STATE Vs. K SUNDARARAJAN SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the Order of acquittal dated 09.10.1998, and made in Special Case No.2 of 1994, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court, Cuddalore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has preferred this appeal after invoking the proviso to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE facts, which necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under: 2.1.THE first respondent, who is the first accused in the case was working as Sub-Registrar Grade-II at Mangalampettai Sub-Registrar's Office from 09.03.1989 till 10.04.1991. THE second respondent/second accused was working as Assistant in the same office from 06.08.1990 till 10.04.1991. 2.2.P.W.3 and P.W.4 are brothers. THEir father is one Govindasami Konar. THEy are the residents of Chinna Selam in Kallakurichi Taluk. THEy have effected a partition in respect of their joint family property measuring 7 Acres 32 Cents in the presence of village panchayat. 2.3.That on 26.03.1991 at about 04.00 p.m. in order to register the said partition, both of them had approached one Mr.Annamalai, who is a document writer in Mangalampet Sub-Registrar's Office. Whileso, they were instructed by the said Annamalai to bring the details about the value of the property from the Sub-Registrar. Accordingly, both of them had met the first respondent K.Sundararajan in his office. When he was enquired about the cost of the stamp papers for executing the partition deed, he had replied that it would not fetch much. But, he asked them to pay a sum of Rs.500/- separately for him. When they requested to reduce the amount as they were not able to offer that much of amount, the first respondent had asked them to bring Rs.300/- for registration of the document. This was informed to the document writer Annamalai (not examined). He had also told them that he would prepare the document on the stamp papers. 2.4.That on 03.04.1991, P.W.3 had met the scribe Annamalai. He had informed that he had written the document on the stamp papers and entrusted with the first respondent for verification and asked P.W.3 to come on 05.04.1991. In order to ascertain the fact, P.W.3 had met the first respondent in his office. Whileso, he had told that he would verify the document and hand over on the next day and therefore he asked P.W.3 to come on 05.04.1991 with a sum of Rs.300/-. 2.5.But, P.W.3 was not willing to pay the bribe and hence, he had been to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Office located at Cuddalore at 05.00 p.m. on 04.04.1991 and lodged a complaint under Ex.P4 before P.W.9 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, attached to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore. On receipt of Ex.P4, P.W.9 had registered a case in Crime No.2 of 1991 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. THE printed F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P5. 2.6. After registration of the case, P.W.9 had asked P.W.3 to come on 05.04.1991 at about 05.30 a.m. THEn, he had decided to organise a trap and therefore he had sent a memorandum to the Joint Director of Agriculture and Junior Executive Engineer, Soil Conservation Department, requesting to send witnesses at 05.30 a.m. on 05.04.1991 to organise a trap team. THEn P.W.9 had examined P.W.3 and recorded his statement. 2.7.Accordingly, P.W.5 Mohammed Rafudeen, Junior Assistant from Cuddalore Joint Director (Sales) Office and one Venkatachalam had reported P.W.9 at 05.30 a.m. on 05.04.1991 along with P.W.3. After following the preliminary formalities, P.W.3 had produced six numbers of hundred rupee currency notes before P.W.9. THEse currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate test was demonstrated to explain the intrinsic value of the phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate test. THEreafter, the numbers of the tainted currency notes were noted separately and the same was entrusted with P.W.3 with an instruction to give the amount to the sub-registrar of the Mangalampet Sub-Registrar's Office when the amount is demanded. 2.8.P.W.5 was also instructed to accompany P.W.3 and both of them were instructed to show the pre-arranged signal no sooner than the amount is received by the first respondent. THEn P.W.9 had prepared an entrustment mahazar under Ex.P6 and all the witnesses had signed in it. THE sodium carbonate solution was preserved in a bottle, labeled and signed by the witnesses and the bottle was marked as M.O.6. THE tainted currency notes had been marked as M.O.1 series. 