ext.P3. Exts.P9 to P11 were also marked through PW3 to show that in page Nos.206 and 207 of Ext.P11, the mutation register, the application of PW1 was registered with No.734/2005. It is true that there was payment of fee for mutation on 20.10.2005. Ext.X3(a), supported by the evidence of DW2, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, also would establish the same. In fact, the evidence of DW2 has been given heavy reliance by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused to contend that as on 20.10.2005, DW2 issued Ext.X3(a) receipt after mutating the property and, therefore, the demand for bribe for the same is an impossibility. In fact, this contention is not digestible to prudence. Here the specific case of the prosecution is that the accused demanded bribe for effecting mutation and accordingly on 20.10.2005 the bribe had been given. PW1 deposed that on receiving the bribe amount marked as M.O1 series, the accused had instructed the staff 2025:KER:80023 to effect the mutation and had gone outside. Thereafter the mutation had been effected by DW2 as directed by the Village Officer only after receiving the bribe and, therefore, these aspects do not support the innocence of the accused, as argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused.