A LOGANATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the order of conviction convicting the accused under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for two months each.

(2.) The following is the brief account of prosecution sans unnecessary particulars:

(3.) (b) Both the witnesses had gone through the contents of F.I.R. P.W.2 produced Rs.2,000/- cash. They are 500 rupees notes in 3 numbers and Rs.100 rupees notes in 5 numbers. P.W.10 noted the serial numbers of the currency notes. He arranged for preparation of sodium carbonate solution in a glass tumbler. He asked witness Balasubramaniam to count the currency notes given by P.W.2. He did so. P.W.10 asked Balasubramaniam to dip his fingers of both hands into the solution. On doing so, there was no change in colour. Then P.W.10 directed a police constable to apply phenolphthalein powder on both sides of the currencies of Rs.2,000/-. As per request of P.W.10, witness Balasubramaniam again counted the tainted notes and placed on the table. P.W.10 asked him to dip his fingers into the sodium carbonate solution and on doing so, solution turned to pink colour. P.W.7 explained the importance of the phenolphthalein test to the witnesses.