J.P. Renin vs Inspector of Police

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The appellant was the sole accused in C.C. No. 11 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases at Madurai. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [for short, "the Corruption Act"]. The Trial Court, by Judgment dated 31.12.2004, convicted the appellant under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Corruption Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Corruption Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. The facts of the prosecution case would be as follows:

The appellant, during the year 2002, was working as the Deputy General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short ''BSNL'') at the office of the General Manager (Telecom), Virudhunagar and thus, he was a Public Servant.

1.1. P.W. 8, Mr. T.D. Ramesh, was a partner of a concern, known as "M/s. Best Comprint Forms", Madurai, having its business place at Madurai. The said concern was awarded a contract by the BSNL, Virudhunagar to supply computer forms to the Telecom Department, Virudhunagar. In terms of the said contract, M/s. Best Comprint Forms, Madurai supplied computer forms to the Telecom Department, Virudhunagar and on account of the same a sum of Rs. 1,11,349/- was due from the BSNL to M/s. Best Comprint Forms, Madurai.

1.2. P.W.-8 had made a claim for the same. The appellant was the Passing Officer of the said bill. Mr. T.D. Ramesh (P.W. 8) called on the appellant on 08.05.2002, in connection with the said pending bill, during which, the appellant wanted him to come and meet him at his office in the evening of 09.05.2002. Accordingly, at 03.30 p.m. on 09.05.2002, P.W. 8 went to his office, but the appellant was not present. He waited for sometime and then came the appellant. When P.W. 8 enquired about the pending bill for payment, the appellant told him that though he had placed purchase orders with P.W. 8, to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-, P.W. 8 had not paid any amount to him. He further insisted P.W. 8 to pay 10% of the amount claimed under the pending bill. P.W. 8 expressed his inability to pay 10%. Then, the appellant reduced the demand to Rs. 8,000/- for passing the bill. He asked P.W. 8, as to whether he had Rs. 8,000/- in his possession. P.W. 8, told him that he did not have the said amount. The appellant told him to come to his residence with the said amount at 9.00 a.m. on the next day. Since P.W. 8 told that he did not know the residential address of the appellant, the appellant noted down his address and phone number on the reverse side of the visitor''s slip, EX-P23, which P.W. 8 had in his hand. Then P.W. 8 returned to Madurai. The above act of the appellant, according to the prosecution, amounts to an offence under Section 7 of the Corruption Act.

1.3. On returning to Madurai, he discussed the above issue with his partners in the business and all of them decided not to give the amount as bribe and instead they decided to make a complaint to the C.B.I.

1.4. Earlier, in the newspaper, there was an announcement by the CBI that any complaint regarding corruption by a public servant of the Central Government Department etc., could be lodged with the C.B.I. in Chennai. The said announcement carried the phone number of the C.B.I. at Chennai. Therefore, P.W. 8, contacted the C.B.I. office at Chennai on 09.05.2002 over phone. The person, who took up the call, gave the number of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. to P.W. 8. P.W. 8 immediately contacted the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. through the said phone and told him that he wanted to prefer a complaint. The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. told P.W. 8 that a team of C.B.I. officials were already staying in a retiring room at Madurai Railway Junction and so P.W. 8 could go and meet them immediately.

1.5. On 09.05.2002, P.W. 8 and his partner went to the railway retiring room at Madurai Railway Junction. On enquiry, P.W. 8 came to know that C.B.I. officials were staying at Room No. 11 and so, P.W. 8 and his partner had gone to the said room. They found that the room was locked. Therefore, they waited for the arrival of the C.B.I. officials till 11.00 p.m. Having waited till 11.00 p.m. since there was no sign of the C.B.I. officials returning to the room, P.W. 8 enquired a lady attendant in the railway retiring room as to when the C.B.I. team would return. She told him that they would return late in the night and so, P.W. 8 could meet them early in the morning on the next day. So, P.W. 8 returned.

1.6. Again, P.W. 8 went to the Railway Retiring Room No. 11, on 10.05.2002, at 05.30 a.m. P.W. 10, the then Inspector of Police, C.B.I. and one Mr. Sridharan the then Sub-Inspector of Police, C.B.I. and a police constable were there. P.W. 8 narrated the events and told him that he had come to lodge a complaint. P.W. 10, wanted him to prepare a complaint in writing and present the same. Accordingly, he prepared the complaint and presented the same to P.W. 10. Along with the said complaint, he produced the visitor''s slip, which was issued to him, when he visited the office of the appellant, on 09.05.2002, which contained the residential address and phone number of the appellant written on the reverse side of the same.

1.7. On receiving the said complaint, P.W. 10 contacted the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. at Chennai over phone and informed him about the complaint. The Superintendent of Police told that it was he who directed them to go and meet him. The Superintendent of Police wanted P.W. 10 to make quick enquiry through secret sources about the antecedents of the appellant, which P.W. 10 did promptly and reported the same to the Superintendent of Police that the appellant had bad antecedents. The Superintendent of Police then directed him to forward the said complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. (P.W. 15) and then arrange for a trap for the appellant.

1.8. P.W. 10, immediately forwarded the complaint (Ex. P. 28) along with the visitor''s slip (Ex. P. 23) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Chennai through a Police Constable.

1.9. P.W. 15, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police received Ex. P. 28 and Ex. P. 23 on 10.05.2002 and registered the present case in R.C. No. 23 of 2002 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at 3.15 p.m. Ex. P. 43 is the F.I.R. Immediately, he took up the case for investigation.

1.10. In the meanwhile, after having sent Ex. P. 28 and Ex. P. 23 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W. 10, prepared a plan for a trap. He requested the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr. Sridharan to get two independent witnesses for the said purpose. Accordingly, on the request made by Mr. Sridharan, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 9 - Mr. S. Lakshmanan, who is an officer in the State Bank of India, Madurai and one Mr. Jayakumar (D.W. 1) an officer in the Southern Railways, on the directions of their official superiors, came to the railway retiring room at 6.35 a.m. and 6.20 a.m. respectively. P.W. 8 was already ready with Rs. 8,000/- which was meant to be given as bribe to the appellant. At 6.45 a.m. P.W. 10, conducted demonstration of phenolphthalein test, which was witnessed by P.W. 9, Mr. Jayakumar and P.W. 8. Then, he received the currency notes worth Rs. 8,000/- from P.W. 8 and smeared phenolphthalein powder on the said currency notes through the Sub-Inspector of Police Mr. Sridharan. Then, he put the said currency notes into the pocket of P.W. 8 and instructed him not to touch the same, except to take it to give the same to the appellant, if he demanded the same. In respect of the above, an entrustment mahazar (Ex. P. 29) was prepared.

1.11. Then P.W. 10 took P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and Mr. Jayakumar along with Mr. Sridharan in a car and a Jeep to the State Bank of India branch in Madurai Road at Virudhunagar at 8.45 a.m. and they parked the vehicles near the residential house of the appellant. Then, as directed by P.W. 10, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 went to the residence of the appellant.

1.12. First P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 went to the office premises of the appellant and the security guard in the premises told them that the Deputy General Manager (appellant) wanted P.W. 8 to meet him at his residence. Therefore, P.Ws. 8 and 9 went to the residence of the appellant which was in the first floor of the residential official quarters. They found the entrance door closed. The accused himself opened the door and invited P.W. 8 into his house. P.W. 9 followed him. The appellant asked as to who P.W. 9 was, for which, P.W. 8 introduced him as his office manager.

