BABY SAROJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem dated 29.04.2004 made in Special C.C.No.6/2001 convicting the appellant herein for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing her to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default three months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting her under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing her to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default, three months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in a nutshell, is hereunder: i) THE accused was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Veeranam village, Salem Taluk, Salem District, during the year 2000. P.W.2 is a resident of Thailanur, which comes within the jurisdiction of the office of the accused. He was owning a land settled by his father. THEreafter, P.W.2, in the year 1999 has also purchased a land adjacent to the said land in the name of his wife consisting of 51 cents. Six years prior to 2000, he has submitted two applications to the Taluk office for changing the patta in respect of the said lands. 7 days thereafter he has enquired about the same for which the then Village Administrative Officer demanded Rs.500/- and he has refused to give the said amount. During the grievance day conducted in the said village, he has given fresh applications for the change of patta with the Revenue officials. THE said officials informed him to contact the Village Administrative Officer after 10 days. P.W.2 went and met the accused. THE accused informed him that patta was not yet made ready and she would inform about the same later. He has enquired 2 to 3 times. Three months thereafter, again a grievance day was conducted and P.W.2 again preferred two petitions for change of patta to the Adhidravidar Welfare Officer. THE said officer handed over the petitions to the accused. He met the accused two days thereafter and he was informed by the accused that she would send her menial assistant after making the patta ready. ii) 10 days thereafter, the assistant of the accused informed P.W.2 that the said patta was ready and the accused instructed him to inform P.W.2 to come and meet her. P.W.2 met the accused on that day. THE accused informed him that the patta in the name of his wife was ready and demanded a sum of Rs.500/-. P.W.2 refused to give such an amount and the accused reduced the amount to Rs.450/- iii) P.W.2 informed the accused that he would make the amount ready and thereafter he would come and meet her. P.W.2 went to the office of the accused along with his brother-in-law P.W.4 on 04.01.2000 and met the accused. THE accused again demanded Rs.450/- and there were heated exchange of words between P.W.2 and the accused. iv) On the same day i.e. on 04.01.2000, P.W.2 along with his brother-in-law (P.W.4) went to the Vigilance Office and gave a written report (Ex.P2) to P.W.12 " Inspector of Police. P.W.12, on receipt of Ex.P2, registered a case in Crime No.1/AC/2000 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Ex.P23 is the FIR. He has sent the FIR to the court. v) P.W.12 took up the investigation as per the orders of the Director. He has recorded the statement of P.W.2 and instructed him to come on the next day i.e. on 05.01.2000 at 9.00 a.m with the demanded amount of Rs.450/-. On that day P.W.12 also summoned two witnesses, namely P.W.3 and another, who are the officials from the Forest Department and National Highways. He has also summoned the woman police (P.W.7), namely Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Salem, as the accused is a lady. He has asked P.W.3 and another witness to read the report given by P.W.2. THEreafter he has demonstrated the Phenolphthalein Test to P.W.2, P.W.3 and others. He has prepared the Mahazar (Ex.P.3) for the said proceedings held in the Vigilance office, signed by the witnesses. He has instructed P.Ws.2 and 3 to go to the office of the accused in a TVS-50 two wheeler and other constables have been sent in other two wheelers and the remaining raiding parties left in a car and jeep. THEy have stopped their vehicles near the bus stop of the village Veeranam. THEreafter he instructed P.W.2 to go to the office of the accused along with P.W.3. He has already instructed P.W.2 to give the amount, if the accused demands the bribe and after the receipt of the amount by the accused, he instructed him to come out and to give a signal by touching his head thrice. vi) At 11.45 a.m on 05.01.2000, P.Ws.2 and 3 went inside the office of the accused. P.W.12 was waiting with other raiding parties at the bus stop. P.Ws.2 and 3 entered the room of the accused in her office. At that time two village assistants were also present in the room. He has requested the accused to give the patta and the accused asked him whether he has brought the money as instructed earlier. He has taken the currency notes from his left hand side pocket and handed over the same to the accused. THE accused received the amount and put the same into the table drawer. She has also given the patta issued in favour of his wife. THE accused has not enquired anything about P.W.3. THEreafter, both P.W.2 and P.W.3 came out of the office of the accused and gave the pre-arranged signal. vii) On receipt of the pre-arranged signal, P.W.12 along with his raiding party entered inside the office of the accused. P.W.2 informed P.W.12 that he has already given the amount to the accused and also identified the accused. P.W.2 further stated to P.W.12 that the accused kept the said amount into her table drawer. P.W.2 was further asked to wait outside the office of the accused. viii) P.W.12 introduced himself to the accused. He has conducted Phenolphthalein Test by subjecting the fingers of both hands of the accused and the test proved positive. He has asked about the money. THE accused immediately took out the said amount from the table drawer consisting of four 100 rupee notes and one 50 rupee note, totaling to Rs.450/-, stating that the said amount was received as land tax. THE said currency notes were compared with the mahazar prepared earlier under Ex.P3. THE said amount tallied. THE accused informed that she has also given patta (Ex.P4) in the name of the wife of P.W.2. She has also produced Rs.1,246/- from the table drawer informing that the said amount was the land tax collection amount and also handed over Rs.3,030/- from her hand bag stating that the said amount belongs to her. P.W.12 on verification satisfied about the statement made by the accused in respect of the said amount and returned the same to her and handed over Rs.1,246/- to the Revenue Inspector. He has seized six numbers of Land Tax Register Books, marked as Exs.P6 to P11. He has also seized Ex.P12-Settlement Deed. He has arrested the accused. THEreafter, P.W.12 summoned P.W.2 and seized Ex.P4-Patta issued in the name of his wife under Ex.P5. He has also prepared a rough sketch, marked as Ex.P14 in respect of the place of occurrence. He searched the house of the accused. No incriminating materials were recovered. Ex.P15 is the search list. At 7.00 p.m he has released the accused as per the orders of the Director. ix) P.W.13-Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department took up further investigation. He examined P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.7 and others. He has sent the seized material objects for chemical examination as per requisition Ex.P20. P.W.14-Additional Superintendent of Police verified the case records and obtained Ex.P1-Sanction Order and filed the charge-sheet on 30.01.2001 against the accused.

(3.) MR.D.Shivakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence. It is contended that the prosecution has not proved the alleged demand of bribe said to have been made by the accused prior to the trap as well as at the time of trap. The learned counsel would point out that as far as the demand prior to the trap is concerned, the prosecution placed reliance only on the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4, who is the brother-in-law of P.W.2 and there is absolutely no independent witnesses to substantiate the version of P.W.2. It is contended that P.W.2 has come forward with a vague and bald allegations in respect of demand of illegal gratification.