PETER RAJAMANICKAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein were tried for the offence under Sec. 120B r/w 7 and 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and found them guilty of the said offences. The trial Court has convicted the first appellant for the offence under Sec. 120B Penal Code r/w 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00, i/d to undergo 9 months RI; and for the offence under Sec. 120B Penal Code r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to undergo 3 years RI and imposed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 i/d to undergo 9 months RI. No separate sentence for the other charges. Whereas the second appellant is concerned, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him to undergo 1 year RI for the offence under Sec. 120B Penal Code r/w 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 i/d 3 months RI and to undergo 1 year RI for the offence under Sec. 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and imposed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 i/d to undergo 3 months RI and the trial Court has also directed that the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that while the first appellant namely, Peter Rajamanickam was working as a chief Commercial Clerk in Outward Parcel Office, Central Railway Station, Chennai, conspired with one M.Mohammed Yusuf the 2nd appellant to commit the offence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 2000.00 as a motive or reward to send parcels of the defacto complainant Mr. Naveen Kumar to New Delhi on 11.06.2004 and pursuance to the said conspiracy, when the said Naveenkumar/defacto complainant came to the Railway Parcel Office on 10.06.2004 for booking 35 bundles of leather goods to be delivered at New Delhi, the first respondent was working as Chief Commercial Clerk demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 as bribe. Since the employer of the defacto complainant viz., Mr. Syed Ahmed Masood was not willing to give any bribe to the accused, he lodged a complaint through his employee Mr. Naveen Kumar [defacto complainant] at the CBI on 11.06.2004.

(3.) Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the CBI has registered a regular case against the first appellant and thereafter, taken up the matter for investigation by arranging pre-trap proceedings in the presence of two independent witnesses and later on, proceeded to the Central Railway Station at about 08.20 p.m., on 11.06.2004, and reached platform No. 11 of the Central Railway Station at 08.50 p.m. The defacto complainant Mr. Naveen Kumar along with the accompanying witness Mr.Manokaran met A1[Mr.Peter Rajamanickam] at plat foram No. 11. When the first appellant Mr.Peter Rajamanickam enquired whether he has brought the money, the defacto complainant Mr. Naveen Kumar has handed over the cover containing tainted currency to the first appellant Mr.Peter Rajamanickam and and it was received by Mr.Peter Rajamanickam (A1) in his left hand and shifted the same to his right hand and handed it over to a person, who was standing nearby and identified later as Mr. Mohammed Yusuf (A2) and arrayed as the 2nd accused for abetting A1. The second appellant herein received the cover from the first appellant and kept in his left side pant pocket.