SANKARALINGAM Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2005 made in Special C.C.No.1 of 1997 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tirunelveli. THE first accused is the appellant. THE appellant was charged for an offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. THE appellant was a public servant and was working as Thasildar at Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows: One Subbaiya, who was the resident of Keeraikaran Thattu, applied for a solvency certificate on 25.04.1995 at Taluk office, Radhapuram. However, he gave an application only on 10.05.1995 and paid the necessary fee and the same was processed by one George (second accused) and on his direction the de facto complainant met the Village Administrative Officer and also the Revenue Inspector and obtained necessary certificates and resubmitted the application on 15.05.1995. He met the appellant and requested for the solvency certificate. According to the de facto complainant the appellant demanded Rs.1,000/- on 16.05.1995 as illegal gratification. Again he met the appellant on 18.05.1995 at his house and the appellant demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification and Rs.200/- towards Flag Day donation. THE de-facto complainant not willing to pay the bribery went to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office, Palayamkottai and met the Deputy Superintendent of Police and gave a complaint. On the same day the Deputy Superintendent of Police called one Mohan and Nagarajan, who are the gazetted rank officers and decided to prepare a trap proceeding. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police explained the trap proceedings to the de-facto complainant and to the two witnesses. THE de-facto complainant produced seven One hundred rupees currency notes. THE pre-trap procedures were conducted and the Deputy Superintendent of Police explained the phenolphthalein test to the witnesses and to the de-facto complainant. After following the formalities, the currencies were given back to the de-facto complainant and he was directed to go along with the said Nagarajan, an independent witness to the Thasildar's Office.

(3.) THE Deputy Superintendent of Police investigated and recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation laid the charge sheet against the appellant and the said George for the offence stated above.