M S RAMANATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.C. No. 5/83 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Madurai, appellant Ramanathan, who was then a Superintendent in the Office of Central Excise (D Range) at Sivakasi, was convicted under Section 161 I.P.C. as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the former offence and one year rigorous imprisonment for the latter offence, with an added fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three more months. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief needs narration. P.W. 2 Akkal Naicker is the owner of a match factory situated in Perianaickenpatti village. The match works was being run under the name and style 'Tamil Nadu Match Works'. He was running it from 1959. He had initially obtained a licence, which was current till 31-12-1985. Ex.P. 2 is the xerox copy of the said licence. At the time of receiving the licence in 1959, P.W. 2 had executed a bond for Rs. 500/- apart from taking a National Savings Certificate for Rs. 50/-. He knew the appellant. P.W. 2 became aware from traders similarly placed like him, that he may have to execute a bond for Rs. 2,000/- due to change in rules and regulations.

(3.) On 25-1-1983, P.W. 2 handed over an application to the appellant, seeking permission to use the label with inscription 'Nandi' on the matches manufactured in his factory. Appellant, on receipt of the application, appears to have acceded to the request made by P.W. 2, and Ex.P. 3, the photostat copy produced by the prosecution, substantiates granting of such permission. It was at that time, appellant had allegedly informed P.W. 2 that he will have to execute a bond for Rs. 2000/- and the bond executed earlier by him for a lesser sum may not suffice. Appellant also allegedly directed P.W. 2 to prepare the bond and bring it to him. Approximately three months thereafter, on 12-4-1983, P.W. 2 went over to the appellant over again and handed over a petition, informing him that work had to be suspended in his factory, since some repairs were being carried out. Ex.P. 4 is the letter handed over by P.W. 2 to the appellant. This document shows receipt by the appellant, in view of the initials put therein by the appellant. It is the case of P.W. 2 that even on this occasion, appellant reminded him about the execution of the bond' for a greater value.