1.13. The accused offered seats for them and as instructed, his wife (D.W. 2) offered cool drinks to them. Then the appellant told P.W. 8 that his firm was in the fray in the next year tender also and as per the tender documents, the said firm was L3 and he further told that he would ensure that the contract was awarded to P.W. 8, overlooking L1 and L2 companies. For that, he demanded that P.W. 8 should pay 10% of the tender amount, that too, in advance.

1.14. P.W. 8 told him that it was not possible for him to pay such a huge amount as gratification. At the end of the above conversation the appellant enquired as to whether P.W. 8 had brought Rs. 8,000/- for passing the bill of Rs. 1,11,349/-. P.W. 8 answered in the affirmative and took out the phenolphthalein smeared currency notes from his shirt pocket and gave the same to the appellant. The appellant received the said currency notes in his right hand. P.W. 8 requested him to count and to verify that it was Rs. 8,000/-. The appellant told that it was not necessary. Then he changed the currency notes into his left hand and went inside his house. This was fully witnessed by P.W. 9.

1.15. As per the pre-arranged plan, P.W. 9 went out of the house of the appellant and gave signal to P.W. 10. Immediately, P.W. 10 rushed to the house of the appellant along with Mr. Srihdaran and Mr. Jayakumar. The appellant was identified by P.Ws. 8 and 9 as the Deputy General Manager. P.W. 8 narrated the happenings shortly before. P.W. 10, instructed the Sub-Inspector of Police Mr. Sridharan to prepare sodium carbonate solution in a glass tumbler and asked the appellant to dip his right hand fingers. The sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour, which shows that there was phenolphthalein power on the fingers of the appellant. P.W. 10 collected the said sample in a bottle, sealed the same safely and obtained the signature of the appellant and the witnesses on the label. Then, P.W. 10 instructed the Sub-Inspector of Police to prepare yet another sodium carbonate solution in a glass tumbler into which the appellant dipped his left hand fingers. The appellant did so. This time also the solution turned into pink colour indicating that there was phenolphthalein power on the left hand fingers of the appellant.

1.16. It is the further case of the prosecution that when P.W. 10 asked the appellant as to whether he had received any money from P.W. 8, the appellant replied in the negative. Then he was asked to explain the presence of phenolphthalein powder on his fingers. He confessed and then took P.W. 10 and the witnesses to the bedroom of the house and took out the above stated currency notes from underneath the mattress of the cot. P.W. 10 recovered the same under Ex. P. 30, a mahazer. The trap proceedings concluded at 12.45 p.m.

1.17. When the trap proceedings was in progress, two other Inspectors of Police, by name, Mr. Srinivas and Mr. Rajarao came to the house of the appellant on the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. With their assistance, a complete search in the house of the appellant was made between 01.20 p.m. to 07.30 p.m. During the said search a sum of Rs. 2,97,450/- was recovered from the house of the appellant and few more articles were also recovered. The Inspector Mr. Rajarao conducted search of the office of the appellant and recovered a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from his chambers. He also recovered the visitor''s register and few more documents from the chambers of the appellant at his office. The search at the office of the appellant was completed at 11.15 p.m. on 10.05.2002.

1.18. At about 01.00 p.m. on 11.05.2002, P.W. 10 arrested the appellant in connection with the alleged offences committed by the appellant and took him to Soolakarai Police Station and lodged him in the police lock-up. On the next day, he was brought to Madurai and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurai for judicial remand. The recovered articles were taken to Chennai and handed over to P.W. 15 the then Deputy Superintendent of Police who had already registered the case.

1.19. P.W. 15, submitted all the above documents and the material objects to the Court on 14.05.2002. He made a request to the Court to forward two bottles containing sodium carbonate solution which was collected during the trap proceedings for the purpose of chemical analysis. P.W. 14 conducted chemical analysis and found that there was phenolphthalein in the said solution in both the bottles. Her report is Ex. P. 42.

1.20. Continuing the investigation, P.W. 15 made a request to the Court on 21.05.2002 for police custody of the appellant. The learned Magistrate granted police custody for one day, by order dated 22.05.2002. P.W. 15 took the appellant into custody on 23.05.2002, during which he interrogated him. P.W. 15 in the presence of one Mr. Thirunavukarasu an official from the Corporation Bank at Madurai obtained the specimen handwritings of the appellant for the purpose of further investigation. It is also on record that one Mr. Pandiaraja, Advocate representing the appellant was present in the vicinity through out the period of police custody. The accused was again produced before the learned Magistrate on 23.05.2002 and he was remanded to judicial custody.

1.21. The specimen signature obtained from the appellant (Ex. P. 48), on the request made by P.W. 15 was sent by the Court for comparison with the handwriting found in the backside of the visitor''s slip (Ex. P. 23) with that of the noting made by the appellant in the official records. He collected the records relating to the award of contract to P.W. 8, supplies made by him, the bills raised by P.W. 8 and the office notings made by the appellant.

1.22. Then P.W. 15 examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. He continued the investigation and handed over the same when he was transferred in the month of June 2003. One Mr. P.K. Mankar, D.S.P. the successor of P.W. 15 continued the investigation. The handwriting experts gave opinion that the questioned handwriting were all made only by the appellant.

1.23. On completion of the investigation, all the relevant records were submitted to the Hon''ble Minister of State for Telecommunication, Government of India, New Delhi for sanction under Section 197 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the appellant. P.W. 1 was then working as the Assistant Director General, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi. According to him, the entire case was examined by the Vigilance Section of the Department and the same was put up before the Hon''ble Minster of State for Telecommunication through the normal official channel for consideration and necessary action. The Hon''ble Minister granted sanction and thus draft sanction order was prepared which was approved. Finally, (Ex. P. 2), the sanction order was issued by the Hon''ble Minister. Ultimately, the final report was filed against the appellant before the trial Court.

Based on all the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 , Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Corruption Act. The accused denied the same.

In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 53 documents were exhibited besides 5 material objects.

Out of the said witnesses, P.W. 1 the then Assistant Director General in the Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi, has spoken about the sanction for prosecution granted by the Hon''ble Minister for State. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are the officials in the office of the General Manager, BSNL, Virudhunagar during the relevant time. They have spoken about the award of contract for supply of goods by P.W. 8''s concern, the actual supply made, the bills raised by him, the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,11,349/- was pending and that the appellant was the competent authority to pass the said bills and that the said bill was actually pending on the table of the appellant for his orders.

P.W. 5 was then the Territory Manager in yet another company known as M/s. Sigma Business Company which was also supplying photocopier to BSNL, Virudhunagar. According to him on 09.05.2002, he visited the office of the General Manager, Virudhunagar to meet the appellant. For the said meeting, he filled up the visitor''s slip (Ex. P. 23) and gave it to the peon after that he met the official and left the office. According to him P.W. 8 Mr. Ramesh also accompanied him. For him P.W. 5 filled up another Visitor''s slip in his handwriting and gave the same to P.W. 8. According to him, later he came to know that the appellant was arrested. He would further state that during investigation, his specimen signature (Ex. P. 24) was obtained in four sheets by the investigating officer.

