V K CHAKRAVARTHI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under a trap of the usual kind laid, the appellant obtained from PW-1, at the behest of PW-2. bribe in the sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 and took upon himself at the trial to explain it away as receipt of balance of the price of a diamond ring sold by the appellant to PW-2. earnest money of which in the sum of Rs. 200. 00 he had earlier received and the balance of Rs. 1,000. 00 had thus been received on the date of the incident. Weighing the two versions, the learned Special Judge as also the High court have found the prosecution case to be reliable and the explanation of the appellant to be not probable, especially in the presence of the letter of regret written by PW-2 to the appellant after the incident which forms part of the defence version as Ex. D-6. On the face of it, the letter was a procured one to help the appellant. Mr. U. R. Lalit. learned senior counsel for the appellant, has attempted to highlight the probabalising of the defence version of the appellant but unsuccessfully. We go by the verdict recorded by the courts below in affirming the convictions of the appellants under S. 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. as also Section 161, Indian Penal Code and the sentences imposed thereunder. The appellant a Garrison Engineer had public dealings with the complainant (he used to sanction his bills) and with whom his deal of the sale of a diamond ring was highly improbable and not trustworthy.

(2.) There is some scope, however, regarding the sentence as the matter is fairly old. Unfortunately. the appellant has not undergone any sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, in order to feed the letter of law, we order his incarceration but reduce the sentence of imprisonment to two months' rigorous imprisonment under both the counts, sentences to be running concurrently, while we maintain that of fine with the same default clause as before. With this end result, this appeal partially fails and is partially allowed.