V. JAYACHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence of R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/ - on each count sentence to run concurrent, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act dated 21.4.2003 in C.C.No.6 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows. P.W.2 Iruthayaraj is the resident of Rajakulathur of Pudukottai and he owns Punja lands in Survey No.94/2,3,4 and 5. He applied for a survey of his land through the Taluk Surveyor and he gave an application on 16.11.1998 by paying a fee of Rs.40/ -. He received a communication from the Taluk Office, Pudukottai that the survey will be conducted on 29.11.1998. Therefore, he was waiting at the Office of the Village Administratie Officer, Sempattu and met the V.O.A. viz., Sivagnanam. On enquiry V.A.O. He was told that the surveyor will not be coming on that day and he was asked to come on 23.12.1998. On 23.12.1998 around 09.15 the appellant who was the surveyor at the time came to the office of the V.O.A. On meeting the appellant the de facto complainant was told that even on that day the appellant will not measure the property as he had not met him earlier. In spite of V.A.O's intervention, the appellant refused to measure the property. Therefore, the de facto complainant went to Pudukottai and met the appellant at his office around 4.30 p.m. The appellant demanded Rs.1,000/ - as illegal gratification to measure the property. When the de facto complainant expressed his inability, initially the appellant reduced Rs.750/ - and then demanded minimum Rs.500/ - and on the same day, the de facto complainant collected Rs.150/ - from a known person and met the appellant and tendered the same but the appellant refused to receive the same maintaining the demand of Rs.500/ -. Not willing to pay a bribe of Rs.500/ - the de facto complainant went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption and gave a complaint on 28.12.1998. He was asked to come on the next day and on the next day, the Inspector, DAVC introduced one Krishnan and one Selvaraj to the de facto complainant. The Inspector, DAVC had planned a trap and directed the de facto complainant to produce Rs.500/ -. The de facto complainant and the two witnesses were explained about the trap proceedings and also the phenolphthalein test was demonstrated. On completion of the pre -trap proceedings, the Inspector DAVC prepared the necessary magazars and sent the de facto complainant along with the said Krishnan to the office of the Surveyor.

(3.) THE de facto complainant and the witness Krishnan met the appellant in his office and were directed to wait in the ground floor and the appellant came out from the office and asked the de facto complainant whether he had brought the money. On assurance by the de facto complainant, the appellant asked about the witness Krishnan and on introduction of the said Krishnan as a close friend the appellant directed the de facto complainant to come along with him in his motor cycle. The de facto complainant told that he has come in his own motor cycle. The appellant directed the de facto complainant to follow him and went along with one Palaniyandi. The de facto complainant followed him. The appellant stopped in a petty shop and directed the de facto complainant to get a white sheet and prepared a fresh application for survey and obtained his signature and again he proceeded. This time with the de facto complainant in his motor cycle, leaving the said Palaniyandi at the petty shop. The de facto complainant stopped the motor cycle near a textile shop on the main road. All along the witness Krishnan and the team of DAV officers were following the duo. The appellant asked the de facto complainant whether he has got the money, when the de facto complainant took the tainted money the appellant directed him to put the money in a yellow cloth bag which was hanging on the handle bar of the motor cycle. The de facto complainant did the same and as directed on completion of handing over the tainted money he signalled to the officers. The witness and the officers rushed to the spot and confronted the appellant.