N V KUMARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IX Addl. Special Judge, Madras, in CC. No. 16/87 dated 8-4-1988 for the offences under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.

(2.) The Prosecution case is as follows : - The appellant was working as the Assistant Re gional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Inungambakkam, Madras. Metal Forms (P) Ltd., Redhills, was brought under the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter to be re ferred to as E.S.I. Corporation) from 29-5-1983. P.W. 1 is the Managing Director of Metal Forum (P) Ltd. and P.W. 2 is the Assistant Manager of this company. P.W. 4, the Inspector of E.S.I. Corporation, attached to its Villivakkam Office, inspected Metal Form (P) Ltd. on 17-1-1985 and he found that the Security Guards were not brought under the E.S.I. Scheme. Therefore, he prepared the report Ex. P. 12, P.W. 5 was the Assistant Regional Director (Vigilance) and he inspected the Metal Form (P) Ltd. on 5-4-86. With regard to the defects, he found in the inspection he prepared the report Ex. P. 13. Notice was sent by the appellant in his capacity as Assistant Regional Director, to Metal Form Co. Under Ex. P.1, in August 1986 directing the com pany to remit Rs. 17,783,60. P.W. 2, sent the reply Ex. P. 2 explaining that they were not liable to pay the amount. The appellant held personal enquiry on 16-9-86 and 1-10-86. Thereafter, as the final order was not communicated to Metal Form (P) Ltd., P.W. 2 enquired the appellant in his office as to the final order relating to his company. The appellant said that the order would be issued in January, 1987. On 21-1-1987 P.W. 2 against met the appellant in his office and when he enquired about the final order, the appellant demanded Rs. 1,500 as bribe to reduce the amount mentioned in Ex. P1 notice. P.W. 2 answered the appellant stating that he would consult the Managing Director for payment and after com ing to his office contacted P.W. 1 over phone and conveyed the demand of Rs. 1,500.00 made by this appellant. P.W. 1 informed him not to pay any amount hut to launch a complaint to the vigilance police. Therefore, he went to Central Bureau of Investigation office and met the Inspector P.W. 10 to whom the complaint. Ex. P. 5 was given by him. P.W. 10 asked him to bring Rs. 1,500.00. which was de manded by this appellant to lay the trap to catch the offender. Therefore, P.W. 2 collected Rs. 1,500.00 from P.W. 1 and returned to the office of Central Bureau of Investigation. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, on the request of P.W. 10, contacted the Income-tax Office to deput two persons to be the witnesses for a trap case and P.W. 3 and one Karthigeyan were deputed by their superior officers to be the witnesses for this trap case, when P.W. 2 returned to Central Bureau of Investigation office, he was introduced to P.W. 3 and Karthigeyan. P.W. 10 the Inspector sprayed phenopthalene powder over the currency notes M.O. 1 series brought by P.W. 2 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and Karthigeyan and he explained to them the salient features of the chemical reaction when phenopthalene is dissolved in the solution of sodium carbonate. When the currency M.O. 1 series were touched by fingers and the fingers were dipped in sodium car bonate solution, it turned to pink colour. For this demonstration and also for the currency notes M.O. 1 series Ex. P. 7 mahazar was prepared in the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The currency notes numbers also were given in Ex. P. 7. P.W. 10 instructed P.Ws. 2 and 3 to proceed to the office of the Assistant Regional Director Office, Nungambakkam and pay the amount to the appel lant only when demanded and give a signal to him if the appellant had received the money. He requested P.W. 3 to be present with P.W. 2 and observe the conversation between the appellant and P.W. 2. Therefore, P.Ws. 2 and 3 came in advance to the office of the appellant followed by P.W. 10, Karthigeyan and the other members of the police party. P.Ws. 2 and 3 met the appellant in his room and P.W. 3 was introduced to the appellant as the Accountant of Metal Form (P) Ltd. The appellant asked P.W. 2 whether he had brought the amount. P.W. 2 placed the M.O. 1 series currency notes on the table of the appellant as directed by him and he immediately placed a file over the currency notes. The appellant informed P.W. 2 that the Accountant of Metal Form (P) Ltd., could come and collect the order after the Pongal holidays. Both of them came out and P.W. 2 gave the signal to the Inspector P.W. 10 as instructed by him. P.W. 10 immediately en tered the room of the appellant along with the P.W. 3 and others, other than P.W. 2, and he introduced himself to the appellant and asked him whether he received money from P.W. 2. The appellant got perplexed to answer to his questions. P.W. 10 pre pared the sodium carbonate solution and asked the appellant to dip his fingers in the solution which turned to pink colour when dipped by the appellant. P.W. 10 collected the solution in two bottles M.O. 2 and M.O. 3 in the presence of P.W. 3 and others and he also prepared a mahazar Ex. P. 9 there itself, in the presence of the witnesses and the same was attested by P.W. 3 and Karthigeyan. He collected the file relating to the proceedings against Metal Form (P) Ltd. and issued the receipt Ex. P.10 for the file. He searched the house of the appellant after intimation to the Court and prepared the search list Ex. P. P. 11. The Inspector thereafter, along with the appellant went to his office and registered a case against the appellant for which he prepared the First Informa tion Report Ex. P. 20. He sent the articles seized, to the Court with a request Ex. P. 15 to send one of the sodium corbonate soultions to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical analysis. Ex. P. 16 is the Forensic Report prepared by P.W. 7 after the chemical analy sis of the solution M.O. 2. P.W. 11 the Director General of E.S.I. Corporation, after perusing the records placed before him, sanctioned under perus ing the records placed before him, sanctioned under Ex. P. 22 for the prosecution of the appellant. After the evidence the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence. The appellant denied the allegations and said that P.W. 1, who owns three companies, was not remitting the contribution amount to the E.S.I. Corporation properly and when notices were issued, the son of P.W. 1 threatened him stating that his uncle is an officer in the Central Bureau of Investi gation and on account of these ill-feelings, he has been implicated. The learned Additional Special Judge has found that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant and has convicted him in the manner stated above.

(3.) The point for consideration is whether the guilt of the accused has been brought home by the prosecution.