M R NATARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. No. 5/1997 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, CBI Cases, Chennai, unable to resist the case successfully, received a conviction, followed by sentence and the result is this appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading to the final report ending in conviction are in brief as follows: (a) The appellant/accused was functioning as Officer in Foreign Exchange Department, Bank of India, Main Branch, during the period January to March 1981 at Madras. (b) M/s. Chunder and Sons, Madras was having official dealings as Foreign Exchange Broker with the above said bank. Thiru Venkatesh (P. W. 1) was working as Agent in M/s. Chunder and Sons, Madras, in which P. W. 7 was also working as Assistant along with P. W. 2. P. W. 8, Anantha Krishnan is the brother of P. W. 7. In M/s. Chunder and Sons, in 1981, P. W. 9 Rajendran was working as a Part-time Accountant. P. W. 5 is the son of the accused. P. W. 4 is the General Manager of Bank of India, under whom the accused was working as said above. (c) On the basis of the complaint given by one C. S. Santhanam, Zonal Manager, Bank of India against the accused appellant and another, P. W. 11 registered a case under Ex. P. 11 for the alleged offences under Section 120-B r/w 420, 420, 467, 468 and 477-A I. P. C. The investigation in this case revealed that an Godrej Almirah (Seconds) Storewell Model-II worth Rs. 1656/- was obtained by the accused, for which the payment was made by M/s. Chunder and Sons, for promoting their business. Further investigation, search of the house of the accused, recovery of the said Almirah, revealed that the accused/appellant had received illegal gratification by way of the above said material, abusing his official position, probably to help M/s. Chunder and Sons in their business and in this way, it was decided by the investigating officer, P. W. 11 that the accused had committed an offence, as far as this case is concerned, under Section 5 (2) r/w 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), for which collecting the required materials, examining the witnesses etc. , he laid the final report before the Court concerned. (d) The learned trial Judge, after framing the charge against the accused under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Act, questioned the accused, for which the accused refused to plead guilty. (e) The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge against the accused, had examined as many as 11 witnesses, seeking aid from 12 documents, supported by two material objects, which are sought to be nullified by the accused by the examination of one witness as D. W. 1, seeking strength from Ex. D. 1 (f) The learned trial Judge, weighing the evidence and analysing the case, applying the principles of law, came to the conclusion, that the accused/appellant, who was a public servant, on demand, obtained the Godrej Bureau from M/s. Chunder and Sons, in order to help them in the promotion of their business and the said act would attract 'abuse of official position' as contemplated under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act and that the attempt of the accused to prove that he had paid the cash for the purchase of Almirah, by producing Ex. D1 was an after thought, since it was established that the said document was prepared at later point of time, in order to escape from the offences committed by him. Thus taking the view, concluding that the prosecution had established the case, whereas the accused failed to explain the possession of the almirah, which was purchased in the name of M/s. Chunder and Sons, slapped the conviction against the accused/appellant and punished him to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, which are sought to be assailed in this appeal.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Vijayakumar and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. N. Chandrasekaran for the respondent.