2.9.THEreafter, the trap team had left from the Office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at 06.45 p.m. and reached Mangalampet Sub-Registrar's Office at 09.30 a.m. After reaching Mangalampet, the vehicle was stopped at the distance of one kilometer near a tank located at Mangalampet " Pillur Junction point and P.W.9 had instructed P.W.3 and P.W.5 to go to Sub-Registrar's Office and meet the first respondent and give the tainted amount when the demand is made by him. 2.10.P.W.3 and P.W.5 had reached Sub-Registrar's Office at 10.15 a.m. Whileso, P.W.4, who is none other than the brother of P.W.3, their father and the document witnesses one Jesu and Murugan were present there. P.W.3 had approached the scribe Annamalai and enquired him as to whether the document was ready. For that, he had informed him that after verification, the document was already handed over to first respondent. But, the first respondent was not present in his office as he had been to District Registrar's Office at Kallakurichi and since he would go to Krishnagiri from there, P.W.3 was asked to come on Monday ie. on 08.04.1991 and assured him that the document would be registered on that day. THEn P.W.3 and P.W.5 came back to P.W.9 Deputy Superintendent of Police and informed about the non-presence of the first respondent. 2.11.Besides this, P.W.3 had also informed P.W.9 that originally the name of the first respondent was given in the complaint as 'Subramanian'. But, his actual name is 'Sundararajan' and therefore a mahazar in this connection was prepared by P.W.9 and his signature was also obtained. That mahazar was marked as Ex.P7. THEreafter, P.W.9 had instructed P.W.3 and other witnesses to come on 08.04.1991 at about 07.00 a.m. 2.12.That on 08.04.1991, at about 07.00 a.m. P.W.3 had come to the Office of P.W.9 along with the tainted currency notes viz. Six numbers of hundred rupee currency notes. THE witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.6 had also arrived there. Again, the currency notes were smeared with the phenolphthalein powder and another entrustment mahazar was prepared at about 08.00 a.m. 2.13. THEreafter, they had left to Mangalampet Sub-Registrar's Office and reached there at 10.30 a.m. THEir car was stopped at the distance of one kilometer at Vridhachalam " Mangalampet road and P.W.9 along with P.W.6 and other trap team members took their position in a hidden place, from where they could see the Sub-Registrar's office. Whileso, the documents were readily kept by the document writer and P.W.3, his father and his brother P.W.4 had signed in the original partition deed. THE partition deed was marked as Ex.P9. Ex.P10 is the copy of Ex.P9. THE draft of Ex.P9 was marked as Ex.P11. After receiving Ex.P9 and Ex.P10, P.W.3 and P.W.5 went to the office of the first respondent. 2.14.P.W.7 is the father of P.W.8. P.W.7 had purchased 68 Cents of land from one Kamala, wife of Jayaraman belonging to their native place. THE sale deed to that effect was written by one scribe Ramamoorthi. THE total value of the stamp papers for the said sale deed was Rs.2,040/-. P.W.7 had purchased only two stamp papers of thousand rupee denomination and one stamp paper for the value of five rupees. Since the stamp papers for the remaining was not available, he was informed that the deficit amount of Rs.35/- could be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. THE sale price of Rs.17,000/- was paid to the vendor Kamala. 2.15.That on 08.04.1991, P.W.7 and his son P.W.8 had been to the Sub-Registrar's Office along with the vendor Kamala and her husband and other witnesses. When P.W.7 had presented the sale deed before the first respondent for registration, he had demanded a sum of Rs.125/-. When it was questioned, he told that the amount should be given. P.W.7 had paid Rs.205/- towards registration fee and deficit stamp fee and apart from this he had also given Rs.125/- in the denomination of Rs.100/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.5/- currency notes. P.W.7 was issued with a receipt for having registered the document. At the time of tendering the amount, P.W.8 was present there. His vendor Kamala and other witnesses had signed before the Registrar. 2.16.When they were about enter into the Office, one office assistant Kaliaperumal had prevented them saying that he would allow them to enter the office provided an amount of Rs.50/- is given. Since P.W.3 was not having money, he had availed the same from his father and given to him. After receiving the amount, Kaliaperumal had asked them to wait as already a registration was going on. After sometime, P.W.3 and P.W.5 were allowed to go inside. THE first respondent was present in his seat. P.W.3 had also presented the original partition deed before the first respondent. Whileso, the first respondent had asked P.W.3 as to whether he had brought Rs.300/-. For which P.W.3 had answered in affirmative and tendered the tainted currency notes (M.O.1 series). After receiving the currency notes, the first respondent had counted the same and kept it in the left side table drawer along with the document. 