IN RE: SATHIASEELAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have been convicted under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under the latter count alone and no separate sentence was awarded in respect of former count.

(2.) ACCUSED 1 and 2 were Sanitary Inspectors of the 6th and 19th Wards of the Coimbatore Municipality, and they were deputed by the Health Officer, P.W. 4 Dr. Francis Xaxier, to take samples of milk and butter in the latter's ward. The third accused Rangaswamy was the Sanitary Maistry working under the second accused. On the morning of 7th March, 1966, at about 7 -30 a.m. the accused met P.W. 1 K. Subramaniam, a milk vendor, took him to the Delhi Hotel to the west of the North Coimbatore Railway level -crossing and there they are alleged to have taken milk from P.W. 1 Subramaniam for analysis and put them in three sample bottles. The fact that P.W. 1 Subramaniam was taken to the Delhi Hotel, to take milk samples is not in dispute. Though Exhibits P -1 to P -4 were prepared at the time and Exhibit P -4 alone remained to be signed by P.W. 1 Subramaniam, the claim of the accused is that no milk sample was taken. But the evidence of P.W. 1 Subramaniam is that milk samples were taken from him for analysis and that, at that time, the first accused demanded a sum of Rs. 200 as illegal gratification for letting him off without charging him, and, on his expressing difficulties to raise that sum, he was told that he should at least give Rs. 100. When P.W., 1 was about to sign the document Exhibit P -4, the first accused is alleged to have stated that he was going to put his last signature in Exhibit P -4 and then only stated that at least Rs. 100 should be given. P.W. 1 Subramaniam claims to have met his uncle and secured Rs. 100 for paying the bribe. Then he thought of informing the matter to the vigilance authorities and proceeded to the vigilance office, and gave the complaint Exhibit P -5. In due course, the trap was laid in this case. P.W. 7 Raghavan Nair, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti -Corruption, Coimbatore, prepared a mahazar for the currency notes M.O. 1 series, brought by P.W. 1 Subramaniam, and went with two witnesses P.W. 2 Chinnaswamy and P.W. 3 Balasubramaniam, then Assistant Engineers' in the Electricity Department. The evidence of P.W. 1 Subramaniam and the three witnesses P.Ws. 2, 3 and 7 is that P.W. 1 met the third accused near the jutka stand. When questioned by the third accused P.W. 1 told him that he had brought the money and then they both proceeded on cycles to Murugan Stores. The first accused came out of the Stores and asked P.W. 1 Subramaniam whether he had brought the money. He then pointed out the second accused standing in the opposite platform and asked him to give the money to him. But when P.W. 1 Subramaniam gave the money M.O. 1 series, into the hands of the second accused, he received the same and handed them over to the third accused. On P.W. 1 Subramaniam giving the agreed signal by scratching his head, P.W. 7 Raghavan Nair went there with P.Ws. 2 and 3 and questioned the third accused, who produced the currency notes M.O. 1 series. This in short is the prosecution case.

(3.) THE sanction in this case was given by the Municipal Health Officer, P.W. 4 Dr. Francis Xavier. It was urged before the Special Judge and also before me that P.W. 4 was not competent to accord sanction to prosecute the accused and that the Commissioner of the Coimbatore Municipality was the competent authority to grant the sanction. But towards the end of the arguments, Sri V. T. Rangaswami Ayyangar went further and urged that the State Government alone was competent to accord sanction for prosecution in this case.