V VENKATASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein has been convicted by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and was imposed a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention or Corruption Act 1988 and Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months and the sentence is to run concurrently.

(2.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the above said conviction and sentence. THE case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.2, one Mathialagan is the decoy witness in this case and he was the Managing Director of one 'Pretham Consultancy Private Limited'. A telephone connection No.6265557 was given in the name of the said company and there was some default in paying the telephone bills. So, the telephone connection was temporarily disconnected. After making the payment, when the said Mathialagan approached the Telephone Department, on 18.3.1998 one Mohamed Pichhai demanded a bribe of Rs.500/- and hence he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation and the said Mohammed Pitchai was trapped and caught red handed by the police officers. On 7.4.1998, the Commercial Officer, Office of DGM, (North West) has issued orders for giving reconnection to the said telephone number and he was asked to pay Rs.105/- towards reinstallation fees. After making payment on 15.4.1998, he went to Anna Nagar Telephone Exchange and contacted the accused Venkatasubramanian, Junior Telecom Office on 20.4.1998 at about 4.30 p.m. THEn the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- and informed him that the connection would be given on payment of the said amount. PW2 was also asked to meet the accused on 21.4.1998 between 12.30 p.m. and 1.00 p.m. and pay the bribe. PW2 went to CBI office on 21.4.1998 about 9 a.m. and reported the matter and gave a complaint which is marked as Ex.P.7. PW.6 registered the First Information Report, Ex.P.20 and also arranged for trap proceedings and the independent witnesses PW3, Jaisingh Lazarus and Sethuraman were also introduced to P.W.2. THEy were explained about Phenolpthalene test and PW2 handed over 100 currency notes of Rs.100 denomination in total Rs.1000/-. PW.2 was instructed to give the bribe amount only on demand and PW3 was instructed to accompany PW2. PW2 was instructed to give signal for receiving bribe amount and Entrustment mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.8 was prepared. THEn, the trap team left the office. When PW.2 reached the office of the accused, he was not available in the seat. PW2 and 3 were waiting outside the office. At about 1.15 p.m., the accused came in a scooter and went into the office. THE accused informed PW2 that he would come after taking his lunch and that he has to visit the residence of PW2 to check the telephone at about 1.45 p.m. THE accused started in his scooter and PW2 and 3 also went in another scooter. THE accused followed them. After reaching the residence of PW2, the accused checked the telephone, then they all left the residence of PW2. PW2 and 3 followed the accused. THE CBI police Officials also followed him. THEy started from the house of PW2. which is situated in the first cross street in East Anna Nagar and after nearing the chinthmani Round tana, they were going on the main road. In the main road in the second street, the accused stopped his scooter. After stopping the scooter, the accused asked PW2 to pay the bribe amount and stretched his right hand. PW2 handed over the currency notes and the accused receiving it in his right hand transmitted it to the left hand and then he put it in his shirt pocket. In the meantime, CBI Trap team arrived there and intercepted the accused. THE Inspector of Police introduced himself to the accused and informed him about his arrest. Both the right and left hand fingers of the accused were subjected to sodium carbonate solution test. THE colourless solution turned to pink colour. THEn the accused after taking the currency notes from his shirt pocket and handed over to PW6.THE currency notes were compared and all the formalities were observed. THE Recovery Mahazar Ex.P.10 was prepared. Subsequently, PW7, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation on 30.4.1998 and examined the witness and seized the documents. After obtaining the sanction order from PW1 the Deputy General Manager, he filed a final report on 18.8.1998 against the accused.

(3.) MR.S.Ashok Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution about paying the bribe amount to the accused itself is very artificial. It appears from the evidence that PW2 had been very anxious to make the payment. Though the accused has not made any demand in the office on the date of trap, when PW2 met him, and also the accused did not make any demand in the house of PW2 and they quietly left the house of PW2, PW2 chased the accused. If the accused wanted to receive the bribe amount, even before starting from his house, he could very well receive the amount or atleast while he was in the house of PW2 after checking the telephone, he could have received the bribe amount. But the accused has not done so. This fact establishes that the accused did not make any demand for the bribe amount and he has also not expected any payment from PW2. Even with regard to demand on the previous day, i.e. 20.4.1998, in view of the evidence of DW.1 and 2, that on getting the death intimation of his close relative, he had left the office at 3 p.m. and as such the evidence of PW2 that he met the accused at 4 p.m. and the accused demanded money is only false. Learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that the demand of bribe amount on 20.4.1998 being false and there being no demand of amount on 20.4.1998, the version of PW2 that the accused accepted the bribe amount from him is absolutely false. When the doubt arises with regard to the prosecution case and when the prosecution is not strong enough, the version of the defence which is also more probable, should be accepted. The accused also filed a written statement in which it is clearly stated that money was thrusted on him. Learned Senior counsel further pointed out that it is not the case of the prosecution that after the payment was made, pre-arranged signal was given by PW2, and immediately, the police have rushed to the scene of occurrence. In the said circumstance is the version of accused, only should be accepted.