VARADADESIKACHARIAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by one Varadadesikachari to set aside his convictions under Section 161, Penal Code (in respect of two counts) by the Sub divisional Magistrate, Tiruvallur, confirmed by the Sessions Judge of Chingleput on appeal. The facts are briefly these :

(2.) The petitioner, Varadadesikachari, aged 42, was living in Royapuram and was working as a Clerical Supervisor, Control Office, Return Stores Depot, Alamadhi on a daily wage of Rs. 4.8.0. The workshop of the Return Stores Depot, Alamadhi, was under the control of a European Officer by name Lt. C. J. Wince, who has been demobilised and has returned to England now. The petitioner used to put up papers for orders, to Lt. Wince and was, in the eyes of illiterate coolies, like P. Ws 3 to 9, a man of great influence with that officer. Lt. Page 1 of 3 In Re: Varadadesikachariar vs. (27.07.1949 - MADHC) 6/19/2007 Wince received an anonymous petition against the petitioner which finally started the enquiry against the petitioner. The sum and substance of the charges against the petitioner is that he being a public servant, in or about August 1946, accepted Rs. 100 (besides fruits for Rs. 5) from one R. K. Parasuraman, P. W. 5, as illegal gratification, as reward for exercising his official favours to P. W. 5 and twenty-one other tentmenders of Bangalore group, viz., for recommending to Lt. Wince their retention in their jobs at R. S. D, Alamadhi, despite a retrenchment discharge notice served on them ; and that on 22nd August 1946, he accepted a gold ring. M. O. 2 worth Rs. 35-7-6, from one Avadi Krishnan, P. w. 8, as illegal gratification, as a reward for exercising his official favours to P. W. 8 and other tent-menders of the non Bangalore group, namely, for recommending to Lt. Wince their retention in their jobs at R. S. D., Alamadhi, despite a retrenchment discharge notice served on them ; and that in the same month he accepted Rs. 10 from one C. Gangadaram, P. W. 9, through P. W. 3 as illegal gratification, as a reward for exercising his official favours to P. W. 9 viz, the recommendation to Lt. Wince for his retention in his A Grade job at R. 8. D. Alamadhi, in spite of a notice retrenching him from A Grade and subsequently entertaining him in the III grade. Both the Courts below have, after an elaborate discussion of the entire evidence, found that the petitioner received the Rs. 100 and the gold ring and was guilty regarding the charges of illegal gratification on the first two counts, though they gave him the benefit of the doubt regarding the third count as there was no independent corroboration of the evidence of the bribe-giver P. W. 9 who of course was an accomplice.

(3.) Mr. K. S. Jayarama Iyer, for the petitioner, did not seriously dispute the fact of the acceptance of the Rs. 100 and the gold ring by the petitioner from P. Ws. 3 to 5, and 7 and 8 respectively. That fact was proved beyond all possibility of dispute, by the evidence of P. Ws. 3 to 8 and the recovery of the ring from the petitioner. He only raised three contentions : The first was that the petitioner did not receive them as illegal gratification, or bribe, but simply as 'mariyadas', or honours rendered to him by the person benefited by his recommendation, who gave them willingly, and even joyfully, out of gratitude for his recommending them. It is well known that modern law attaches little weight to euphemistic terms used, or to the free will of the bribe giver. Thus, many illegal cusses imposed by and given willingly to a zamindar have been set aside even though they are clothed in gorgeous terms as "Kanikka", or voluntary gift, nazars, marriage presents, etc. Many a payment has been hold to be illegal gratification, though it has been joyously given to the corrupt officer and is called a gift given in gratitude, mamool, or by other euphemistic terms. A bribe, as distinguished from an extortion, is always voluntary. The distinction between a bribe and extortion is roughly that between adultery and rape. The essence of the matter is the real nature of the payment, to be gathered from the circumstances and under the general presumption mentioned in Section 4 of Act II [2] of 1947. Section 4 says that, where in any trial of offences punishable under Section 161, Penal Code, it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained for himself any gratification other than legal remuneration or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained it as a motive or reward as is mentioned in Section 161, Penal Code. In this case, this petitioner did not prove anything Page 2 of 3 In Re: Varadadesikachariar vs. (27.07.1949 - MADHC) 6/19/2007 to the contrary, and the evidence proved conclusively that the parties intended these gifts to be only "illegal gratifications", as defined in Section 161, Penal Code. The age-long custom of giving and taking such bribes will only be a reason for reducing the sentences. When the petitioner promised to recommend them, and when they gave the money and the ring, there was an implied bargain for, and fulfilment of an illegal gratification transaction, despite the euphemistic term "mariyada" used. I, therefore, find against the first contention.