S. KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused who was tried before the learned VI Additional Special Judge, Madras Division, in C.C. No. 21 of 1989 and convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months by its judgment dated 27.11.1990, has preferred this appeal challenging and assailing its correctness and validity.

(2.) THE Appellant/accused was employed as a Special Temporary Assistant in Mylapore -Triplicane Taluk Office, Madras, during the month of September 1988. In connection with the transfer of name in the patta register for a house bearing door number 5 situated in Ad -hikesavalu Street, Chindadripet, Madras, to one Sushen P.W. 1, an application was stated to have been pending at the hands of the accused/Appellant in his office. P.W. 1 with his friend P.W. 2 by name Prem Anand had been to the Taluk Office on 16.9.1988 and approached the accused and for which, it was stated that the accused/Appellant had demanded a sum of Rs. 300/ - by way of bribe from P.W. 1 and also asked P.W. 1 to come with money on the next Monday. Because of the demand of bribe by the accused, P. Ws. 1 and 2 decided to report the matter to the Vigilance and Anti -corruption Police. Accordingly, at about 10 a.m. on 19.9.1988 both of them had been to the vigilance and Anti Corruption Office and lodged a complaint, which was registered by the Inspector of Police, which has been marked as Ex. P.4, and Ex. P.5 is the printed F.I.R. printed by him and sent to the Court. Consequently, a trap was set up at the behest of P.W. 17, the Inspector. At about 3.15 p.m. on 19.9.1988, P. Ws. 1 and 2 had been to the place of accused in his office and on verification by the accused/Appellant as to whether they had brought the money, P.W. 1 gave Rs. 300/ - from his custody to the accused. On the receipt of the said money, accused had kept the same in his left side pant pocket. This was followed by P.W. 1 coming out and signalling to the Vigilance Police Party waiting outside and the Inspector along with the Police party and trap witnesses had been to the accused, recovered the said money and the accused/Appellant confessed to the Inspector that he had received the bribe from P.W. 1. Therefore, the accused was arrested. P.W. 1 has claimed that he was employed in the Chief International Air Port at Muscat and his address in India was Door No. 17, Telugu Street, Vi -rajpet, Karnataka and whenever he happened to come to Madras, he used to stay in the house of his relative Prem Anand P.W 2 and that on 31.7.1986 he purchased a house bearing door number 5 situated in Adhikesavalu Street, Chindadripet, Madras and that on 2.8.1988 he, along with P.W. 2 had been to the Mylapore Triplicane Taluk Office, in connection with the transfer of the patta of the house purchased by him and gave an application for the said purpose appending a copy of the sale deed and old patta and Ex.P.l is the said application give by him. He would claim further that as he was instructed to come after two days by the clerk, he, along with P.W. 2 went to the Taluk Office on 5.8.1988 and on his instruction, he remitted a sum of Rs. 5/ - in the State Bank through a challan given by him Ex. P.2 and handed over the receipt and that he gave another petition Ex. P.3. Then, he had been to Coimbatore and returned on 16.9.1988 and in the evening when he met the accused/Appellant in his office along with P.W. 2, who was the Section Clerk. It was stated that the accused had replied that the Tahsildar had not yet signed and to get his signature some money has to be spent and by so saying the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 300/ -. The accused is also stated to have told P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that if the said amount was paid, transfer order would be had within two days, if not, it would take a year. It was the case of the prosecution further that for the said demand, P.W. 1 was not inclined to, but however, he was replied that without the money nothing can be done. Therefore, both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had been to the office of the Vigilance and Anticorruption at about 10 a.m. on 19.9.1988 and lodged complaint Ex. P.4 to the Deputy Superintendent which was handed over to P.W. 17 for registration and further action. As instructed by P.W. 17, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 waited in his office and P.W. 3 Perumal and one Kumarasami, employees of the T.W.A.D. Board were brought and then M.O.I series, three hundred rupees denomination currencies brought by P.W. 1, was given to P.W. 17 and in which phenolphthalein powder was smeared the handed over to P.W. 1 followed by the preparation of the Sodium Carbonate solution in a glass of water and when the fingers of P.W. 1 was dipped, the colour of the solution turned into pink as witnessed by P.W. 2 and the two witnesses. For all the exercise done in the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Ex. P.6 mahazar was prepared. The said mahazar was attested by P.W. 1 as well as the said witnesses. As was instructed, at about 3 p.m. both the witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the accused while the witness P.W. 3 Perumal was standing two feet away from the accused. He was asked as to what happened to his transfer application, for which, the accused was stated to have replied as to whether they had brought the money and immediately P.W. 1 took M.O. 1 series, three hundred rupees denomination notes and gave it to the accused and the accused had received the same and kept it in his left side pant pocket M.O. 5 and this was witnessed by P.W. 3 and P.W. 2. Thereafter the accused had been to P.W. 5 Draftsman. This was followed by P.W. 1 coming outside and lit a cigarette as a signal to the waiting Police and consequently, P.W. 17 came to the accused, introduced himself and as pointed out by P.W. 1, he recovered the money in the presence of witnesses. To this extent, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were consistent in their testimony before the trial Court.

(3.) TMT . Banumathi examined as P.W. 5 would claim that on the date of occurrence, the accused was working as patta clerk and that on 16.9.1988 the file relating to P.W. 1 came to her with the note Ex. P. 12 for drafting a sketch on the reverse of the same and on 19.9.1988 she got the map for the purpose of drawing the sketch and at about 3.30 p.m. on that day the accused came to her along with three others and asked whether the draft was ready for which she replied that the job was not yet over and she would give in a short -while after finishing the same and upon saying so, they had left and thereafter came and seized Ex. P. 12. P.W. 4 the Revenue Inspector the Vigilance Inspector/claims that the transfer application of P.W. 1 was received on 29.8.1988 and entered in Ex. P.9, her personal register and relevant entry is Ex. P.10 and submitted report Ex. P.11, that transfer could be effected. He would add further that there was an order received to implement the Teacher's day Donation Collection in her office and that for her part a target of Rs. 2,500/ - was fixed and for which collection they would give the necessary receipt and that said collection was over on 5.9.1988.