S X JAYARAJ Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been filed by the petitioner/A.3 to get revised and set aside the order dated 19.06.2007 passed in Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2007, by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, in rejecting the prayer for discharging him from the case in C.C.No.1 of 2007 which has been instituted by the respondent for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus: The police registered the case relating to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and took up investigation for the purpose of trapping the officials concerned in the Central Excise Department.

(3.) THE gist and kernel, the pith and marrow, the nitty-gritty, the warp and woof of the case of the prosecution is that A.1, A.2 and A.3 conspired together to demand and obtain illegal gratification within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act and pursuant to which A.1 contacted the defacto complainant Sathyamurthy, an assessee under the Central Excise Act and Rules and demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- so as to give it to A.2 for favourably deciding the appeal of Sathymurthy pending before A.2. However, Sathayamurthy informed the matter to C.B.I and he made available rupee notes of Five Hundred denominations to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for the C.B.I officials to smear Phenolphthalein powder on them and the trap was arranged. THE defacto complainant went to the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise Department, Trichy, with a window cover containing the said notes and contacted A.1 who received it and put it in his pocket. THEreupon, A.1 took Sathyamurthy to the chamber of A.2 wherein in the presence of Sathyamurthy, A.1 handed over the same to A.2 who received it. THEre was some talk among them, which was also recorded in the tape recorder given by the C.B.I officials to Sathyamurthy. THEreafter, A.1 and Sathyamurthy left the room of A.2. Subsequently, A.2 called A.3 into his chamber and entrusted the said cover containing bribe amount to A.3 for keeping it with him and to return back while A.2 goes to his home. THEreupon, the petitioner/A.3 went to his seat and there, he heard some noise in that office, whereupon he suspected some problem and immediately, he handed over the said cover containing that bribe amount to A.4, Rameshkumar, a contingent labourer working in that office, with the instruction to take it to A.4's home and bring the same on the next day morning.