State vs Tm Lucy on 7 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.A.No. 2001 of 2009()



1. STATE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. TM LUCY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :07/10/2009

 O R D E R
                       V. RAMKUMAR , J.
               --------------------------------------------------
                       Crl. Appeal No. 2001 of 2009
              ----------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009.

                             JUDGMENT

In this appeal filed by the State, the order of acquittal

passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,

Kozhikode as against A2 (T.M. Lucy) is challenged. She

along with A1 was charged for offences punishable under

Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. She was a U.D. Clerk in the Melarcode Grama

Panchayat office. The allegation against her was that she

received a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe from PW2 for showing

an official favour. The court below did not accept the

testimony of PWs 2 and 3 with regard to the alleged

acceptance of bribe. Admittedly, PWs 2 and 3 have no case

that the bribe money was handed over to the 2nd accused.

The phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of A2

showed negative results indicating that she did not have

any contact with the marked notes smeared with

Crl. Appeal No. 2001/2009 : 2 :

phenolphthalein powder. The only evidence was the alleged

recovery of Rs.150/- from her drawer. In this connection,

the court below has relied on the testimony of DW2 to the

effect that at the relevant time, she was talking with the

Standing Committee Chairman of the Panchayat in the room

of the President of the Panchayat. If so, even if the sum of

Rs.150/- has been recovered from her drawer, it cannot be

inferred that she had consciously accepted the said amount

as bribe. The trial Judge who had the unique advantage of

seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility, was not

inclined to accept the testimony of PWs 2 and 3. That court

has also relied on the testimony of DW2 in support of the

alibi set up by A2. Under these circumstances, I see no

reason to interfere with the order of acquittal as against A2.

This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

Rv

Crl. Appeal No. 2001/2009 : 3 :

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

————————————

Crl. Appeal No.2001 of 2009

—————————————-

7th day of October, 2009.

JUDGMENT

Crl. Appeal No. 2001/2009 : 4 :