P.W. 6 was working as watchman in the office of the General Manager, BSNL, Virudhunagar. On 09.05.2002, he was on duty between 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. According to him, the register known as Visitor''s Register was maintained in the office in which entries were made in respect of the visit of outsiders to the office. Ex. P. 25 is the entry relating to the visit made by P.W. 8 Mr. Ramesh on 09.05.2002.

P.W. 7 Mr. S. Ravichandijan, was working as a Private Security Guard working at the office of the General Manager (BSNL), Virudhunagar. He was on duty at the office of the General Manager on 10.05.2002. According to him, at about 9.00 a.m. on 10.05.2002, P.W. 8 and another person came to the residential quarters and enquired about the appellant. He has further stated, when he asked P.W. 8 as to what for he had come to meet the Deputy General Manager, he told him that it was relating to his personal affairs. Then, he contacted the appellant over phone and told about the particulars of the visitors. The appellant instructed P.W. 7 to allow them to his residence.

P.W. 8 has vividly spoken about the demand, complaint made by him, demand and payment of Rs. 8,000/- as illegal gratification, during trap proceedings, recovery of the amount and all other details of the entire episode.

P.W. 9, who was working as the Deputy Manager in the State Bank of India, Madurai, has vividly spoken about the entire trap proceedings, including receipt of Rs. 8,000/-, as illegal gratification, by the appellant from P.W. 8, recovery of the same from underneath the mattress in the bedroom and the phenolphthalein test and all other details. P.W. 10, the Inspector of Police, has spoken about the receipt of the complaint, trap proceedings, search conducted at the house of the appellant as well as at the office and all other details. P.W. 11 was then the Sub-Divisional Engineer (vigilance) in the office of the General Manager, BSNL, Virudhunagar who has stated that he handed over the file No. EGR/Vehicle Contract/Computer case which is marked as Ex. P. 38.

P.W. 12 the then General Manager, BSNL, Virudhunagar, has stated that prior to the above episode, he had received a complaint against the appellant from a travel agency in connection with demand for illegal gratification made to the said agency. He would further state that he forwarded the said complaint to the Circle Office for further investigation. The file notings made by him have been proved through him, vide (Ex. P. 26 and Ex. P. 27).

P.W. 13, Mr. Ravishankar, is the proprietor of M/s. Srinivasa Arts dealing in computer stationery papers. Like P.W. 8, the said concern was also supplying stationeries to the BSNL at Virudhunagar, Karaikudi and other places. For the said supply made, the company invoice is Ex. P. 40, for Rs. 1,11,348.75/-. He would further state that when he enquired about the payment of the bill amount, the appellant demanded 5% commission out of the bill amount. According to him, he did not pay the same and therefore the bill was not passed. Since the bill was not passed, having no other option, he paid Rs. 3,000/-. He would further state that when P.W. 8 contacted him and enquired, he narrated the above happenings and accordingly he told P.W. 8 that he could also meet the appellant if the bills were still pending.

P.W. 14 is the Scientific Assistant Grade I in Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai who has given her report after conducting chemical analysis of the two bottles containing sodium carbonate solution collected during the trap proceedings. According to her, the solution contained phenolphthalein. P.W. 15, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. has spoken about the investigation done and final report submitted.

So far as the documents are concerned, as many as 53 documents were marked, about which, I would make reference at the appropriate places of this Judgment. The phenolphthalein smeared currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination numbering 16 have been marked as M.O. 1 series. The Sodium Carbonate solutions have been marked as M.Os. 2 and 3. M.O. 4 series are currency notes totaling Rs. 2,97,450/- recovered from the residence and office of the appellant. M.O. 5 series is 17 covers which contains portion of M.O. 4 currency notes.

When the above incriminating materials were put to the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the same as false. According to him, he did not cause any delay in passing the bill for payment to P.W. 8. It is his further case that on an earlier occasion since P.W. 8 had supplied goods not to the standards prescribed and the quantity was also short of the quantity required, he took action against P.W. 8. Therefore, P.W. 8 and similar other companies have developed grudges against him.

The appellant would further state that he was very disciplined and he was enforcing discipline in the office, which was not to the liking of some staff members of his office. Thus, out of the above grudge, in connivance with the staff members of his office, C.B.I. trapped him in a false case. It is his further case that he did not demand any amount as illegal gratification either from P.W. 8 or from P.W. 13. He would further state that on the reverse side of the visitor''s slip he noted down his residential address and the phone number as requested by P.W. 8 for the purpose of sending customary greetings to him.

The appellant would further state that on 10.05.2002, P.W. 8 came to his house with P.W. 9 who, according to P.W. 8, was his Accountant. Therefore, he allowed P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 to enter into his house and treated them as guests and he instructed his wife to serve cool drinks to them. After serving the cool drinks his wife returned to the kitchen. All of a sudden P.W. 8, according to him, took out some currency notes from his pocket and attempted to thrust them in his palms. But, the appellant pushed the currency notes by his hands and shouted at him and directed him to get out of his house or else he would call the police. On hearing his shouting, his wife called him from the kitchen and immediately he went into the kitchen and told his wife about the above episode. His wife pacified him and requested him to cool down and then to send those two people out of the house in a polite manner. When he returned to the drawing hall, he found P.W. 10 and other persons, he claimed.

It is the further case of the appellant that when he was asked at the earliest point of time by P.W. 10 as to whether he received any amount, he told that he did not receive any amount. Thereafter, P.W. 8 took the police and other witnesses to the bedroom and took out the currency notes from underneath the mattress. From this, he inferred that P.W. 8, after he had gone to the kitchen, has entered into the near by bedroom and kept the currency notes underneath the mattress. He would further state that he pushed the currency notes when P.W. 8 attempted to thrust the same into his hands and in that process he got stained with phenolphthalein powder and that is how the phenolphthalein test proved positive. Thus, according to him, due to previous motive P.W. 8 and other contractors who had grudge against him for his strict action had dragged him in this false case. Thus, according to him, he is innocent.

In order to probabilise the defence, on his side the appellant examined three witnesses as D.Ws. 1 to 3. D.W. 1 is Mr. Jayakumar who is one of the witness for the trap proceedings. He has stated that he was asked to go over to Madurai and meet the C.B.I. officers. According to the said direction of his official superiors, around 7.00 a.m. on 10.05.2002, he met P.W. 10 and other officials. He would further sate that he was taken to Virudhunagar by the C.B.I. officials. At that juncture, he was treated as hostile by the defence and he was cross examined with the permission of the Court.

D.W. 2 is the wife of the appellant. She has stated that on 10.05.2002, at 9.00 a.m. when she was busy preparing breakfast in the kitchen, her husband was in the drawing hall attending to some visitors. He came to the kitchen and instructed her to serve cool drinks to the visitors and accordingly she served cool drinks and returned to the kitchen and again continued cooking. At that time, she heard the shouting by her husband in anger. She called him to the kitchen and so, he came to the kitchen and told her that visitors had attempted to put currency notes into his palm, which he pushed away. She has further stated that she requested him to cool down and send the visitors out in a polite manner. Accordingly, the appellant went to the drawing hall. Then she heard a strange voice and therefore she went to the drawing hall and she found her husband sitting in a chair. She was told that her husband was under arrest. Shocked over the same, she became funk. Therefore, she could not observe the further happenings in the drawing hall, she has stated.

