R G JACOB Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (R. G. Jacob) was an Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras. In respect of a certain incident, charges were framed against him under Section 161 I. P. C., Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Central Act II of 1947 and Section 165 I. P. C. The learned Special Judge, Madras, acquitted him of the charges under Sections 161 I. P. C. and 5(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947, but convicted him under Section 165 I.P.C. alone, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The facts of the particular incident which gave rise to the prosecution are as follows:

(2.) One K. R. Naidu, (P. W. 8) a merchant in provisions, applied on 21-1-1958 to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for a licence for export of chillies (Ex. P. 1). The chief witness in this case, Arumugham, (P. W. 1) whose antecedents I shall refer to later, had an authorisation from P. W. S. (Ex. P. 2) with regard to this matter. The application of P. W. 8 was rejected (Ex. P. 4), and the question mooted was an appeal to the Joint Chief Controller who had powers to reverse the decision. It is alleged that in this connection P. W. 1 met the accused and solicited his help in getting a permit. At a later meeting, the accused divulged that an appeal had to be made for reversing the earlier decision, and that if he (accused) was given a bribe of two bags of cement and Rs. 50, the accused would help P. W. 1 and P. W. 8 to obtain the permit. The accused is supposed to have handed over a chit (Ex. P. 5) to P. W. 1 containing his house address, as P. W. 1 was ignorant where exactly the appellant lived.

(3.) According to the prosecution evidence, P. W. 1 immediately established contact with the Deputy Superintendent of Special Establishments (P. W. 9) whom he knew earlier, and divulged the facts to that officer. As arranged by that officer, a trap was set, and P. W. 1 actually succeeded in delivering the cement bags (which contained cards of identification put into them previously) and currency notes of Rs. 50 (the numbers of which were previously noted by the police) to the appellant, in pursuance of the arrangement to give illegal gratification. At that moment, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and two mahazar witnesses (P. Ws. 2 and 3) practically raided the house of the accused, and recovered both the cement bags and currency notes from an almirah upstairs. The main question of fact, upon the evidence and probabilities, is whether this incident should be accepted as true and if so, whether any offence is established upon the testimony.