CHARLES WAKER DEVADAS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli dated 22.3.1990 and made in Special Case No.2 of 1988, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Sec.5(2) read with Sec.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months; and for the offence under Sec.161, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and ordering the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant was tried for the offences on the allegations that the appellant employed as Accountant (Assistant) in the Karungulam Panchayat Union at Seidun-ganallur and being a public servant in such capacity at about 5.30 p.m. on 21.9.1987 at his office demanded a sum of Rs.100 by way of bride in consideration to expedite the sanction proceedings to get a sum of Rs.1000 as subsidy being the subsidy portion of the loan of Rs.3,000 sanctioned to Tmt.Gnanasoundari Ammal under the Massive Agricultural programme by Bank of Tamil Nadu, Vallanadu Branch and that on the said basis at about 4.25 p.m. on 23.9.1987 in front of the Office of the District Rural Development Agency, Tuticorin, the appellant has received a sum of Rs. 100 by way of bribe from one Sudalaimuthu Asari, husband of Tmt.Gnanasoundari Ammal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case as culled out from the evidence and records of the trial court are stated as follows: P.W.1 Sudalaimuthu Asari along with his wife Gnanasoundari P.W.7 and his son Nagarajan P.W.4 are the residents of Vellanadu Village and P.W.7 owns an extent of 2 Acres and odd lands by way of purchase, situated in survey numbers 274, 639 and 452 in patta number 337 as evident from the certificate issued by P.W.14, the Village Administrative Officer and the certificate Ex.P-28, This land is situated within the Karungulam Panchayat Union in which P.Ws.5, 6,18,19 and 20 are the employees. This land is being looked after by P.W.1 for the purpose of cultivation and improvement. Being a small farmer, classified in the Revenue records, P. W.7obtained a loan of Rs.6,500 for the purpose of installing a motor pump set in a joint well situated in the said land and that she has discharged the said loan amount by transferring the deposit amount standing in name of P.W.1 subsequently. This is evident from the evidence of P.W.13, the Manager of the Bank, Tamil Nadu Vallanadu Branch and Ex.P-23. The said discharge was done by transfer of the deposit account of P.W.1 on 14.7. 1986 and finally, the said loan was discharged on 1.8.1987, It is the case of the prosecution that even in getting the said loan thus discharged, it was the appellant who attended all the papers relating to the said loan in Karungulam Panchayat Union. Subsequently, P.W.7 appears to have applied for granting of a loan of Rs.3,000 for the purpose of constructing a pump-set room and the application is Ex.P-24 and the application sent to Karungulam Panchayat Union is Ex.P-15 and that the order passed by the Panchayat Union has been marked as Ex.P-25 and the letter addressed by the Block Development Officer of the said Union to the Manager, Bank of Tamil Nadu, for the grant of subsidy is Ex.P-18, on 6.2.1987, P.W.13 forwarded the said application to his head office and got the sanction for the loan of Rs.3,000 on 30.6.1987 and that has been marked as Ex.P-26. Then, on 6.7. 1987, he wrote a letter Ex.P-5 to the Commissioner of the Karungulam Panchayat Union requesting for the subsidy for the said loan. P.W.13 has made an endorsement in Ex.P-5 showing the very purpose for which the loan was granted. Since no order has been received from the Karungulam Panchayat Union regarding subsidy, the Bank of Tamil Nadu, Vallanadu branch could not disburse the loan of Rs.3,000 to P.W.7. In the meanwhile, P.W.7 wrote Ex.P-27 to the bank requesting to grant the loan of Rs.3,000 without any deposit. P.W.6 is the Manager working in the Karungulam Panchayat Union from 12.6.1987. He claims to the factum that in granting the loan to small farmers, l/4th of the same is to be given by way of subsidy and that in the case of very small farmers 1/3rd of the loan amount is to be granted as subsidy. Accordingly, during the first loan discharged by P.W.7, the appellant accused then working as Village Welfare Officer has recommended for the above subsidy and accordingly as per Ex.P-12, Exs.P-13, P-14 and P-15 has forwarded the papers for the sanction of subsidy in favour of P.W.7. The prosecution claims that all the details found in Ex.P-15 was prepared by the accused/appellant in the capacity of village Welfare Officer. On Ex.P-15, the then Co-operative Extension Officer has recommended for the loan and the B.D.O. has also recommended the same. In Ex.P-10, the personal register maintained by the accused appellant, there was no reference about Ex.P-5 though it was handed over to him on 9.7. 1987 for further action as per the endorsement made in the distribution register Ex.P-16 as serial number 6017, but no action was taken upon Ex.P-5. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused/appellant had rounded serial number 6017 but substituted the previous current number 131 of 1986 in its place but even then, he did not take any further action upon Ex.P-5. The relevant register for the Agricultural Development maintained by the Panchayat Union is Ex.P-6. Ex.P-5 has been entered at page 62 on 22.9.1986 as evident from Ex.P-8 with the serial number 33/86 referring to Ex.P-5 in particular. With regard to relating documents Exs.P-5, P-9, there were no endorsements for further actions taken by the accused nor any note put up by the accused. P.W.5 has spoken with reference to the abovesaid facts. P.W.19 was working as A-5 (Assistant) in Karungulam Panchayat Union Office for the period upto 19.10.1986 and during the said period he was also attending the subject 'subsidy" Regarding Ex.P-15, the application for the subsidy, the Block Development Officer, has sent a certificate Ex.P-25 to the Bank of Tamil Nadu, Vallanadu branch. It is the further case of the prosecution that in Ex.P-15 and all its connected papers, the accused/appellant had attended and written everything in his own hand-writing and signed the same in the capacity of welfare Officer and further endorsed by the Co-operative Extension Officer on 17. 9.1986. In the register maintained by the Panchayat Union relating to the applications for loan at page 62, the accused/ appellant has written that the loan application given by P.W.7 has been sent to the Bank of Tamil Nadu and endorsed by P.W.20. According to P.W.20 planning office and project office is the same and that has been named as District Rural Development Agency. During 3.7. 1987 to 19.7. 1987 P.W.10 was incharge of the Block Development Officer, Karungulam Panchayat Union. During that time, Ex.P-5 came to his perusal and accordingly, he has signed it and after perusal, he claims that he had called for the appellant accused and asked him to send the proposal. As was pointed out by the appellant/accused, that the purpose forwhich the loan was asked for had not been mentioned, the accused/appellant wanted that application to be returned and accordingly, P.W.10, returned the said application Ex.P-5 of P.W.1, husband of P.W.7 and that therefore, P.W.10 had scored off his signature subscribed in Ex.P-5. Then P.W.1, took the application Ex.P-5 to the bank and the bank authorities represented that they would write a proper letter to the panchayat Union Office.

(3.) AS per the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, P.W.21, the Inspector of Police, registered the complaint given by P.W.1, Ex.P-1, in V.A.C.Cr.No.1 of 1987 under Sec.161, I.P.C.,and took up investigation.