S. SOUNDARARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first accused in Special Case No. 27 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act , Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant herein. The second accused in Spl. Case No.27 of 2011 was dead. The appellant stood charged for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act . When the appellant was questioned as to the charges, he pleaded not guilty and therefore, he was put on trial. The learned Special Judge, after full-fledged trial, found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption, 1988. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced to to undergo One year Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to undergo One month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 3-Years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo 3-months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under 3 Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the said sentences shall run concurrently. Challenging the above said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this court with this criminal appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows : 2(i). The appellant was working as Assistant Electrical Inspector, Tiruchirapalli from 28.05.1998 to 24.01.2000 and he was holding the additional charge of Electrical Inspector of Tiruchirapalli on 24.01.2000. 2(2). P.W.3/Rajendran was looking after the affairs of Raja Cinema Theatre, Perambalur in the capacity as Manager. Since the Electrical Certificate of Raja Theatre has to be renewed once in three years and the same was expired on31.01.2010, he submitted an application under Ex.P.12 along with the original certificate under Ex.P.3/authorisation letter on 28.10.1999. They received a letter stating that there would be an inspction in this regard on 26.11.1999. But the Electrical Inspector has not visisted as per the said letter and hence, they sent a reminder/Ex.P.4 on 04.12.1999. Again, they 4 received a letter fixing the inspection on 14.11.1999. On 14.12.1999, P.W.5/ Sekar/Assistant Electrical Inspector had inspected the premises and sent a report/Ex.P.5, on 21.12.1999. There were no response till 09.01.2000. 2(3). Hence, on 10.01.2000, P.W.3/Rajendran went to the office of the Electrical Inspector and met P.W.5/Sekar and that he told with P.W.3/Rajendran that he has already sent the report to his superior and that he required the P.W.

(3.) /Rajendran to meet the appellant and accordingly on the same day at about 12.00 hrs., P.W.3/Rajendran met the appellant. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1000/-with the P.W.3/Rajendran for the renewal of electrical certificate. P.W.3/Rajendran said to the appellant that they rectified all the defects and hence they need not give any bribe and requested to issue the electrical renewal certificate and for which the appellant told to P.W.3/Rajendran that the required certificate would not be issued if his demand was not met out. P.W.3/Rajendran came out of the office after informing with the appellant that he communicate the said demand with his proprietor and to do the needful. 5 2(4). After he came out, the deceased accused S.Malayalam demanded Rs.1000/-separately for the office expenses. P.W.3/Rajendran intimated the same to the appellant and for which the appellant told the P.W.3/Rajendran that a sum of Rs.1000/-has to be given to the appellant and a further sum of Rs.1,000/-to be given to the deceased second accused seprately for the office expenses. P.W.3/Rajendran told to the appellant that he would inform the same to his proprietor and at that time he was instructed by the appellant that the said amount has to be given on 11.01.2000 after noon and also after contacting the appellant over phone to ascertain his availability and also furnished the phone No.465570 and also his house telephone No.04362-53935. Since the theatre owner was not available and also the P.W.3 was not well, he contacted the appellant over his house telephone on 17.01.2000 at about 09.00 p.m., and informed the same. The receipt for phone bill for the same was marked as Ex.P.6. He was required to come by the appellant after he was normal. 2(5). On 23.01.2000 at about 09.00 p.m., again P.W.3 contacted the appellant over phone to the house 6 telephone number of the appellant. He was instructed by the appellant to come with the money on the next day afternoon. The telephone bill receipt was marked as Ex.P.7. When he informed the same to his proprietor, he was not willing to give the bribe and instructed the P.W.3/Rajendran to lodge a complaint with the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police and accordingly on 24.01.2000 at about 10.45 hrs., he lodged Ex.P. 8/Complaint with P.W.8/Suresh Kumar/Inspector of Police, who received the same and registered Ex.P.23/First Information Report and furnished a copy of the same to the P.W.3/Rajendran after obtaining Ex.P.9/Signature from him. He also enclosed the copy of Ex.P.24/ Kisan Vikas Certificate along with Ex.P.8/Complaint. Thereafter P.W.4/Krishnasamy and a list of witness viz., Purushothaman came to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption and at about 12.30 hrs., P.W. 3 produced Rs.2000/-consisting of twenty 100 rupee currency notes were marked as M.O.1 series. The same was received by P.W.8/Inspector of Police through a police constable and on instruction of the P.W.8/Inspector of Police, phenolphthalein powder were coated on it through the police constable and then the said currency notes were handed over 7 to the P.W.3/Rajendran and then the said police constable dipped his hands in the sodium carbonate liquid and it changed its colour into pink. Thereafter, P.W. 8/Sureshkumar /Superintendent of Police instructed P.W. 3/Rajendran to go and meet the appellant along with P.W.