T S RAMASWAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) e accused in S. C. No. 16 of 1985 on the file of the learned First Additional Special Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant. The accused was a Health Inspector, Southern Railway, Coimbator junction. He was prosecuted for offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was found guilty by the lower court under both counts and under Section 161, I.P.C. he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution has examined P. Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.19 and M.Os. 1 to 5. The accused has examined one Manickam as D.W. 1 and marked Exs. D. 1 to D.5.

(3.) P. w. 1 Selvan was a cleaner in the Southern Railway at Coimbatore Junction and the accused was the Health Inspector and it is the admitted case that the accused had no authority to grant leave for P.W. 1. P.W. 1 was married in the month of February 1984. It appears that P. W. 1 has requested the accused to grant him leave for ten days and he gave the leave letter also to the accused on 11 -10-1984. The leave letter Ex.P. 1 was written by a co-worker Valliammal. P.W. 1 has stated that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 50/ by way of bribe for granting leave. P.W. 1 told the accused that he had no money at the time and that the accused told him to give the money of some means before Tuesday. P.W. 1 was not willing to bribe the accused. P.W. 1 met Asokan P.W. 4 train clerk on 15-l0-84 and P.W. 4 also told P.W. 1 that the accused would not grant leave unless P.W. 1 would pay him a sum of Rs. 50/-. At that time, two persons came that way and Asokan told something to one of the persons and one of the two persons asked Ashokan as to who was P.W. 1 and Ashokan told one of them that P.W. 1 wanted leave for 10 days and for the said purpose, the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 50/ - and on hearing this, one of the persons introduced himself as the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. and he told Ashokan that if P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 would support him, he would proceed against the accused in this regard. The Inspector of Police took P.W. 1 to Seran lodge and P.W.4 told P.W. 1 to support the Inspector of Police in this regard and he went away. P.W. 1 went along with the Inspector of Police to Seran lodge and the Inspector asked P.W. 1 to give a report against the accused. P.W.1 told him that he did not know to read and write and on his instructions a report was written by the Inspector of Police himself who later on read out the same and P.W. 1 admitted the same to be correct and he affixed his signature. Ex.P.2 is the report written by the Inspector of Police. P.W. 1 was asked to see the Inspector of Police at 5.15 a.m. on the next day with a sum of Rs. 50/-. P.W. 1 met the Inspector of Police at 5.15 a.m. at Seran lodge. In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police brought two other employees from the telephone department and P.W. 1 as directed by the Inspector of Police narrated to the other official witnesses about the demand of bribe by the accused. Subsequently sodium corbonate solution was prepared and the signifiance of the phenolptheless test was explained to the official witnesses and also to P.W. 1 and the Inspector of Police instructed P.W. 1 not to touch the currency notes of Rs. 50 / -and if the accused demanded money he could pay the same and after paying the amount P.W. 1 should give a signal by lifting his lunghi and wearing the same. Viswanathan, the official trap witness was also directed by the Inspector of Police to watch as to what was going on between them. Accordingly, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 went to platform No. 3 of the railway junction at Coimbatore and went to the office of the accused. The office of the accused was found locked at that time. At about 6.05 hrs. the accused came to his office. P.W. 1 was standing near the window and P.W.2 was standing near the other window and the accused asked P.W. 1 as to what had happened to the amount so demanded and P.W. 1 replied that he had brought the money and showed his left packet where he had kept the money and the accused went inside the office and after giving some work to the other employees, the accused sent them away and again the accused asked P.W. 1 as to what happened to the amount demanded by him and P.W. 1 replied in the affirmative, took the money from his left packet and gave the same to the accused who received and counted the same and kept them in his packet. P.W. 1 asked the accused regarding the leave required by him and the accused seemed to have replied that he would grant the leave and that P.W. 1 need not worry about the same.M.O. 1 series are the five ten rupee currency notes and after paying the money P.W. 1 came out of the office of the accused and gave signal as instructed by the Inspector of Police. Immediately, the Inspector of Police and his party came inside the office of the accused and the Inspector of Police searched the person of P.W. 1 and found two rupees currency notes on his right packet of his shirt. P.W. 2 is the official trap witness. He supported the case of the prosecution by stating that when P.W. 1 asked the accused about his leave letter, the accused in turn asked P.W. 1 as to whether P.W. 1 had brought the money demanded by him and that P.W. 1 replied that he had brought the money and showed his left side packet where he had kept the money and that the accused went inside his office and after giving some work to two employees, the accused asked P.W. 1 to give the money to him and P.W. 2 has stated that he had seen the payment made by P.W. 1 to the accused and P.W. 2 also further added that the accused asked P.W. 1 to give money and P.W. 2 had also seen the payment of Rs. 50 / - by P.W. 1 to the accused. P.W. 2 also has stated that the accused told P.W. 1 that the latter need not worry about the leave and that he would sanction the same. After this, P. W. 1 gave the signal to the police and the Inspector of Police and his party entered the office room of the accused, recovered the money from the accused. P.W. 2 has stated in cross-examination that he was standing within the sight of the accused and P.W. 1 has deposed that the P.W. 2 was smoking a cigarette within 10 ft. from the seat of the accused and the accused did not find it uncomfortable or shy on seeing P.W. 2 standing opposite to him.