PUSHPANGATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUSHPANGATHAR, the appellant herein, on being aggrieved by the conviction for the offences under Secs.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for having received a bribe of Rs.400 from one Damodaran for expeditious process of the application for issue of legal heirship certificate, has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: "(a) THE appellant was working as record clerk in the Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk Office, Chennai. P.W.6 Damodaran wanted a legal heirship certificate for the purpose of claiming family pension in connection with the death of his father. THErefore, he approached the Tahsildar's Office at Chamiers Road, Chennai. (b) On 10.12.1991, when P.W.6 went to the Tahsildar's office, he was directed to submit an application to the appellant, who was working as record clerk. THE appellant received the application and demanded P.W.6 to pay him a sum of Rs.450 as bribe for processing the application and enabling him to get the legal heirship certificate quickly. THE appellant also asked P.W.6 to get an affidavit from the notary public. Accordingly, P.W.6 obtained the affidavit from the notary public on 11.12.1991 and produced the same to the appellant. After receiving the affidavit, the appellant insisted P.W.6 that he should pay Rs.450 to make the papers ready. Ultimately, the appellant reduced the amount and insisted P.W.6 to bring the amount of at least Rs.400 on 12.12.1991. (c) Since P.W.6 did not want to pay any bribe for getting the certificate, he went to the vigilance office and gave a complaint to P.W.7 Inspector of Police on 12.12.1991 and the same was registered. Ex.P-15 is the F.I.R. (d) THEreafter, at 2.45 p.m., on the request of the Inspector of Police, P.W.2 Chitralputhran and P.W.3 Velayutham, the Government servants working in two different departments, were asked to come to the vigilance office to watch the trap. THE phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the hundred rupee currency notes numbering four. Ex.P-15 complaint was read over to P.Ws.2 and 3 and then, Ex.P-3 entrustment mahazar was prepared. (e) THEreafter, the officials along with P.W.6 went to the office of the appellant. P.W.2 was instructed to accompany P.W.6. THEy reached the Tahsildar's office at 4.00 p.m. At that time, the appellant was standing outside the office. As soon as the appellant saw P.W.6, he asked P.W.6 as to whether he had brought the money. Immediately, P.W.6 took out the money and handed over the same to the appellant. THEreafter, P.W.6 gave the prearranged signal. (f) On getting the prearranged signal, P.Ws.7 and 3 along with P.W.2 and other officials went inside the office and introduced themselves to the appellant. THEreafter, the phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the hands of the appellant and the same proved positive. THEreafter, the appellant took out the amount from his pant pocket and handed over the same to P.W.7. THE pant pocket also was subjected to the said test and the same was proved positive. THEreafter, the appellant produced the application and other documents given by P.W.6. (g) At the time when the tests were conducted, P.W.4 Tahsildar was requested to be present and Ex.P-5 mahazar was prepared in his presence. At the end, the appellant gave explanation that he received the amount from P.W.6 as flag day collection. But, P.W.4 Tahsildar stated that the appellant was not competent to collect the flag day fund and the flag day collection was over on 4.12.1991 itself. (h) P.W.8, another Inspector of Police took up further investigation and obtained Ex.P-1 sanction from P.W.1, the competent authority, to prosecute the appellant. THEreafter, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant."

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the appellant, demanded Rs.450 on 10.12.1991 and ultimately, he demanded Rs.400 on 11.12.1991 from P.W.6 Damodaran as bribe for expeditious process of the application for issue of legal heirship certificate and the same was received on 12.12.1991.