The substantive sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under section 13 1 d read with section 13 2 of the Act.
Trial Court mainly placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 to hold the accused guilty.
For the release of the push cart, the accused demanded a further sum of Rs.200/ from PW 1 on 29.1.1998 besides the fine imposed by the Health Officer and PW 1 then went to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB Unit PW 9, and gave Ext.
P1 first information statement on the basis of which Crime No.
P1 to P13 and MOS.1 to 6.
P.C. and he denied the charge levelled against him.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
Earlier the officials of the Municipal Corporation including the accused removed the push cart belonging to PW 1 along with the articles to the office of the Corporation and for release of the articles and for sending the report to the Corporation, the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.200/ from PW 1.
On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.
The trial Court found that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is credible and companyent and, therefore, the prosecution has brought out the accusations made against the appellant.
Before the High Court the trial Courts judgment was primarily attacked on the ground that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 should number have been accepted as they were interested witnesses, more particularly when PW 3 did number support the prosecution version.
It is to be numbered that PW 3 did number support the prosecution version.
952 of 2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The prosecution case against the appellant was that while the appellant was working as Health Inspector Grade II, at Thirnmala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.l00/ from PW 1 on 27.11.1997 and a further amount of Rs.100/ on 6.1.1998 as illegal gratification and thereby companymitted the above offences.
Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and produced Exts.
VC.2/98 was registered and a trap was arranged.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
DW1 was examined on the side of the defence, to prove innocence of accused, as pleaded by him.
On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with section 13 2 of the Act, companyvicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/ for the offence under Section 7 of the Act.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short the Act The Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable as aforesaid, companyvicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/ with default stipulation in respect of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act.
He also filed a detailed statement in which he stated that he never received any amount from PW 1 and that PW 1 came to his office and forcibly put the money into his pocket.