D.W. 3 is none other than the appellant himself. He has examined himself as a defence witness, after getting permission from the Court. He has vividly spoken about the contractors, action taken by him against the short supply of materials and the fact that while awarding contract he persuaded P.W. 8 and P.W. 13 to share the supply among themselves and accordingly the contract was awarded for supply of 1/2 of the quantum by P.W. 8 and rest by P.W. 13. He has further stated that P.W. 8 was not happy over the said action of the appellant. He has further stated that since he was responsible for taking action against P.W. 8 regarding short supply of goods, P.W. 8 has developed grudges and therefore, he had involved him in this false case. He has further stated that he did not demand any amount as illegal gratification. He would also state that he did not receive any illegal gratification during the trap proceeding. When P.W. 8 tried to place the currency notes on his palm, he pushed away the same and when he went into the kitchen, the amount had been kept underneath the mattress in the bedroom by P.W. 8. He has further stated that he is innocent.

Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him accordingly and that is how the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

I have heard Mr. S.K. Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Jayakumar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I. and also perused the records carefully.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that exhibit Ex. P28 (complaint) which is the foundation for the entire edifice of the case is a doubtful document, in as much as, according to the learned counsel, on receipt of Ex. P. 28, case was registered at Chennai on 10.05.2002 at 03.15 hours itself, whereas, according to P.W. 10, the complaint was made only at 05.30 a.m. on 10.05.2002. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that it is alleged that P.W. 10 received the complaint (Ex. P. 28) at 05.30. a.m. and the same was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Chennai through a police constable. The said police constable has not been examined at all by the prosecution. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it has not been clearly established by the prosecution that the complaint was received by P.W. 10 at Madurai, at 05.30 a.m. on 10.05.2002 and the same was in turn received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W. 15) at Chennai, in the evening at 03.15 p.m., as it has been claimed by P.W. 15, during his evidence. The learned counsel would further submit that though P.W. 15 has made an attempt to explain that the case was actually registered only at 3.15 p.m. on 10.05.2002 at Chennai, due to typographic error it has been wrongly mentioned as 3.15 hours on 10.05.2002, the same cannot be believed. The learned counsel would further submit that the person who delivered the complaint and the person who received the complaint at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police have not been examined. Referring to these facts, the learned counsel would submit that the complaint, EX-P28, would not have come into being at 5.30 a.m. on 10.05.2002 at all and the same would have come into being much prior to 10.05.2002 and that is the reason why it was registered as a case at 3.15 a.m. on 10.05.2002. From these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the entire case of the prosecution should be rejected as the very edifice of the case has been proved to be doubtful.

The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that P.W. 9 and D.W. 1 would not have been procured at 6.10 a.m. on 10.05.2002 as it is claimed by P.W. 10. The learned counsel would point out that as per the attendance register maintained at the office of D.W. 1, he did not attended his office at Madurai on 08.05.2002, 09.05.2002 and 10.05.2002. On these three days, according to the attendance register, he was in Virudhunagar. According to the learned counsel, since D.W. 1 had no official work at all, at Virudhunagar, on these three days, it can be inferred that D.W. 1 was in the company of C.B.I. officials from 08.05.2002 onwards at Virudhunagar and that is the reason why the F.I.R. came to be registered at 03.15 a.m. on 10.05.2002.

Nextly, the learned counsel would submit that P.W. 9 cannot be treated as an independent witness as he was also in the company of D.W. 1 and the C.B.I. officials from 08.05.2002 onwards. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W. 9 was also a close relative of Mr. Sridharan, the Sub-Inspector of Police who was a member of the trap party and therefore he cannot be termed as an independent witness. He would further submit that there is no record to prove that he was at his office in Madurai in the State Bank of India on 08.05.2002 and 09.05.2002. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W. 9 cannot be believed.

The learned counsel would, nextly, contend that so far as P.W. 8 is concerned, he had grudges against the appellant, as the appellant had recommended for blacklisting of P.W. 8 in the matter of contract. There are admissions, according to the learned counsel, made by P.W. 8 during cross examination, which would substantiate the said contention. Therefore, according to the learned counsel P.W. 8 cannot be believed for any purpose.

The learned counsel would, nextly, contend that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification allegedly made by the appellant on 09.05.2002 as well as on 10.05.2002. The learned counsel would further submit that there is no clear proof beyond reasonable doubt that the tainted currency notes were received by the accused at 09.00 a.m. at his residence during the trap proceedings. According to him, the currency notes were thrusted into the palm of the appellant by P.W. 8 due to the above said motive, however the appellant pushed the currency notes away and that is how his fingers came to be stained with phenolphthalein power which was already stained on the currency notes. The learned counsel would further submit that when the appellant had gone to the kitchen on being called by his wife, P.W. 8 kept the currency notes underneath the mattress and later on it was taken from the said place only by P.W. 8.

The learned counsel would, nextly, contend that at the earliest opportunity, during the trap proceedings, when he was enquired, the appellant told P.W. 10 that he did not make any demand for any illegal gratification and he did not receive any amount also. This statement, according to the learned counsel, should carry much weightage of.

The learned counsel would, lastly, contend that the Trial Court has failed to consider the evidences of D.Ws. 1 and 2 in their proper perspective. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, there are lot of doubts in the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

But, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. S. Jayakumar would vehemently oppose this Criminal Appeal. According to him, there is no reason to doubt Ex. P. 28 at all. He would submit that of course there is some discrepancy in respect of the time of the registration of the F.I.R. as found in Ex. P. 43. He would further submit that this discrepancy has been duly explained away by P.W. 15, wherein, he has stated that due to typographic error, instead of mentioning the time of registration as 03.15 p.m., it was typed out as "03.15 hours". This explanation has been accepted by the trial Court and according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, there is no reason to reject this explanation. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that non-examination of the police constable who carried Ex. P. 28 from Madurai to Chennai to the office of P.W. 15 would not cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. Similarly, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the contention that person who received Ex. P. 28 at Chennai at the office of P.W. 15 has not been examined, is not worth considering because it is the positive case of the prosecution that Ex. P. 28 was received from the police constable at Chennai only by P.W. 15. Therefore, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, absolutely there can be no doubt regarding the genuineness of Ex. P. 28.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that P.W. 9 is not a doubtful witness and his veracity cannot be doubted at all. P.W. 9 is an independent witness from the State Bank of India. He would further submit that he was not in any way related to Mr. Sridharan, the Sub-Inspector of Police and there is no proof for such relationship. He would further submit that P.W. 9 had not even met or seen P.W. 8 before the occurrence. Though according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, P.W. 9 was subjected to lengthy cross examination, nothing could be elicited from him so as to shake his credibility. Thus, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the evidence of P.W. 9 is fully believable.

