STATE Vs. C.R.KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of the acquittal passed in Special Case No.10 of 2001 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dtd. 10/2/2010.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence i.e., on 25/10/1999, the first respondent was working as the Special Sub Inspector of Police and the second respondent was working as a Head Constable in Thathiangarpettai Police Station, Trichy District. Prior to the date of occurrence, the father and uncle of the de facto complainant [P.W.2] were taken to custody by both the respondents. On 25/10/1999, P.W.2 met the first respondent at about 04.00 p.m., in the respondent Police Station. The first respondent asked P.W.2 as to why he did not pay mamool when he permitted him to sell arrack. The father and uncle of P.W.2 were charged under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and P.W.2 was directed to convince his father and uncle to admit the offence and pay the fine in Court and P.W.2 was asked to come and meet the respondents. On 25/10/1999, when P.W.2 met the first respondent in the Police Station, the 1st respondent demanded a bribe amount of Rs.6,000.00 for not foisting a poisonous arrack case on him and for Deepavali mamool also. The second respondent persuaded the 1st respondent to reduce the amount. Subsequently, the 1st respondent reduced the bribe amount from Rs.6,000.00 to Rs.4,000.00. The 2 nd respondent separately demanded Rs.1,000.00 as bribe from P.W.2 for recommending and reducing the bribe amount. The 1st respondent directed P.W.2 to bring the bribe amount before the evening of 25/10/1999 and give it to him and told that if he is not present, to give the bribe amount to the 2 nd respondent. Since the de facto complainant was unwilling to pay any bribe to the respondents, he went to the Office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruchirappalli on 25/10/1999 and gave a written complaint against the respondents seeking for taking action against them.

(3.) Based on the complaint, a case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruchirappalli in Crime No.22 of 1999. After registration of the First Information Report, a trap was planned. On the same day, at 06.15 p.m., as instructed by the appellant, the de facto complainant along with PW.3-shadow witness went inside the police station and met the respondents. Since the respondents asked them to wait outside, both of them came out and waited outside. Again, they went inside voluntarily and at that time, there was electricity failure. Then, the respondents demanded money and P.W.2 handed over the money to the 1st respondent. At that time, the 1st respondent told P.W.2 to give the money to the 2nd respondent. The second respondent also received the money for himself and also for the 1st respondent. Therefore, after coming out of the room, P.W.2 gave pre-arranged signal. Immediately, P.W.13-Trap Laying Officer entered into the office of the respondents, introduced himself and asked the second respondent to dip his hands in Sodium Carbonate Solution, which turned pink in colour. Then, P.W.13 recovered tainted money. The serial number of currency notes were compared and found to be tallied with the entrustment mahazar. The tainted money was recovered through recovery mahazar in the presence of the independent witness and signatures were obtained from the witness and from the respondents, subsequently, entrusted to the Investigation Officer. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the respondents in Special Case No.10 of 2001, under Ss. 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli.