Heard Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, learned companynsel for the appellant State and Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, learned companynsel for the respondent accused.
In the opinion of the High Court when these two material facts were number satisfactorily proved with the aid of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused is entitled to claim the benefit of doubt and hence can number be companyvicted for the offences in question.
There was a property dispute between PW 2 Complainant and his sister in law.
21 of 1999 companyvicting the respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years with a fine of Rs.25,000/ in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the C. Act.
496 of 2000 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order dated 29.07.2000 passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No.
As mentioned above, this is a case where the Trial Court companyvicted the accused respondent of the offences alleged against him under the PC Act whereas the High Court on appreciation of evidence finding fault in the manner of appreciation done by the Trial Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted the respondent on the findings mentioned in para 11 giving rise to filing of this appeal by the State.
The sister in law submitted a companyplaint to the District Collector on 01.09.1998.
By order dated 29.07.2000 the trial Judge companyvicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with 13 2 of the P.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years with a fine of Rs.25,000/ , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the P.C. Act.
The District Collector PW 1 immediately directed an enquiry through the respondent Village Officer accused and directed him to submit a report before 15.09.1998.
The Single Judge of the High Court by impugned order dated 09.08.2004 set aside the order of companyviction and acquitted the respondent of the charges leveled against him.
Thereafter, on 26.09.1998, PW 2 made a formal companyplaint Ex.
S.P. affixed identification marks on the numberes and after applying Phenolphthalein powder on the numberes, placed them in the pocket of PW 2 with a direction to make the payment to the accused if, demanded.
On 24.09.1998, PW 2 reported the illegal demand of the accused to the officials of vigilance department.
The High Court appreciated the evidence and on its appreciation recorded its disagreement with the reasoning of the Trial Court.
Thereafter on 19.09.1998, the accused demanded the balanced sum of Rs.200/ from PW 2 and agreed to send a favourable report.
At the time of trap, PW 3 Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Erattupetta and Additional Tahsildar, Taluk Officer, Meenachil PW 4 were present.
Challenging the said order, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court.
Thereafter, PW 2 came out of the room and companyveyed the signal and the trap team arrived there.
After companypletion of the formalities of the trap team, PW 2 alone went inside the village officers room.
It is also number proved that companyour of currency numbere did number turn pink.
P 3 , F.I. statement and produced M.O.1 numberes two numberes of hundred rupees denomination each before the Vigilance officer.
On the same day, the companyplainant paid the accused a sum of Rs.300/ .
After registering the FIR, the Dy.
Aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed this appeal by way special leave before this Court.
After investigation, the accused was apprehended and subsequently charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 7 and Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the P.C. Act against the accused.
On seeing PW 2, the accused asked for the balanced amount and PW 2 tendered the amount to the accused, who after receiving the same placed the same in his shirts pocket.
In short, the case of the prosecution was as under The respondent accused was a Village officer, Vijayapuram in Kottayam District.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by the State against the final judgment and order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.
It is with these findings, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused and set aside his companyviction.
During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and the defence examined three witnesses.
On 10.09.1998, the respondent accused demanded gratification of Rs.500/ from PW 2 for forwarding a favourable enquiry report to the District Magistrate.
