G NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two appeals are directed against one and the same judgment dated 28.9.1989 delivered in Special Case No.2 of 1988 by the court of Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, convicting the appellant in the first appeal in C.A.No.807 of 1989 for an offence held proved under Sec.161, I.P.C. and Sec.5(1)(d) read with Sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default to undergo a further simple imprisonment for two months under Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and there was no separate punishment given under Sec.161 of the I.P.C. Aggrieved against such conviction and sentence passed by the court below the accused therein has filed the above criminal appeal in C.A.No.807 of 1989 and on the part of the prosecution aggrieved against the judgment of the court held in not imposing the minimum sentence provided under law, the state represented by the Public Prosecutor has filed the above other appeal in C.A.No.828 of 1995.

(2.) THE charge against the accused and appellant in C.A.No.807 of 1989 as framed by the court below is that he being a public servant employed as an Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madurai, accepted from one S.Periyannan, a sum of Rs.500 on 18.3.1986 at 7.25 p.m. at room No.23, Vigneswara Lodge, Thanappa Mudali Street, Madurai, as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for the tax amount quoted on the sale of cotton yarn for Rs.7,000 to do the Official Act and thereby committing an offence punishable under Sec.161 of the I.P.C. Secondly on the same date, time and place and in the course of the same transaction the appellant as a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position as a public servant and having obtained for himself, the said sum of Rs.500 (Rupees five hundred only) from the said S.Periyannan as a pecuniary advantage he had also committed an offence punishable under Sec.5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(3.) THE further evidence of P.W.1 is that on reaching his shop along with P.W.2, arriving at the conclusion that it was unreasonable on the part of the appellant to have demanded bribe, he prepared a complaint there itself and went home at 12.30 p.m. asking P.W.2 to be present at his residence by 3.30 p.m. On his arrival, then both of them went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at 4.00 p.m. and met the Deputy Superintendent of Police there who promised to register the case and at 4.30 p.m. the Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced him to two persons namely Mr.Ellappan, Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and Mr.Venugopal, Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, and handing over the complaint to them asked them to go through it and then to the-of the complaint this witness was questioned by them. THEn the phenolpthalene test was held on five hundred rupee notes that he handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the demonstration was shown to everyone present there and all those events they took place in the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption that day had been reduced into writing in a mahazar by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein the numbers of the currency notes handed over to him had also been entered.