T. GANESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in Special Case No. 3 of 1996 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Nagercoil. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 201 r/w 511 of the Indian penal Code. The trial Court, by judgment dated 10.03.2003, convicted him under all the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 201 r/w 511 of IPC. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;

(2.) Based on the above materials, the trial Court has framed the charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 25 documents were exhibited. Of the said witnesses, PW 1 the then Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, has spoken about the sanction accorded by him under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for prosecuting the accused. PW 2 has spoken about the entire occurrence and the demand of illegal gratification allegedly made on 29.05.1995 and the acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused during the trap proceedings. PW 3 is an official witness, who has spoken about the part of the trap proceedings. It needless to mention that he did not accompany PW 2 in the Police Station, where PW 2 had allegedly given the tainted currency notes to the accused. PW 4 was the then Constable attached to the Police Station, where the accused was working. He has spoken about the fact that he informed PW 2 to come to the police station, as directed by the accused. He has also spoken to about the ride conducted by the accused on 29.05.1995. PW 5 was the then Inspector of Police attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station at Thackalay. He has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW 6 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in charge of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagercoil, during the relevant period. He has spoken to the fact that there is a complaint against PW 2 and that the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police for enquiry. PW 7 is a Proprietor of the Taj Home Hotel at Thackalay. He has stated that on 30.05.1995 between 11.00 and 11.30 a.m. the accused came to his hotel and had tea, and after paying the cost of the same, he left to the Police Station. PW 8 has spoken about the registration of the case and the trap conducted by him. PW 9 - Scientific Expert has spoken about the chemical examination conducted during the trap proceedings. PW 10 has spoken about the further investigation done by him and the charge sheet laid.

(3.) When the above incriminating evidences were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. According to the accused, PW 2 was a history sheeted rowdy and he had lot of cases to his credit, including the murder case, theft case, robbery case, etc. He has further stated that PW 2 was detained under the Goondas Act. It is also his case that he had grudge against the Police and that is the reason why, he has made the false complaint against him. He has further stated that during the trap, without his knowledge, PW 2 had inserted the currency notes into his pant pocket which was hanging there. On noticing the same, according to him, he took up and threw it away. On his side, he examined DW 1, who was the then Inspector of Police, attached to Thiruvattaru Police Station. He has deposed that PW 2 was the history sheeted rowdy from the year 1995 onwards, on the said Police Station. He has also spoken about the involvement of PW 2 in Crime No. 543 of 1994 on the file of the said Police Station.