Turning to the evidence of P.W. 8, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that absolutely there is no evidence even to infer that P.W. 8 had any motive against the appellant. From the fact that the appellant made certain notings, calling for certain unnecessary particulars would go to show that the delay was caused by the appellant only with a view to make demand for illegal gratification. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that the visit of P.W. 8 on 09.05.2002 has been clearly spoken to by him as well as by the watchman Mr. Singamma Reddy (P.W. 6). He would further submit that with regard to the demand made on 09.05.2002, the evidence of P.W. 8 is reliable and the same draws corroboration from the writings on the reverse side of Ex. P. 23, wherein, the appellant had written his residential address and phone number. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, therefore, would submit that the demand made for illegal gratification of Rs. 8,000/-, on 09.05.2002, has been clearly established.

So far as the trap proceedings is concerned, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no motive for P.W. 8 to make such a false complaint against the appellant. He would submit that it is highly unbelievable that P.W. 8 attempted to thrust the currency notes into the palm of the appellant. In view of the earlier demand made on 09.05.2002, there can be no reason to even believe that P.W. 8 would have thrusted the amount into the palms of the appellant. He would further submit that had it been true that the money was thrusted by P.W. 8 into the palms of the appellant and the appellant pushed it away, the currency notes would have fallen in the drawing hall of the house of the appellant, but it was recovered from the bedroom that too, from underneath the mattress of the cot.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that it is highly unbelievable that the appellant had gone to the kitchen at the crucial moment and P.W. 8 had gone into the bedroom and kept the money underneath the mattress of the cot. This defence taken by the appellant, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor is highly improbable and therefore the same cannot be accepted at all.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that the presence of phenolphthalein power on the fingers of both hands of the appellant, which has been proved scientifically would also go to show that the appellant had handled the money and kept it in the bedroom underneath the mattress. The fact that the appellant went into the bedroom and came out has been clearly spoken to by P.Ws. 8 and 9.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that the Trial Court has considered all these facts scrupulously and came to the right conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor the conviction and sentence are liable to be sustained.

I have considered the above submissions.

From the evidence of P.W. 8 and P.Ws. 2 to 4, it has been clearly established that P.W. 8 had supplied stationery articles to BSNL, Virudhunagar and on account of the same a sum of Rs. 1,11,249/- was due from BSNL to P.W. 8. This fact is not disputed by the accused. Further, it has been established from these evidences that the appellant was the passing officer to pass the bill for payment of the said due to P.W. 8. These facts have not been disputed at all by the appellant. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that a sum of Rs. 1,11,349/- was due from BSNL and the bill for the same was pending on the table of the appellant. It has also been further established that the appellant was the competent officer to pass the said bill.

From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, it has also been clearly proved that the bill was ready and the same was forwarded to the appellant as early as on 29.04.2002 itself. It is on record that the appellant made an office note on 29.04.2002 to Mr. Lakshmanan, the then Assistant General Manager, to discuss. The records further reveal that on 03.05.2002, the Assistant General Manager signed the file and then it went to SDE(G) office and from where it was received again by the office of the General Manager. P.W. 2, the Section Supervisor would further state that the file was again put up before the appellant, who again made a noting "For getting reports from Units". This noting was made by the appellant on 18.04.2002. The file was again received back as stated above on 03.05.2002. On 06.05.2002, the appellant again made a noting to get all the particulars from the units. Further, it is in evidence that the file was finally put up for orders at the hands of the appellant. From this evidence, it has been clearly established by the prosecution that the file was ready on the table of the appellant for his orders for payment. Though it is alleged by the appellant that he did not cause any delay and the delay was on account of the fact that certain particulars were called for from the unit office, the fact remains that ultimately, after the fulfillment of the requirements, the file was placed before the appellant by the Assistant General Manager for his orders. This fact has also been clearly established by the prosecution by the evidences of P.Ws. 2 to 4.

Here comes the alleged demand for illegal gratification made by the appellant on 09.05.2002. According to P.W. 8, P.W. 13 Mr. Ravisankar who was the proprietor of M/s. Srinivasa Arts, was a supplier of stationeries to BSNL at Virudhunagar like P.W. 8. He has also supplied stationeries to the tune of Rs. 1,11,348.75/- This fact has not been disputed by the appellant. This has been clearly established by records available and from the oral evidence of P.W. 13. P.W. 13 has stated that when he met the appellant and requested him to pass the bill, he demanded 5% as commission, out of the bill amount and he would further state that thereafter, he paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification to the accused for clearing his bill. Much reliance has been placed on this evidence of P.W. 13 by the prosecution. But, unfortunately, there is no charge in respect of the said demand for illegal gratification of 5% commission made by the appellant from P.W. 13. Similarly, there is no charge that the appellant received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from P.W. 13 as illegal gratification. Therefore, in my considered view, the evidence of P.W. 13 that the appellant made demand for illegal gratification to the tune of 5% commission out the bill amount and received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification from P.W. 13 is not admissible in evidence as this evidence is only an evidence relating to the character of the appellant. Had there been a charge in respect of this allegation, this evidence of P.W. 13 would have been relevant and the same would have been admissible. But, since there is no charge in respect of this allegation and as this allegation relate only to the character of the appellant, it is not relevant and therefore, the same should be eschewed from consideration. In this regard, I may refer to Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows:

"Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply:-In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant."

The Explanation (1) of the said provision states that this section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue. In the case on hand, bad character of the appellant is not a fact in issue and therefore the above evidence of P.W. 13 that the appellant demanded illegal gratification from him and received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification for passing the bill in his favour is not at all admissible and therefore, I am forced to eschew the same from consideration.

P.W. 13 has further stated that he only informed P.W. 8 to meet the appellant for passing the bill towards the dues to P.W. 8. This fact has been spoken to by P.W. 8 also. P.W. 8 claims that he contacted the appellant on 08.05.2002 and the appellant wanted him to meet on 09.05.2002, at 3.30 p.m., P.W. 8 states that accordingly he visited the office of the appellant and met him. This fact has been disputed by the appellant. On this, the evidence of P.W. 8 has been clearly corroborated by Ex. P. 25, the visitor''s book, maintained at the office of the appellant. The entry made on 09.05.2002, at 3.20 p.m. shows that P.W. 8 had visited the said office to meet the Deputy General Manager which means the appellant. The said entry has been marked as Ex. P. 26. P.W. 6 Mr. Singamma Reddy, the then watchman at the office of the General Manager, BSNL, Virudhunagar, has stated that he only made the entry in Ex. P. 26 in the Register in Ex. P. 25, on 09.05.2002, at 03.20 p.m. This register was maintained in the routine office business and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the said document. As a matter of fact, the appellant, who was examined as D.W. 3, has admitted that P.W. 8 came to his office chamber. Thus, it is almost an undisputed fact that on 09.05.2002 at 3.20 p.m., P.W. 8 had met the appellant at his office. It is the evidence of P.W. 8 that at that time, the appellant demanded Rs. 8,000/- as illegal gratification for passing the bill. But, according to the appellant, when P.W. 8 asked him as to whether he had to make any payment to him in connection with the pending bill, he told him that he need not pay any amount to anybody. It is further in the evidence of the appellant that he told P.W. 8 that the file was not with him and as and when the file came to him, he would pass the bill, provided the same was found in order. He would further state that he told him categorically that no one else needed to make any payment either to him or to anybody in the office. Now, on this aspect, the question is whether to believe the evidence of P.W. 8 or that of the appellant.

