SUNDARAJ Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted in Special Case No.4 of 2001 on 08.01.2007, by the learned Special Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity "the PC Act") and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was working as Village Administrative Officer in Koviloor Village, Kantharvakottai Taluk, during January / February 2000; that Soundar Rajan (P.W.2) had applied to the Tahsildar for issuance of patta for his land; that Soundar Rajan (P.W.2) made an application in the Taluk Office on 07.02.2000 and remitted a sum of Rs.40/-, being the charges for the Surveyor to visit the land for the purpose of measurement; that on 07.02.2000, the appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- and subsequently, on 12.02.2000, demanded Rs.1,000/- as advance; that Soundar Rajan (P.W.2) did not want to give the amount and so, Soundar Rajan (P.W.2) lodged a complaint on 14.02.2000 (Ex.P.4), based on which, Masilamani (P.W.9), Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2000 on 14.02.2000 under Section 7 of the PC Act against the appellant and laid a trap; that he called Muthazhagu (P.W.3) from the Electricity Board and Mahadevarao [not examined] from the Highways Department to be witnesses for the trap proceedings; that Masilamani (P.W.9) introduced Soundar Rajan (P.W.2) to Muthazhagu (P.W.3) and Mahadevarao (not examined) and explained to them the Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate tests; that Rs.1,000/- was given by Soundar Rajan (P.W.2), on which, Phenolphthalein was smeared and an Entrustment Mahazar [Ex.P.5] was prepared at the Office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption; that thereafter, the trap party went to the Office of the appellant and found that he was on leave; that the trap party returned and prepared a closure Mahazar [Ex.P.6]; that on 18.02.2000, Soundar Rajan (P.W.2) informed the police that the accused has returned after leave; that Masilamani [P.W.9] once again constituted a trap party and prepared a fresh Entrustment Mahazar [Ex.P.7]; that the trap party went to the Office of the appellant and Muthazhagu [P.W.3] was directed to be with Soundar Rajan [P.W.2] for watching the proceedings; that Soundar Rajan [P.W.2] and Muthazhagu [P.W.3] went to the Office of the appellant in the first floor, where they were told that he would come shortly; that Soundar Rajan [P.W.2] and Muthazhagu [P.W.3] came down and were having tea in a nearby shop and at that time, Soundar Rajan [P.W.2] saw the appellant coming; that Soundar Rajan [P.W.2] and Muthazhagu [P.W.3] approached the appellant and all the three were walking towards the Office of the appellant; that at that time, the appellant demanded the money from Soundar Rajan [P.W.2]; that Soundar Rajan [P.W.2] handed over the money to the appellant, who kept it in his pocket; that the appellant said that he would take care of everything and went to his Office in the first floor leaving behind Soundar Rajan [P.W.2] and Muthazhagu [P.W.3] in the ground floor; that Soundar Rajan [P.W.2] gave the pre- arranged signal and the trap party zeroed in on the appellant in his Office; that the appellant was made to dip his fingers in Sodium Carbonate Solution and the same turned pink; that the appellant handed over Rs.1,000/- to the trap party, which was seized under Mahazar-Ex.P.10; and that the appellant was arrested and further investigation was taken over by Govindarajan (P.W.10), who filed the final report against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act in Special Case No.4 of 2001 before the Special Court, Pudukkottai.

(3.) On the appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act were framed against him. When questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty'.