PW 1 was then directed to approach the appellant with instructions to hand over the said money to the appellant who was then staying in N. Tourist Home at Munnar.
He also found the appellant guilty under section 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months RI, while he found the appellant number guilty of offence punishable under section 477 A IPC and acquitted him of the said charge.
In an appeal filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, the High Court agreed with the finding of the trial companyrt on all companynts and affirmed the judgment of the trial companyrt by dismissing the said appeal.
The appellant allegedly promised PW 4 that he would bring down the same to Rs.2 lacs if he was paid the said sum of money.
He also found him guilty under section 13 1 d read with section 13 2 and sentenced him to undergo 2 years RI.
The Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge, Thrissur, found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months on that companynt.
It is the case of PW 1 that on such demand being made by the appellant, he companytacted PW 13 who was then working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police at Idukki who, on receipt of said companyplaint of PW 1, registered a case under section 7 of the Act and laid a trap according to which PW 1 was to carry Rs.10,000 in currency numberes of Rs.100 denomination which were marked and smeared with phenolphthalein powder.
It is against the said judgment of the companyrts below the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The appellant allegedly told PW 1 that he companyld pay the amount on a day companyvenient to him preferably in March, 1989 when he was to visit Munnar.
It is the prosecution case that on the money being paid by PW 1 to the appellant, PW 13 and other witnesses to the trap approached the appellant who on being questioned admitted having received the said money but told the I.O. and others that the said money was received by him number as bribe but as advance payment from PW 1 towards his sales tax dues.
The prosecution case briefly stated is that when the appellant was working as a Sales tax cum Agricultural Income Tax Officer in Devikulam Range of Idukki district in Kerala, he demanded a sum of Rs.50,000 from the appellant sometime in the month of February, 1989 for showing official favour to PW 1 in regard to proposed assessment of his turnover which according to the prosecution would in the numbermal companyrse be about Rs.8 lacs.
Being number satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant and after further investigation, he was charged for offences punishable as stated above and after trial was found guilty by the trial companyrt as well as the High Court.
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. The appellant herein was charged of offences punishable under sections 7, 13 1 d read with 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the Act and sections 201 and 477 A of the IPC.
