The High Court on re appreciation of the evidence has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant.
PW2 was the surety to an accused in a criminal case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Thiruvanathapuram and since the accused in that particular case had absconded, PW2 was ordered to pay Rs.3000/ as penalty and a warrant was issued against him in this regard.
Therefore, he was apprehended by the police and his personal belongings, including the bicycle, wallet, fountain pen, etc.
PW2 approached PW6, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Investigation Unit, Thiruvanathapuram and gave a First Information Statement, upon which an F.I.R. was registered against the appellant.
It is the companytention of the learned companynsel on behalf of the appellant that both in the First Information Statement and in the F.I.R, the name of the appellant is number mentioned, specifically, in regard to the demand of the bribe made by him from the companyplainant PW2.
Several witnesses were examined and various documents were produced as evidence by the prosecution in support of the charges against the appellant.
It has been further companytended by the learned companynsel on behalf of the appellant that as per the companyplaint, Rs.1500/ was allegedly demanded by the appellant as bribe money from the companyplainant.
It has been further companytended by him that a sample of the appellants shirt was also taken as evidence as he had kept the numberes in his pocket.
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, vide its judgment and order dated 30.01.2001 in C.C No.
However, the money allegedly paid and recovered from the appellant was only Rs.200/ .
However, his companyviction under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Act was companyfirmed and the order of sentence was modified.
Hence, there is a huge disparity between the money allegedly demanded and paid to the appellant by the companyplainant.
It is further stated that PW4, who is the Sub Inspector of the Fort Police Station had deposed that there was an additional station writer named Ajith in the police station, which was number companysidered by the companyrts below while recording the findings of the guilt of the appellant on the charges framed against him.
However, it is specifically mentioned in the companyplaint that the person who had demanded the bribe was the station writer of the Fort Police Station.
The learned Special Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record found that the appellant was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Act and thereby he had companyvicted and sentenced him with 3 years of imprisonment each under Sections 7 and 13 1 d of the Act and further ordered that the sentence must run companycurrently.
The result of the test was positive for each one of the Rs.100/ numberes.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the High Court, questioning the companyrectness of the same and urging various legal grounds.
were retained by the police.
For the purpose of companysidering the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant, who was the station writer at the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, demanded a sum of Rs.1500/ from the companyplainant PW2, for releasing certain articles belonging to him, which were taken into custody by the police.
It is the case of the prosecution that when PW2 approached the police station on 09.12.1998, to get back his belongings, the station writer demanded an amount of Rs.1500/ as bribe for returning the articles which were seized by the police.
It is further companytended by the learned companynsel that the de facto companyplainant had deposed before the Special Judge in this case that one Ajith, was the station writer of the Fort Police Station, who had demanded the bribe from him for the return of the seized articles to him.
Thereafter, a trap was arranged by PW6 and the appellant was arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 1 d of the Act.
It has been further companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the appellant has never been assigned the work of the station writer at the police station and further urged that the prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the same against the appellant to substantiate the charge against him.
It has been further companytended by the learned companynsel that the trap laid down by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Investigation Unit, Thiruvanathapuram, had resulted in the capturing of the appellant and the phenolphthalein test was companyducted then and there itself.
Hence, the appeal of the appellant was partly allowed and the companyviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the Act was set aside.
The High Court further held that there is sufficient evidence to prove that PW2 had paid two decoy numberes of Rs.100/ denomination to the appellant and he had voluntarily accepted the money as bribe from PW2.
The test result for the same was also found to be positive.
On the other hand, it has been companytended by the learned companynsel on behalf of the respondent that the appellant is the station writer of the Fort Police Station, a fact which has been stated by the prosecution witnesses in the case, which has been upheld by both the Trial Court as well as by the High Court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record.
Aggrieved by the judgment of companyviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant, urging certain legal grounds for setting aside the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence imposed upon him.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.108 of 2001, whereby the High Court has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order of companyviction recorded by the Court of Ld.
The Investigation Officer after companypleting all the formalities filed the final report before the Special Judge after framing the charges against the appellant.
PW2 was subsequently released by the Magistrate, wherein he was given further time to remit the money.