2.17.At that time, P.W.4, who is the brother of P.W.3 and their father were present along P.W.5. THE first respondent then told P.W.3 that it would take one hour for the completion of the registration and asked them to wait outside. THEreafter, P.W.3 and P.W.5 were standing near the entrance of the office, while P.W.4 and his father were walking out. When they were staying outside of the office, the first respondent had called the second respondent and handed over the document along with money, which were presented by P.W.3 and after receiving the amount along with the document, the second respondent had gone to his seat and counted the money and kept it in his table drawer while placing the document on table. THEreafter, the second respondent had taken something from the table drawer and gone to record room. His conduct created suspicion. 2.18.Subsequently, P.W.3 and P.W.5 had come out of the office of the first respondent and P.W.3 at about 12.45 p.m. had shown the pre-arranged signal to P.W.9. On noticing this, P.W.9 and his trap team rushed to the Office of the first respondent. P.W.9 was followed by P.W.3 and P.W.5. THEn P.W.9 had introduced himself to the first respondent and he had also disclosed the purpose for which they had come there. THEreafter, P.W.9 had questioned the first respondent as to where the amount of Rs.300/-, which was received from P.W.3 was kept. For which, the first respondent had replied that he had given to the second respondent and the second respondent had also replied that he had kept the amount in the bureau placed in the back side of the hall and by saying so he had proceeded to that hall. P.W.9 and other witnesses had also followed him. THEn the second respondent had taken out the amount of Rs.300/- along with the another amount of Rs.125/- viz. in the denomination of hundred, twenty and five rupee currency notes. He had also handed over the money to P.W.9. THEn P.W.9 had told the first respondent that the amount of Rs.300/- (M.O.1 series) was given by P.W.3 only for the purpose of trapping him. THEn M.O.1 series was handed over to the witness Venkatachalam and he was asked to compare the numbers of the notes with the numbers entered in Ex.P6, entrustment mahazar. THE numbers were found tallied. 2.19.THEreafter, both the first and second respondents were subjected to sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein test separately. THE left and right hand wash of first respondent was preserved separately in separate bottles and marked as M.O.2 and M.O.3 respectively. Similarly, the left and right hand wash of the second respondent were preserved separately in separate bottles and marked as M.O.4 and M.O.5 respectively. All the witnesses had signed in the labels pasted on the material objects. THE cover, in which the amount of Rs.425/- was kept, was marked as M.O.8. All the materials were seized under a recovery mahazar under Ex.P12. Apart from this, P.W.9 had also seized a sum of Rs.50/- from the office assistant Kaliaperumal under the same mahazar and other incriminating receipts and registers. THEreafter the first and second respondents were arrested and their respective residential premises were also searched after sending an advance intimation to the Court. THE intimation has been marked as Ex.P21. No incriminating materials excepting Exs.P13, P14 and P15, were found. THEreafter, the first and second respondents were released on bail on their own bonds. THE complaint Ex.P4 and the first information report Ex.P5 were also sent to the concerned Court. 2.20.P.W.9 had subsequently altered the section of law and included the second respondent in the case and to that effect he had prepared a report under Ex.P20 and sent to Court. P.W.9 had also prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P22 in respect of the office of the first respondent. On the requisition made by P.W.9, P.W.11 was nominated as the investigating officer and he had also taken up the case for further investigation. After completion of the investigation, he had entrusted the case record with P.W.10. P.W.10 had taken up the case for further investigation and after the completion of his investigation he had laid a final report against the first and second respondents under Section 120(B) I.P.C. r/w Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 I.P.C. 2.21. With the evidence of P.W.11, the prosecution has closed its side.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the Order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Special Wing, Krishnagiri has preferred this appeal after invoking the proviso to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.