STATE Vs. DEVARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred by the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor challenging the order dated 23.1984 made in Special Case No.1 of 1983 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Pudukkottai disallowing the prosecution from exhibiting the �entrustment mahazars� on the ground that such exhibition was banned by the provisions of Sec.162, Cr.P.C.

(2.) A few facts concerning this prosecution will be necessary for the disposal of this petition. The respondents are accused 1 and 2 in Special Case No.1 of 1983 on the file of the lower court. The first respondent at the relevant time was the Revenue Inspector, Siththannavasal Firka, Kolathur Taluk, Pudukottai District and the second respondent was then the thalayari of Annavasal Vattam, Kolathur Taluk. While holding such official position the first accused (first respondent) is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.250 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, from Thiru Kumaran examined as P.W.1, on 115.1982 at about 8 P.M. at Annavasal as a motive or reward for making recommendations on the application of Kumaran for the issue of solvency certificate by the Tahsildar, Kolathur. A1 further directed Kumaran to pay the sum demanded to A2, who was also present then and who also insisted, on such payment being made. In pursuance thereof, it is alleged, that on 27.5.1982 at or about 8.15 AM. at the Revenue Officer�s office at Annavasal, A1 accepted Rs.250 from Kumaran through A2. The prosecution is for offences punishable under Sec.161, I.P.C., Sec.165-A, I.P.C., and Sec.5(2) read with Sec.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) WHEN the respondents were questioned on the charges framed, they pleaded not guilty. On 2.3.1984 Thiru Kumaran was examined as P.W.1. During the course of his chief-examination, while deposing to the facts he stated: that at the office of the Vigilance Inspector, on 26.5.1982 at or about 4.30 P.M., he was introduced by the Vigilance Inspector, to thiru Chelliah and Thiru Somasundaram, who were stated to be working in the Public Works Department and Forest Department respectively. The complaint preferred by him against the respondents to the Vigilance Inspector, was read by those two officials. Those two officials questioned him about the truth of its contents. Later the Inspector took Rs.250/-from him in the denomination of Three 50 rupee notes and five 20 rupee notes. The usual procedure adopted for demonstrating the phenolpthalene test was done to apprise him and officials about the change of colouration of water when the currency notes treated with phenolpthalene powder were handled. After such demonstration the currency notes were handed over to him and the entrustment mahazar was prepared detailing the procedure adopted in the vigilance Office for demonstration, and also containing the numbers of the currency notes. In the mahazar he and the two officials have signed. That entrustment mahazar was sought to be marked by the prosecuting counsel through P.W.1 and such marking was objected to by the counsel appearing for the defence, on the ground that the mahazar was hit by the provisions of Sec.162, Cr.P.C. The objection was upheld by the judge. It appears that the prosecuting counsel submitted, that the portion of the mahazar containing the numbers of the currency notes alone, could be marked, which was also not acceded to by the Court below, since it was also viewed as a part of the statement, contemplated under Sec.162, Cr.P.C.