Here, EXP. 23 and EXP. 27 play a vital role. Ex. P. 23 is the visitor''s slip. It was actually written by P.W. 5. According to him, on 09.05.2002, he went to the office of the appellant and at that time, he filled up Ex. P. 23 and gave the same to the peon. According to him, when he gave it, there was no writing on the reverse side of Ex. P. 23. On this slip, the appellant had written his residential address and phone number. The said writing has been marked as Ex. P. 27. There is no dispute that Ex. P. 27 was in the handwriting of the appellant. The appellant in his evidence has categorically admitted that he only wrote in Ex. P. 27 and gave the same to P.W. 8. According to P.W. 8, when the accused wanted him to come to his house, on 10.05.2002, at 09.00 a.m. with Rs. 8,000/- as illegal gratification and when P.W. 8 told him that he did not know his residential address, the appellant himself wrote down Ex. P. 27 and gave the same to him. But, the appellant had given an explanation that because P.W. 8 wanted his address for the purpose of sending him customary greetings, he wrote his address and phone number. This explanation offered by the appellant, in his evidence, is difficult to be believed. He has stated in his evidence that P.W. 8 was not in good terms with him and he had grudges against him. If that be so, it is difficult to believe that he would have noted down his residential address and phone number and gave the same to P.W. 8 for the purpose of sending customary greetings. Therefore, this evidence of D.W. 3 is rejected. I prefer to accept the evidence of P.W. 8 and I hold that the prosecution has proved that the appellant demanded Rs. 8,000/- as illegal gratification on 09.05.2002 and wanted P.W. 8 to pay the same on 10.05.2002 at his residence. The evidence of P.W. 8 is also duly corroborated by Ex. P. 27.

Thereafter, according to P.W. 8, he discussed with his other partners in the business and then he decided not to give bribe amount and instead, to give a complaint to the C.B.I. He has further stated that from the newspaper reports he came to know about the phone number of the C.B.I. at Chennai. He contacted over the same to the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police instructed him to go and meet the C.B.I. officials, who were camping at Madurai and staying in the Railway retiring room. The fact that P.W. 10 and C.B.I. officials were staying in the said room has also been duly proved by the oral evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 10. According to P.W. 8, he went to the said room on 09.05.2002, but he found the room locked. The C.B.I. officials were not there, but he was informed by a lady attendant that they would come late at night and so, he could meet them early in the morning, on 10.05.2002. According to P.W. 8, on 10.05.2002, at 05.30 a.m., he went to the said room and found P.W. 10 and he made a complaint at 05.30 a.m. itself. Though an attempt has been made by the defence to create doubt that the said complaint would not have been made at 05.30 AM, on 10.05.2002, I have already concluded that the complaint could have been made only at 05.30 AM, on 10.05.2002. I have elaborately given the reasons for such a conclusion in the previous paragraphs of this judgment.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that according to P.W. 10, he received the complaint at 05.00 a.m. though P.W. 8 has stated that he lodged the complaint at 05.30 a.m., and this, according to the learned counsel, is a major contradiction. But, we cannot give much weightage to this discrepancy, because, the time stated by P.W. 8 should be taken as approximate, as he had spoken out of memory whereas, the time given by P.W. 10 should be taken as accurate, as he had spoken out of the entry in the record.

The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that according to P.W. 10, immediately on receiving the complaint [EXP. 28], he spoke to the Superintendent of Police over phone and he in turn told him that he only instructed P.W. 8 to meet him. The Superintendent of Police however wanted him to verify the antecedents of the accused. The learned counsel would further point out that P.W. 10 has stated that he conducted discrete enquiry and reported about the same at 06.10 a.m. that the appellant had bad antecedents. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, according to P.W. 10, directed him to prepare a trap for him. Referring to this time gap, the learned counsel would submit that hardly within one hour and ten minutes, it would have been impossible for P.W. 10 to verify the antecedents of the accused and to report the same to the Superintendent of Police to get the nod for laying the trap.

P.W. 8, during his cross examination, has stated that at 05.20 a.m. he received instructions from the Superintendent of Police to verify the antecedence of the appellant and the genuineness of the complaint. He has stated that he did not go out of the retiring room, but, enquired about the antecedents within 40 minutes through two sources. According to the learned counsel, he has not disclosed the said source. In my considered opinion, the source need not be disclosed as it is privileged. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel that within one hour and 10 minutes, it would not have been possible for P.W. 10 to verify and inform the Superintendent of Police about the antecedents of the appellant cannot be accepted. In my considered opinion, this argument has no force, in view of the clear evidence of P.W. 10, who has narrated as to how he was able to get all above facts verified and got the nod from the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected.

Thereafter, according to P.W. 10, he requested Mr. Sridharan the Sub-Inspector of Police to make arrangement for witnesses and vehicle. Accordingly, at 06.20 hours Mr. Jayakumar (D.W. 1) arrived and at 06.35 hours P.W. 9 Mr. Lakshmanan arrived. The learned counsel would submit that Mr. Sridharan has not been examined, which is a flaw in the case of the prosecution. In my considered opinion, it is not so. Though Mr. Sridharan actively participated in the entire trap proceedings, there is no need to examine him. Examining Mr. Sridharan would have only multiplied the number of witnesses to prove the same set of facts. Regarding the trap proceedings, the evidences of P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 are available, which, in my considered view, are sufficient. Thus, the non-examination of Mr. Sridharan has not caused any dent in the case of the prosecution. Further, the non-examination of Mr. Sridharan has not caused any prejudice to the appellant at all. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is also rejected.

According to P.W. 10, the trap was arranged and phenolphthalein test was demonstrated to P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and D.W. 1 through Mr. Sridharan. It has been clearly stated that thereafter the tainted currency notes stained with phenolphthalein power were put into the pocket of P.W. 8 with clear instructions to him not to touch the said currency notes at all. Though the appellant has stated that when there was a handshake between P.W. 8 and the appellant, the phenolphthalein power which was in the hands of P.W. 8 would have smeared into the hands of the appellant, absolutely, there is no evidence that P.W. 8 had, in fact, handshake with the accused. Apart from that it has not been suggested to P.W. 8 that he had touched the currency notes and thus, stained his fingers with phenolphthalein power. The arrival of P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 to the house of the appellant at around 09.00 a.m. has not been disputed by the appellant. In fact, in his evidence, the appellant has admitted the arrival of P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 at his residence and then, at the crucial moment, according to P.W. 8 and P.W. 9, the appellant invited them into the house. It is not disputed by the appellant during his evidence and in fact, he has admitted the same. The accused offered them seats in the drawing room of the house and P.W. 8 and P.W. - 9 sat. It is the further case of the prosecution that cool drink was offered by D.W. 2, the wife of the appellant. It is also not disputed by the appellant. It is in the evidence of P.W. 8 that at that time the appellant told him that in another file pending with him, P.W. 8''s company was L3 and that he would however award the contract to him by suppressing L1 and L2 and he wanted 10% of the bill amount as illegal gratification for the same.

In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a major contradiction between the evidences of P.W.-8 and P.W.-9. He would point out that P.W.-9 has not spoken about the above conversation between P.W.-8 and the accused. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 9, it would go to show that P.W. 9 has stated that P.W. 8 and the accused were talking about some transactions. Of course P.W. 9 has not stated as to what was the transaction, about which they were talking. Since P.W. 9 has not elaborated, about which transaction the appellant and P.W. 8 were talking, the evidence of P.W. 8 that they were talking about a fresh contract cannot be disbelieved.

