G. MALAIMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was tried for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that on 24.03.2010, the appellant demanded and received a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 from one Mr.Kaliaperumal for clearing the bills for the work relating to repairs and alteration to the Seagulls restaurant, which was commenced on 01.06.2009 and completed on 30.06.2009 and for conversion of office room into computer room in the Civil Supplies Office building, Thattanchavady which was commenced on 10.12.2009 and completed on 10.02.2010. Knowing fully well that it is an illegal demand of gratification, the criminal law was set to motion based on the complaint (Ex.P.4) given by Mr. Kaliaperumal, Building Contractor on 22.02.2011 alleging that he completed the work of renovating the Seagulls restaurant on 30.06.2009 and after completing the work, he raised the bills for payment. When the defacto complainant met Mr. Malaimani, Junior Engineer, (the appellant herein), he promised to clear the bills but he did not clear it. On 19.03.2010, the appellant contacted Mr. Kaliaperumal (P.W.2) over phone and told him that he want to discuss about his bills so to contact him over phone on 23.03.2010. Accordingly, Mr. Kaliaperumal (P.W.2) contacted Mr. Malaimani, the appellant herein, over phone on 23.03.2010. At that time, the appellant, Mr. Malaimani demanded Rs. 20,000.00 as bribe to clear the two bills worth Rs. 3 lakhs pertaining to the work he done in respect of renovating Seagull restaurant and the conversion of the office room into computer room in the Civil Supplies Office Building at Thattanchavady. Not inclined to give bribe, he given a complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation on 24.03.2010. Based on his complaint, the Central Bureau of Investigation, has prepared an entrustment mahazar on 24.03.2010, in the presence of defacto complainant, independent witnesses and the Trap Laying Officer-Mr. N. Raja.

(2.) After demonstrating the trap proceeding and the same being reduced into writing as an entrustment mahazar-Ex.P.6, the defacto complainant along with the accompanying witness and the Trap Team, were waiting at the tea stall, where the appellant alleged to have asked the defacto complainant to come and deliver the bribe money.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.02010, at about 16.35 hours, they reached the tea stall near Chinamani gundu, to the spot, where the appellant was asked the defacto complainant to come and give money and they were waiting for the appellant's arrival. At about 16.50 hours, the appellant came in a bullet motor cycle and stopped near the tea stall and spoke to the defacto complainant Mr. Kaliaperumal, for a minute, and received the tainted money from Mr. Kaliaperumal and put it into his left hand shirt pocket. The Trap Team and the independent witness saw the above transaction. Thereafter, they surrounded the appellant Mr. Malaimani.