S M NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of the suo motu F.I.R. registered by the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Madras, Navaneethakrishnan, who was working as a travelling ticket examiner, was trapped, while he had received a sum of Rs.50 as illegal gratification from one Sudhakaran, an officer in the Indian Overseas Bank, on 23.12.1986 for allotting two bethers in the running train of Bangalore Mail in between Madras and Arakonam. ON charge sheet being filed after obtaining sanction, the trial Court convicted the said Navaneethakrishnan for the offences under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year with a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively. Challenging the same, the Navaneethakrishnan has preferred this appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE minimal facts leading to the conviction are given below: "(a) H.E. Hussain, was the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Madras during 1986. Navaneethakrishnan, the appellant a travelling ticket examiner working in the railway, used to demand money as bribe from the passengers for allotment of berth in the reserved compartments. Though P.W.4 received such information from several passengers, they did not incline to report the matter to the vigilance, as they were interested to continue their journey. THErefore, P.W.4 left with no option but to set up a trap to find out the truth of the information against the appellant, registered the case containing the abovesaid information under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code. Ex.P-5 is the First Information Report. (b) P.W.2 Sudhakaran, was working as an officer in the Indian Overseas Bank, Madras. P.W.3 Jayaraj was working as an Inspector in the office of the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Madras. P.W.4 contacted both the offices and requested to send the above officials in order to participate in the trap in acting as decoy witnesses to find out the truth of the information. Accordingly, both P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the office of P.W.4 on 23.12.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. (c) After explaining the gist of the complaint, P.W.4 handed over two second class open tickets which were purchased from the booking office, Madras Central for journey from Madras to Bangalore. Those tickets are M.Os.1 and 2. THEn, he smeared phenolphthalein powder on five 10 rupees currency notes and the significance of the phenolphthalein test was explained to the witnesses. He also gave another Rs.24 (M.O.4 series) to be paid as reservation charges for two berths. THEn, mahazar was prepared, signed by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.W.2 was instructed to approach the accused in the railway coach who was managing the train No.7 in Bangalore Mail and to pay Rs.24 towards the reservation charges and to pay the other Rs.50 smeared with phenolphthalein powder to be paid to the accused only on demand as bribe. P.W.3 was asked to accompany P.W.2 to watch the conversation between P.W.2 and the accused. All these things were incorporated in the mahazar Ex.P-2. (d) THEn, the decoy witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3, P.W.4, the Inspector of Police along with police party went to Madras Central Station. On reaching the station, P.W.4 pointed out the accused to P.W.2. THEn, P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the accused and requested for two second class sleeper berths. THE accused said that no vacant berth was available. P.Ws.2 arid 3 were standing there itself. After sometime, the accused called P.W.2 and told him that if he pays Rs.25 per berth, he would provide him two berths. P.W.2 agreed for the same. THErefore, he asked both of them to come to "F" coach of the train Bangalore Mail. At 10.30 p.m. THE train started. When it was nearing Arakkonam Junction, the accused went to P.W.2 and informed him that they had been allotted two sleeper berth Nos.25 and 26. He collected Rs.24 from P.W.2 towards reservation charges. Few minutes later, the accused called P.W.2 aside and demanded the bribe amount of Rs.50 for two berths. Accordingly, P.W.2 paid the smeared currency notes of Rs.50 the accused, who counted and kept the same in the inner pocket of the uniform shirt. (e) THE train halted at Arakkonam junction at about 11.00 p.m. P.W.2 and P.W.3 got down from the train and gave the pre-arranged signal to the Inspector of Police. At that time, the accused was seen on the platform walking towards the "G" coach. THEn, P.W.4, went near the accused and revealed his identity. He asked him whether he got the money. THE accused became afraid and preplexed. THEn, he was taken inside the "F" coach. THEre, both the hands were subjected to phenolphthalein test. THE Sodium Carbonate solution turned into pink colour when the accused dipped his fingers of both the hands in the solution. THEn, at the request of P.W.4, the accused produced the tainted money of Rs.50 from his right side inner pocket of uniform shirt. When it was verified with the mahazar, it was found that the currency notes tallied. THEn, P.W.4, recovered other reservation coupons, excess fare, tickets, etc. from the accused. (f) THEreafter, in the train itself, the mahazar was prepared, signed by the officers as well as the accused. THE copy of the mahazar was given to the accused. Ex.P-3 is the mahazar. THEn, the accused was asked to continue the duty. P.W.4 and other witnesses and police party got down at Jolarpet and sent the flash message to the railway authorities through the Station Master, Jolarpet regarding the trapping of the accused. (g) THEreafter, the further investigation was taken up by P.W.5 Joseph Ponnoly, another Inspector of Police. He examined witnesses in this case and sent a report to the railway authorities for according sanction to prosecute the accused. After obtaining sanction on 25.5.1987, he filed the charge sheet on 13.6.1987 against the accused for the offences under Sec. 161, Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(l)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. (h) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined on its side P.W. 1 to P.W.5 filed Exs.P-1 to P-7 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.13. On the side of the defence, Ex.D-1 was marked. (i) When the incriminating materials were put to the accused in the questioning under Sec.313, Criminal Procedure Code, he stated that he is innocent and a false case was foisted against him. He filed a written statement stating that he did not demand any money from P.W.2 and he collected the berth charges only. When got down at Arakkonam, P.W.2 tried to put some currency notes in his pocket. But, he prevented and threw it back and at that time, police officers came and took him into the compartment where he explained that he did not receive any bribe. (j) THE trial Court after analysing the materials available on record, found the accused guilty for the offences referred to above and convicted him thereunder. Hence, this appeal."

(3.) IN the present case, there is no dispute in the fact that P. W.4 registered the suo motu complaint as First INformation Report, stating that he received the reliable information from several passengers that the accused as a T.T.E. of the reserved coaches has been demanding and accepting Rs. 25 as bribe for allotment of each berth. Relating to the source of information, clear details have been given in the First INformation Report Ex.P-5 itself. According to Ex.P-5 no passenger was ready to prefer a complaint due to the urgency to go to their destination. Therefore, P.W.4, the INspector of Police made an enquiry about the reputation of the accused and came to know that his integrity was unsatisfactory. Under those circumstances, P.W.4 recorded the said reliable information in Ex.P-5 and registered the case in R.C.No.87 of 1986 under Sec. 161, INdian Penal Code. It is also mentioned in the First INformation Report that he obtained orders from the higher authorities, since the complainant in this case is INspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., himself.