Thereafter, according to P.W. 8 and P.W. 9, the appellant enquired as to whether P.W. 8 had come with Rs. 8,000/-, as demanded earlier. It was only at that juncture, P.W. 8 took out the tainted currency notes from his pocket and handed over the same to the appellant. According to P.Ws. 8 and 9, the appellant received the currency notes in his right hand and changed the same to his left hand. When P.W. 8 wanted him to count, the appellant said that it was not necessary and then he went into the bedroom of the house and came out of the said room immediately. In the meanwhile, P.W. 9 had gone out to make signal and P.W. 10 rushed to the drawing room along with Mr. Sridharan. This evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 has been disputed by the appellant. According to his evidence when P.W. 8 suddenly took out currency notes from his pocket and attempted to thrust the same into his palms, he pushed it away and shouted at them to get out of the house. It is the further evidence of the appellant that on hearing the same his wife who was in the kitchen called him to the kitchen and therefore the appellant went to the kitchen and narrated the event to her and she pacified him and told him to go and send those people out in a polite manner. This has been spoken to by his wife, viz., D.W. 2 also. In my considered opinion, the evidence of D.Ws. 2 and 3 is difficult to be believed. The reasons are many. First of all, I have already concluded that demand for illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- had been made as early as on 09.05.2002 itself and it was only on the instructions of the appellant, P.W. 8 during the trap came to the house of the appellant to pay the same. As I have already concluded, EXP. 27 would go to show that the accused gave his residential address and phone number only to make it possible for P.W. 8 to come to his house to pay the illegal gratification. I have already concluded that the story propounded by the appellant that for sending customary greetings, he gave Ex. P. 27 is highly unbelievable.

With this background, the happenings during the trap proceedings are to be analysed. It is the case of the appellant that when P.W. 8 attempted to thrust the currency notes into his palms, he pushed them. If that is true, the currency notes would have fallen on the floor, but, that is not at all the case of the appellant. It is stated by the appellant that he shouted at P.Ws. 8 and 9 and on hearing the same, his wife called him to the kitchen. This is highly unnatural. Had it been true that the appellant was shouting at P.Ws. 8 and 9, in a high tone, quite naturally, prompted by anxiety, his wife would have rushed to the drawing hall. This would have been the natural conduct of the wife of the appellant. It is highly unnatural that his wife remained in the kitchen and wanted her husband to come to the kitchen. Again it is unnatural that the accused would have gone to the kitchen without sending P.Ws. 8 and 9 out of the house with the currency notes. It is the further case of the appellant that while he was in the kitchen narrating the events to his wife, P.W. 8 would have gone into the bedroom and kept the currency notes underneath the mattress. In my considered view, it is quite unnatural that the appellant would have narrated the above incident to his wife at that crucial moment for such an amount of time so that P.W. 8 could enter into the bedroom to keep the money underneath the mattress. It is also quite unnatural that his wife had persuaded him and instructed him to go to the drawing hall and to send P.Ws. 8 and 9 in a polite manner. It is again unnatural that D.W. - 2 would have remained in the kitchen, without following her husband. It is the case of the appellant that P.W. 8 had grudge against him. Had it been true that a man with such grudge had attempted to thrust the currency notes into his palm, the appellant would have certainly inferred something untoward. In such an event, he would not have behaved in such a normal way to go to the kitchen and to narrate the event to his wife and to remain in the kitchen for such a long time so as to be persuaded by his wife and then to return to the drawing hall. In such a situation, by all probabilities, he would have remained in the drawing hall and get P.Ws. 8 and 9 out of home first. Thus, in my considered view, this defence theory is only an afterthought to get out of the clutches of law and there is no truth at all in that story.

According to D.W. 2, after her husband had returned to the drawing hall, she heard a strange voice and therefore, she went to the drawing hall and found P.W. 10, the C.B.I. team and D.W. 1 inside the house of the appellant. The house of the appellant is in the first floor of the building. On receiving the signal from P.W.-9 only, they rushed to the house of the appellant. Certainly, this would have taken sometime. According to the appellant, when he returned from the kitchen P.W. 10 and other officials were there. For such a long time, the appellant would not have been talking to his wife in the kitchen, as he has claimed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the phenolphthalein power in the fingers of the appellant was because his hands came into contact with the tainted currency notes when he pushed them away. As I have concluded that the theory of the appellant that he pushed the tainted currency notes itself is not true, the explanation of the appellant that his fingers got stained with phenolphthalein, when he pushed the currency notes cannot be accepted. The presence of the phenolphthalein powder on his fingers would clearly corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 that he received the currency notes in his right hand and changed it to his left hand and then he went into the bedroom and kept the tainted currency notes underneath the mattress.

Regarding the recovery of currency notes, P.Ws. 9 and 10 have stated that when P.W. 10 enquired him as to what had happened to the currency notes, he took the witnesses to the bedroom and took out the tainted currency notes from underneath the mattress. There is no reason to reject this piece of evidence. The act of the appellant in taking the witness to his bedroom and taking out the currency notes from underneath the mattress is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This fact has been clearly established by the evidences of P.Ws. 9 and 10. Thus, the conduct of the accused in taking the witness to the bedroom and pulling out the currency notes from underneath the mattress would clearly go to establish that it was he who planted the currency notes underneath the mattress.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.W. 8 cannot be believed, because he was highly motivated. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to the evidence of D.W. 3 wherein, he has stated that he made certain office noting and because of the same, there was likelihood of blacklisting of P.W. 8 company. He has further stated that because P.W. 8 had made short supply of materials, he included a clause in the agreement against P.W. 8. In my considered opinion, these facts, even if admitted to be true, cannot be taken as a strong motive for P.W. 8 to falsely implicate the appellant in such a grave crime.

The learned counsel would further point out that P.W. 9 and D.W. 1 cannot be treated as independent witnesses. D.W. 1 was originally cited as witness for the prosecution. He was a witness for the trap. But, he was dispensed with by the prosecution, because the prosecution had already examined P.W. 9 to speak about the trap. D.W. 1 is an officer from the Southern Railways, Madurai. D.W. 1 was at Virudhunagar on 08.05.2002, 09.05.2002 and 10.05.2002, which is evident from the Attendance Register. Relying on this, an attempt has been made by the defence to say that he was in the company of the C.B.I. officials for three days. It is true that he has also admitted that he was in Virudhunagar for three days. But, he has not admitted that he was in the company of the C.B.I. officials all these three days. There is nothing in his evidence even to suggest that he was in the company of the C.B.I., on 08.05.2002 and 09.05.2002. It is not as though D.W. 1 had no job to do at Virudhunagar in his official capacity. Therefore, it cannot be simply assumed that D.W. 1 was in the company of the C.B.I. officials on 08.05.2002 and 09.05.2002. He has categorically stated that only on 10.05.2002, he was instructed by his official superiors to go and meet the C.B.I. officials in the railway retiring room. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that D.W. 1 and P.W. 9 were in the company of the C.B.I. officials on 08.05.2002 and 09.05.2002 and thus, they are interested witnesses cannot be accepted.

