S RANGARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C r/w Section 27 of Prevention of Corruption Act, by the appellant/accused against the judgment of conviction, dated 29.01.2001 made in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 1995 on the file of the Special Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: THE appellant/accused, while he was functioning as Junior Engineer in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Palladam Division, Mahdappur branch on 07.03.1994 at about 10.30 a.m, had demanded a sum of Rs.3,500/- as illegal gratification from P.W.2, Velusamy for giving agricultural electricity connection to the borewell situated in SF.No.855/4 Kallakinarpudur, belonged to his father and further, he instructed P.W.2 to bring Rs.1,000/- on 17.03.1994 at 11 a.m, and the balance amount to be paid at the time of giving electricity service connection. On 17.03.1994, at about 11 a.m, when P.W.2 went to the office of the appellant/accused, he reiterated his demand for Rs.1,000/- and accordingly, received the amount from P.W.2, and thereby committed offence, under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that in a case under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution should establish the demand of illegal gratification made by the appellant/accused, the receipt of the money so paid as illegal gratification and recovery of the same from the accused in the presence of witnesses. IT is not in dispute that the appellant/accused was employed as Junior Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madhappur branch, Palladam Division on the relevant dates, specified in the complaint, Ex.P.4. As per the evidence of P.W.2, Velusamy, for getting electricity service connection to the borewell installed in the well of the agricultural land, belongs to Kumarasamy Gounder, his father, P.W.2 approached the appellant on 07.03.1994 at 10 a.m, in his office, for which, the appellant/accused demanded Rs.3,500/- as bribe. Out of which, he instructed P.W.2 to bring a sum of Rs.1,000/- on 17.03.1994 at 11 a.m. P.W.2 has stated the same in his complaint as well as in his evidence and that he gave a complaint on 16.03.1994 at 6.30 p.m, before the respondent herein. In the complaint, Ex.P.4, also he has stated about the demand of illegal gratification made by the appellant/accused on the aforesaid date. As per the evidence of P.W.2, on 17.03.1994, he went to the respondent.s office and after the trap was arranged, he accompanied the officials and other witnesses in a van and got down nearby Madhappur bus stand at about 10.20 a.m, he and the witness Arunagiri, P.W.3, proceeded to the aforesaid office of the Electricity Board at about 10.30 a.m. According to him, as instructed, he introduced P.W.3 as his relative to the appellant/accused and while asked about providing service connection, the appellant/accused asked whether he had got the money as demanded by him, immediately, he gave phenolphthalein powder dipped 10 numbers of 100 rupee notes, as instructed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The appellant/accused opened the drawer of the table on his right hand side and asked P.W.2 to put the money therein and accordingly, P.W.2 put the money, then P.W.2 got the assurance from the appellant/accused, for getting the electricity service connection and came out from the office along with P.W.3.