R KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused who was convicted for offence punishable under Section 7 and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and convicted for offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988 and sentenced to under go one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, moves this appeal before this Court. THE second accused was acquitted by the Trial Court.

(2.) ON the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined and 14 documents and 5 material objects were marked. Fuse Call Register and page No.71 of the said register were marked as Exs.D1 and D2 on the side of the accused.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would strenuously submit that the demand and acceptance were amply demonstrated before the trial Court through the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. It is his submission that there is no reason for demanding Rs.4,000/- for purchasing a new meter box, which cost less than Rs.900/- As regards discrepancy with respect to the phenolphthalein test conducted immediately after the receipt of the amount, he would submit that P.W.4 the mahazar witness has categorically spoken to the fact that the second accused alone was subjected to the test and not the first accused. Referring to the statement given by the first accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he would submit that he had come out with a total denial of receipt of any money. In the written submission also, the first accused came out with a different story. Referring to the evidence of P.W.6 he would submit that the shortage of supply of meter box had ceased six months prior to the occurrence. Therefore, there would have been no occasion for the first accused to demand money for fixing a meter at the premises of the P.W.2, he contends.