BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C. C. No. 11 of 1986 on the file of the learned Special Judge (First Additional Sessions Judge), Tiruchirapalli is the appellant. He was charged for offences under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was found guilty, convicted under Section 161 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 5(1) (d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250 / - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months . The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 25 and M.Os. 1 to 6. The accused was the Chief Catering Inspector, Southern Railway, Trichy Division at Trichy. The charge against the accused is that on 6-3-1986 at 9.30 a.m. he had accepted a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from M. Balraj alias Balu as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for issuing orders for the supply of plantain leaves and thereby committed an offence under Section 161 I.P.C. The second charge is that the accused being a public servant employed as Chief Catering Inspector, Southern Railway, Trichy Division, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as such public servant obtained for himself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs, 1,000/- from the said Balraj and thereby committed an offence under Section 5 (1)(d) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(3.) P.W. 1 B. K. Nair is the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Southern Railway, Madras. He was examined for the purpose of proving the sanction order Ex. P. 1 issued by him for prosecuting the accused. According to him, he is the competent authority to remove the accused from the office. His evidence is that he went through the complaint and other necessary documents, namely, F. I. R., complaint, copies of mahazar, statement of witnesses, search list etc. and he came to the conclusion that there was substantive case made out for prosecuting the accused. It is admitted by him that he was not examined by the investigating officer in the case and that no statement was recorded from him. P.W. 2 Balraj was supplying plantain leaves to the refreshment stalls at Trichy junction. He had employed one Bhaskaran for supplying the plantain leaves to the refreshment stalls. He was supplying plantain leaves at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per hundred leaves and as the price paid by the railways was very low, he gave an application to the accused for supply of plantain leaves at the rate of Rs. 4 / - per hundred leaves and P.W. 2 did not get any reply. Again he gave another requisition on 19-8-1985 through the Store Clerk Suresh. In that letter he has claimed a sum of Rs. 5 / - per hundred leaves. That letter is marked as Ex. P. 2. It is the evidence of P.W. 2 that the accused stopped purchasing plantain leaves from P.W. 2 about seven months prior to the occurrence. P.W. 2 again went and represented to the accused to renew the supply of plantain leaves from him as before. But the accused seem to have replied that he could not renew the supply until he would get consent from the Assistant Commercial Superintendent. P.W. 2 again met the accused and requested him to renew the supply of plantain leaves from him some how or other and at that time, the Catering Inspector Sattanathan was also present. P.W. 2 met the accused on 5-3-1986 and requested to renew the supply. At that time another Catering Inspector Sunny was also present. At that time, there was some misunderstanding between the accused and P.W. 2. P.W. 2 was then working as a supplier in the Vegetarian stall at Trichy junction. The accused went there and told P.W.2 that P.W. 2 should pay money and that he should not trouble the accused. P.W. 2 replied to him that he would return the sum of Rs. 1,000/- on 6-3-1986. P.W. 2 deposed that he owed a sum of Rs. 1,200 / - to the accused and that the accused told him that P.W. 2 should pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - on the next day. At that time, Muthiah a C. B. I. Police was also standing by their side. But P.W. 2 did not know that he belonged to C.B.I. Police force. P. W. 2 also deposed that Parthasarathy, Vigilance Inspector took him to the side at the junction premises and asked him whether he was going to pay the money asked by the Inspector (accused). P.W. 2 replied him that he would pay the money on the next day at 6.00 p.m. Parthasarathy threatened P. W. 2 that P.W. 2 should not pay the money to the accused without the permission of Parthasarathy. P.W. 2 went to room No. 1 in the upstairs of the railway junction. Even then Parthasarathy threatened him that he should pay the money to the accused as per his direction. P.W. 2 admitted that he used to borrow money in a sum of Rs.50/- or Rs. 100/ - and on one occasion, P.W. 2 had borrowed a sum of Rs. 750/- and on another