So far as P.W. 9 is concerned, it has been suggested to him that he is a close relative of the Sub-Inspector of Police - Mr. Sridharan, but he has denied the same. No other evidence has been brought on record to even remotely infer that he was related to Mr. Sridharan, the Sub-Inspector of Police, C.B.I., who arranged for the trap. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is also rejected.

The learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, P.W.-10 has not taken any independent witness with him for trap, but, instead, he had taken P.W.-9 and D.W.-1, who, according to him, were interested witnesses. The learned counsel would rely on the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Arora Vs. State of Punjab, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court, on facts, had found that the absence of examination of the independent search witness created doubt in the case of the prosecution. But, I am not persuaded by the said argument, for, in the said case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court found that the police officials, who were in the riding party, had doubtful antecedents. This is evident from the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 7 of the Judgment, which reads as follows:

"7. The most regrettable feature of the case is that the riding party was headed by the DSP, about whose conduct in investigation in another case serious strictures had been passed. He associated with himself Inspector Rajender Lal and Arajn Singh whose antecedents were equally doubtful. They were not even produced as witnesses at the trial. It is highly incomprehensive why the DSP did not associate some respectable person or persons whom he could take into confidence rather than with him Inspector, Rajender Lal and Arjan Singh."

It was, in those circumstances, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the absence of adding an independent witness in the riding party created doubt in the case of the tainted officials, who formed part of the riding party. In the instant case, the credibility of P.W.-10, P.W.-9 and D.W.-1 cannot be doubted at all. Thus, this argument of the learned counsel is rejected.

The learned counsel would, nextly, submit that though it is claimed that Mr. Sridharan had arranged for the Car and Jeep as well as the witnesses P.W. 9 and D.W. 1, there is no record to show as to where from he got the Cars. In my considered opinion, it is immaterial as to where from he arranged for the cars, in the light of the admission made by the appellant that P.Ws. 8 and 9 arrived in his house at around 09.00 a.m., on 10.05.2002. Therefore, it is immaterial whether P.W. 9 and D.W. 1 had come in a car or Jeep and whether the same was rented or arranged from some other source.

The learned counsel would, nextly, contend that because P.W.-15 was the one who registered the case, he ought not to have investigated the case at all. In my considered view, there is no legal bar for P.W. 15 to investigate the case simply because he happened to be the one, who registered the case. Admittedly, he was not in the team, which laid the trap. He took up the case for investigation only after trap proceedings were over and therefore, there was nothing either illegal or irregular in P.W.-15 investigating the case.

The learned counsel for the appellant would nextly contend that going by the location of the house where the appellant was residing, the story that P.W. 9 gave signal and the same was noticed by P.W. 10 could not be true. For this purpose, the learned counsel has taken me through the rough sketch (Ex. P. 45). In my considered view, from the rough sketch, one cannot now say whether the signal of P.W. 9 could have been noticed by P.W. 10 from where he was standing. No witness has stated that it would not have been possible for P.W. 10 to notice P.W. 9 standing outside the house of the appellant giving signal. Above all, the arrival of Mr. Sridharan and P.W. 10 at the crucial moment is an admitted fact. Therefore, it has to be held that P.W. 10 would have noticed P.W. 9 giving signal. Therefore, this argument is also rejected.

The learned counsel would, nextly, rely on the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Banshi Lal Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down that before raising a presumption against the accused under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act [Act 2 of 1947], the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself any gratification other than legal remuneration etc. Regarding this legal proposition, there can be no doubt at all. But, in the instant case, there is enormous evidence to hold that the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as illegal gratification. Therefore, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act is to be necessarily drawn by this Court against the accused. The said presumption that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was received by him only as illegal remuneration has not been rebutted by the appellant.

Nextly, the learned counsel contended that in the absence of the independent and reliable corroboration of the evidences of the trap witnesses, the case of the prosecution should be rejected. For this proposition, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Darshan Lal Vs. The Delhi Administration, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of independent reliable corroboration of the evidences of the trap witnesses, the case of the prosecution should be discard. But, a perusal of the said Judgment would go to show that on facts, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has found that there were lot of inconsistencies in the evidences of the trap witnesses. In the factual background, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of independent witnesses, it is too difficult to act upon the evidence of a trap witness. This is, thus, a factual finding where the Hon''ble Supreme Court has not laid down any law so as to bind this Court. Thus, this Judgment does not come to the rescue of the appellant at all in any manner.

The learned counsel lastly contended that in the instant case, the demand for illegal gratification made, on 09.05.2002, itself is doubtful and therefore, mere recovery of the tainted money from the bedroom of the appellant would not give raise to any presumption that he received the same as illegal gratification. In this regard, the learned counsel would rely on the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988 and mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. In the case on hand, the demand of illegal gratification on 09.05.2002 and it acceptance on 10.05.2002 have been clearly established by the prosecution and therefore, the said Judgment would not come to the rescue of the accused and thus, this argument is also rejected.

In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that the prosecution has clearly proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, the lower Court was right in convicting the accused under both the charges.

Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, it is the judicial task of the Court to take into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and to strike a balance between these two so as to impose adequate and appropriate punishment. In this case, so far as the aggravating circumstances are concerned, first of all, the appellant, who was a High Profile Officer in the cadre of the Deputy General Manager, had indulged in corruption. From his own evidence, it is seen that he is an Engineering Graduate from the well reputed Anna University, Chennai. The graduates from Anna University, Chennai, are well recognised and respected across the globe for their knowledge, wisdom and straightforwardness. It is his evidence that he passed the competitive examination for Indian Engineering Examination held in the year 1989 and emerged successful, that to in the first attempt itself. This shows his intelligence and through knowledge in the subject. But, the appellant, though had mastered the subject, had failed to learn the values of human life, honesty and integrity, which are the fundamental requirements of any man more particularly a well educated man. It is unfortunate that he had shown deviance from the path of honesty and integrity. He must have known that corruption is like a cancer and the same would ruin the entire system of governance and the society at large. Being a graduate from the reputed Anna University and a high Profile Officer, he should have been a role model to the younger generations who opt to become an officer like him. Instead, he had taken the wrong path in an attempt to amaze wealth by making quick money by indulging in corrupt activities. Thus, the offence committed by him is enormously grave in nature.

Now, turning to the mitigating circumstances, he was aged 36 years at the time of occurrence. His parents were teachers. But these are all not sufficient mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence in any manner. I am sure that his parents, who were teachers, would have taught him ethics, as they would have taught to the other children, who studied under them. Unfortunately, even their teachings were not of any avail to him. Such a man, who had greed for money and who had attempted to amaze wealth by indulging in corruption, cannot be shown any leniency in the matter of sentence.

It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India (UOI), , wherein, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had to say, on corruption, as follows:

"Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the of the P.C. Act, 1988....."

Again, in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered. The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality......"

In the light of the anguish expressed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above Judgments regarding the evil of corruption in public life, when all the above facts and circumstances, both aggravating and mitigating, are taken into account, in my considered view, the sentence imposed on the appellant is appropriate, which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. In the result, I do not find any merit at all in this Criminal Appeal. The Criminal Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently. Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The Trial Court shall take steps to secure him and commit him in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by him shall be set off as required under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.