BOJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment, conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge cum District Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam in SPL.C.C.No.1 of 2001 for the charges under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.) The appellant stands convicted by the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act -cum- District Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam in Spl.C.C.No.1of 2001, for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1))(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for four months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.2 Ravichandran who is the resident of Kangadu Village was owning land of 3.5 acres which was originally owned by his mother, subsequently it was transferred to his name by way of settlement, has wanted to grow tea plants in his field and in order to get the subsidy, he approached the office of the tea board on 04.08.1999 and in the office he was given an application and he was asked to submit it with the certificate from the Village Administrative Officer that he was holding the vacant land. THEn he came to Udhagamanalam at about 3.00p.m., and went to the office of the Village Administrative Officer wherein the Village Administrative Officer/accused was present. According to P.W.1, the accused/VAO was known to P.W.2, since the elder brother of P.W.2 and the accused have married the sisters. P.W.2 after informing the accused/Village Administrative Officer, that he wanted land holding certificate with the sketch, he was asked to come to the office on 09.08.1999. When he went on that day and inquired about his application, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.500/-. THE accused also informed him that it would take another ten days to fill up the application. On 20.08.1999, at about 11.00a.m., P.W.2 went to the office of the accused. THE accused demanded for the money and P.W.2 informed that he was not having so much of money and he was prepared to give Rs.300/-. THE accused told P.W.2 that the application was not made ready and asked him to come on 24.08.1999 with the amount of Rs.500/-. On 23.08.1999 at 3.30p.m., P.W.2 went to the Vigilance Office and handed over the written complaint, Ex.P.2. P.W.7, the Deputy Superintendent of Police on receiving the complaint, registered the case and prepared the First Information Report, Ex.P.14. P.W.2 was asked to come on the next day morning. P.W.7 also informed and arranged for the mahazar witnesses. On the next day P.W.3 - Thangaraj, Bhaskar and also P.W.2 came to the office of P.W.7. P.W.7 informed about the Phenolphthalein test to the witnesses and he also noted the number of Rs.500/- currency notes M.O.1 series. P.W.3 was also informed to accompany P.W.2 and watch the proceedings. Accused also was informed to give signal of removing the muffler from his neck and again by putting around the neck. THE entrustment mahazar Ex.P.3 was prepared at about 8.25a.m., and the party went to the office of the accused and reached the place at 9.40a.m. THE vehicle was stopped near the coffee house. P.Ws.2 and 3 walked up to the office. At that time, the accused was not present. After waiting for 10 minutes, at about 10.10a.m., the accused came there. P.W.2 questioned the accused whether the application was filled up. THEn the accused enquired about P.W.3 and he was informed that P.W.3 was having a tea nursery at Coonoor. P.W.2 was asked to come alone after half an hour. After 20 minutes, P.W.2 alone entered into the office and enquired about the application form and the accused demanded the money. P.W.2 handed over the amount of Rs.500/- to the accused and the accused counted it. THE accused also informed P.W.2 that the application was not filled up and asked him to come on the next day. P.W.2 came out of the office and gave the pre arranged signal by removing the muffler from his neck and putting it around the neck. THEn P.W.7 and others rushed to the office. THE accused was identified by P.W.2 and P.W.2 was asked to remain outside. Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and the accused was asked to dip his right hand finger and the solution turned pink. Again another solution was prepared and the accused was asked to dip his left hand fingers in another tumbler and that solution also turned pink. When the accused was asked about the money, he took out from his right side pant pocket. P.W.7 after following the formalities arrested the accused at 1.00p.m., and also prepared the recovery mahazar Ex.P.6. THE sketch also was prepared which is marked as Ex.P.15. THEn the house of the accused was also searched. On 25.05.1999, P.W.8 Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He examined the witnesses, seized the necessary records after completing the investigation filed the final report after getting sanction on 13.02.2001.

(3.) MR. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused stands uncorroborated. P.W.2 was inimical towards the accused and he had utilized the opportunity. The learned Senior counsel further pointed out that the evidence of D.W.1 establishes the fact that the family of P.W.2 owned joint patta land and there were Kist arrears. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the trial Court having held that the evidence of P.W.2 is artificial and he was capable of giving false evidence before the Court and the trial judge observed that his evidence should be carefully considered instead of analysing and discussing the evidence of P.W.2 merely accepted. The learned Senior counsel submitted that in view of the fact that there was a joint patta land in the name of P.W.2's mother and there were arrears of land tax and P.W.2 was motivated, had utilized the opportunity and under the guise of tax arrears paid the amount of Rs.500/-. The learned Senior counsel emphasized his argument by stating that P.W.3 was specifically instructed to accompany P.W.2, but he had been deliberately kept away by P.W.2 at the time of making the payment and P.W.3 who is the official witness conveniently had stated that instead of watching the occurrence had moved out of that place.