occasion he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 600/ and totally he had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/ to the accused. P.W. 2 also admitted that he told the accused that he would first pay Rs. 1,000/ - to the accused and thereafter, the balance of Rs.500/- by doing business. P.W. 2 had stated that Parthasarathy threatened him that P.W. 2 should pay money to the accused as per his direction and if P.W. 2 did not pay as instructed by him, P.W.2 should not come to railway canteen premises. P.W. 2 was told that Parthasarathy was in the Vigilance Department. According to P.W. 2 he was threatened to give a report by Parthasarathy. Ex. P. 3 is the report. At one place, P.W. 2 has stated that as per his dictation Velliangiri, the Inspector of Police, wrote the report Ex. P. 3. But subsequently, P.W. 2 has stated that E.P. 3 was written by Velliangiri himself and that it was not written as per the dictation of P.W. 2. The report was read out to P.W. 2. But P.W. 2 has stated that it was not written as per his instructions and the said Velliangiri had written something of his own accord. P.W.2 has stated that he had not signed Ex. P.3 by admitting the contents. His evidence is that his signature was obtained in Ex. P. 3 by threat. P.W. 2 was asked by the Inspector of Police, Velliangiri P.W. 10 to see him with a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - at 5. 30 a. m. on 6-3-86 at Room No. 1 in the railway junction. Accordingly, P.W. 2 went and paid Rs. 1,000/ - to the Inspector Velliangiri at 5.30 a.m. and on receiving the money the Inspector of Police, P.W. 10 smeared a powder on the currency notes and kept them in the pocket of P.W.2 and also instructed P.W.2 not to touch the currency notes. P.W. 2 accompanied by Xavier P.W. 3, an official witness for the trap, went to the house of P.W.2 at Uraiyur and after sometime, they went to the house of the younger brother of P.W. 2 and sat for some time. P.W.10 and another official witness Muthiah for the trap were hiding themselves in another place. P.W. 2 was given instruction by P.W.10 to give signal after the money was paid to the accused by touching his head. Accordingly, the accused came to the house of the younger brother of P. W. 2 at 9.00 a. m. and asked him about the amount. P.W. 2 paid the amount of Rs. 1,000/ - to the accused and told him to make arrangement for the supply of plantain leaves by him at the rate of Rs.5/- per hundred leaves. According to P.W.2, the accused gave a letter addressed to Sattanathan. P.W. 2 came out and gave a signal by touching his head after keeping that letter in his shirt pocket. Immediately P. W. 10 and his party went there and asked P.W. 2 to go out. Accordingly, P.W. 2 went out of the house. P.W.10 examined the pocket of P.W. 2 and P.W. 2 produced a letter given by the accused and also a sum of Rs. 2.55 P. Ex. P. 4 is that letter. P.W. 2 was shown those currency notes given to the accused. But P. W. 2 could not say whether those notes were given by him to the accused. The accused was taken subsequently by P.W. 10 and his party. P.W. 10 told P.W. 2 that he would make arrangement for the supply of plantain leaves by P.W. 2 within ten days thereafter. But no arrangements appeared to have been made. P.W.2 was examined by some other police regarding this and P.W.2 has stated that he had not given any statement to them. P.W. 2's evidence is that he was threatened by the police in a hotel and so he had done as instructed by the police. At this stage, after so much of evidence was given by P.W. 2, he was sought to be treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution. Accordingly, permission was granted by the trial court. After this, he was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor in the lower court. In the cross-examination made by the prosecution P.W. 2 denied that he told the accused that Xavier P.W. 3 was related to him. P.W. 2 stoutly denied that he did not pay the sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as bribe to the accused for renewal of supply of plantain leaves by P.W. 2. P.W. 2 also denied that the accused asked him any bribe at all. P.W. 2 admitted in cross-examination that he repaid the loan borrowed by him from the accused and denied the suggestion that it was bribe amount. P.W. 2 has deposed that Amalraj, Store Keeper was solely responsible for the supply of plantain leaves to P.W. 2. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the accused in the trial court to P.W. 2 that the Inspector Sunny alone was person who is to decide about the supply of plantain leaves. But P.W. 2 denied the suggestion and stated that the accused also was having that power. P.W.2 also admitted in cross-examination that the accused told him that the Stores Clerk and the Inspector Sunny had to decide the matter regarding supply of plantain leaves.