P K CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of conviction passed by the XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai made in C.C.No.13 of 2009, dated 25.01.2012.

(2.) Brief facts of this case is that on 17.10.2008, Thiru.V.Manikandan, resident of Senneerkuppam, Chennai met P.K.Chandrasekaran the appellant herein, who was the then Income Tax Officer, Ward I(3) Tambaram, at the office of Joint Commissioner of Tambaram for refund of his tax, which he has paid in excess for the assessment year 2007-2008. Since the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- to release the refund order, Thiru.Manikandan has gone to the office of CBI and lodged a complaint about the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant.

(3.) Based on his complaint dated 20.10.2008, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai has instructed Shri.C.S.Moni, Inspector of Police to investigate the matter. As per the instruction of the Superintendent of Police, Shri.C.S.Moni has arranged two shadow witnesses viz., 1.Mr.Ramesh, Inspector, Southern Railway and 2.Mr.K.Kumar, Manager of Canara Bank, Teynampet. In the presence of the shadow witnesses and the defacto complainant, he has demonstrated the significance of phenolphthalein-sodium carbonate test. Thereafter, bribe money of Rs.1,500/- has been smeared with phenolphthalein powder and entrusted to the defacto complainant. A micro tape recorder was also given to the defacto complainant to record the conversation during the trap. The defacto complainant Thiru.Manikandan accompanied by Mr.Kumar, the shadow witness, had gone to the office of Income Tax at Tambaram. The appellant was not found in his chamber. They enquired one Sivagama Sundari, who was present in the appellant's chamber. She informed the appellant is in the chamber of Ettiappan, ITO. On seeing the complainant, the appellant has asked him to wait. After some time, he called Manikandan and demanded the bribe money. The defacto complainant has given the tainted money, which was received by the appellant and kept in his table drawer. On receipt of the pre-arranged signal, the trap team entered into the cabin of the appellant. After conducting phenolphthalein test in the hands of the appellant, the trap laying officer enquired the appellant about the money received from the defacto complainant. On his information, recovered it from his table drawer. The trap laying officer has prepared recovery mahazar, sketch and after collecting sample solutions of the phenolphthalein test had arrested the appellant.