R RAJENDRAN Vs. D S P VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the Second Additional Special Judge, Madras Division, in C.C. No. 42 of 1992 dated 7- 10-1993 against the accused appellant, finding him guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and whereupon, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with the fine of Rs. 1, 000/- in default of payment of which, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

(2.) The gravamen of the charge against the accused/appellant by the prosecution is extracted as follows: The accused who is the appellant was the grade I Executive Officer of Arulmighu Venkatesa Perumal Thirukkoil, being maintained and organised by a mutt popularly known as Biragi Madam, situated in Madras town, which owns the property and premises bearing Mumber 18, Veerappan Street at Sowcarpet, Madras. During the year 1991, P. W. 2 Thiru Sekar alongwith his brother and father was the occupant of a portion of the said premises as tenant and he was doing plastic business in a portion of the same. The said building consisted of six portions out of which, it has been stated that two portions were in the occupation of his deceased father till his life time and another portion was standing in the name of his brother Arunachalam for tenancy and that since his father died in the year 1983, one portion of his father was transferred to his brotherTs name and another was transferred to the name of this witness in the year 1990. Therefore, P.W. 2 was deemed to be tenant of one portion and also another portion in the name of his father and after his fathers death, the portion occupied by his father was divided into two and both were sublet to one laundry and one sweet stall and the quantum of the rent for all the three portions was Rs. 1,860/- and the said quantum of rent was being paid by P.W. 2 himself. On 25-2-1991, a notice was issued to all the tenants in the said premises demanding the payment of the rent with 100 percent enhancement and the copy served to P.W. 2 is Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 3 is another copy served in the name of his father and for which, the tenants association decided to pay the rent with the enhancement by 10 per cent alone and accordingly, each tenant has given the reply individually and Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P. 5 are the replies sent by P.W. 2 for himself and on behalf of his deceased father respectively. Subsequently, the President of the tenants association was stated, to have talked over with the temple authorities and arrived at a consensus to increase the rent by 33-1/3 per cent for those who were tenants for more than three years and for those who were for lesser period at 25 per cent. P.W. 2 has claimed further that he was sent for by the appellant on 6-9- 1991 at about 3 p.m. on that day and when he met the appellant, he was informed that the enhancement of the rent by 33-1/3 per cent was not adequate and that however he was insisted to-pay the enhanced rent with 50 per cent increase for the portion in his occupation and for which P.W. 2 has declined, that the accused enhanced the rent for the shop in the name of P.W. 2 by 25 per cent and for the shop in the name of his father by 33-1/3 per cent and for which, the accused/appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as bribe. P.W. 2 had responded not to pay the said amount of Rs. 6,000/-, which was not amenable for him. Therefore, it was the case of P.W. 2 that the appellant had called for Govindan, the Clerk P.W. 4 and directed him to quantify the arrears for two months for himself and his father and that accordingly. P.W. 4 quantified the arrears for himself and on behalf of his father at Rs. 6,680/- in all under Ex. P. 6 series. The demand thus made by the appellant/accused according to P.W. 2 is the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,680/- plus Rs. 6,000/- as bribe to be paid on or before 19-9-1991 for having fixed the enhancement of rent by 25 per cent for P.W. 2 himself and the enhancement of rent for the portion in the name of his father by 33-1/3 per cent and acknowledging the said consensus, the accused/appellant had obtained two consent letters from P.W. 2, which have been marked as Ex. P.7 and Ex. P. 8 and that P.W. 4 was present at that time. Twelve days after, on 18-9-1991 at about 4 p.m. P.W. 2 claims to have met the accused and expressed his inability to pay Rs. 6,000/- as bribe and for which, the accused/appellant had asked him to come with Rs. 4,000/- as bribe and with the arrears of rent quantified on the previous occasion to be paid on or before the next day before 4 p.m., failing which, threatened to impose rentals with 50 per cent increase.

(3.) The above threat probably made P.W. 2 to decide not to pay the bribe and consequently, on the next day, at about 1.10 p.m. he gave a written complaint Ex. P. 9 to P.W. 9, which is the original First Information Report in this case. On his lodging the complaint, P.W. 9 brought P.W. 3 by name Radhakrishnan and another Rajagopalan and as per his instructions, P.W. 2 handed over the amounts Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 6,680/- which he had brought each separately. The amount of Rs. 4,000/- consisted of seven leaves of 500 rupees denominations and five leaves of 100 rupees denominations. P.W. 9 noted down the numbers in all the currencies and asked P.W. 3 and Rajagopalan to count the amount of Rs. 4,000/- and then to dip their fingers in the sodium carbonate solution kept in two separate glass tumblers. There was no change in the colour of the solution. Phenolpthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and the witnesses were again asked to count them and they dipped their fingers in the solution in the glass tumblers. The solution turned pink in colour. The phenolpthalein test was explained to them. The bribe amount was directed to be kept in his shirt pocket and to be given to the accused, on his demand. P.W. 2 was asked to keep the amount relating to arrears of rent in his pant pocket. After adequate instructions to the witnesses, a mahazar detailing the whole episode Ex. P.10 was prepared, attested by P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and another witness. At about 4.20 p.m. on 19-91991 they had been to the place of the accused in the temple. When they reached the office of the accused at about 4.45 p.m. he was not there but however P.W. 4 was present. At that time P.W. 4 is said to have stated that the accused was not available and P.W. 2 could hand over the money to him and go away. It was at this time, the telephone rang and P.W. 4 responded and from the talk P.W. 2 learnt that it was the accused who had instructed P.W. 4 and when he was given the receiver of the telephone and informed the accused that he had come there with money, it was claimed that the accused had some other Job and therefore, he had asked P. W. 2 to come to Senkazhuneer Amman Temple. After having intimated the other witnesses, P.W. 2 alongwith P.W. 3 had been to the Senkazhuneer Amman Temple followed by the other witnesses including P.W. 9. When P.W. 2 reached the temple at about 5.45 p.m. on that day, the accused was in his room alongwith one Subramaniam Thakkar of the said temple. After having introduced P.W. 3 to the accused as his uncle, P.W. 2 claims that he paid a sum of Rs. 6,680/- and the accused after having counted and verified the same asked him as to where was the other money he had demanded and that immediately he gave the sum of Rs. 4,000/- kept in his shirt pocket separately. Having received the same by the right hand, the accused/appellant counted and verified the amount and tied with a rubber band and kept them in his rexine bag M.O. 2. Then P.W. 2 has stated that he made a demand to the accused to reduce that amount and for which the accused replied that his demand itself was very low. Then the accused had instructed P.W. 2 to inform the temple of his having paid the rent and to get the receipt and that accordingly, he gave instruction to P.W. 4 over telephone for issue of receipt thereon. After this when P.W. 2 came out and signalled as instructed. P.W. 9 followed by his staff entered into the office room of the accused and to him P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 identified the accused. As. instructed by P.W. 9. P.W. 2 went outside and waited till 8 p.m. on that day. It was at this time, P.W.2 handed over Ex. p. 6 series and then on the next day, he went to the Vigilance and Anticorruption Office, where he was examined and from the Court he got the amount of arrears of rent and paid the rental as per the receipt given by them. M.O.1 series are the seven five hundred rupee denomination currencies and 5 hundred- rupee denomination currencies.