AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Swamidurai, J.—The accused is the Appellant. He was convicted u/s 161 I.P.C. and u/s 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras in C.C. No. 79/1984.
The accused was employed as an officer in the Regional Office, Syndicate Bank at Madras. The case of the prosecution is that on 21-4-1984,
the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from P.W.2 Manoharan promising him to get a job in the bank and accordingly he received a sum of
Rs. 1,000/- on 23-4-1984 and thereby committed an offence u/s 161 I.P.C. The accused being a public servant, received a sum of Rs. 1,000/- at
Hotel Select at Madras on 23-4-1984 abusing his position as a public servant and committed an offence u/s 5(1)(d) punishable u/s 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
P.W.1, T. Ramesh Kamath is the Personel Manager of Syndicate Bank, Manipal. On receiving a report through their section from the C.B.I.,
Madras and on perusing the papers, he was satisfied that there was a prima facie case against the accused and so he granted sanction on 24-10-
84 under Ex.P.1 for prosecuting the accused. According to him, Mr. A. Krishna Rao was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Syndicate
Bank and he is acquainted with his signature. Ex.P.2 is the sanction order dated 11-6-1985 accorded by the said Krishna Rao. Ex.P.3 is the
Syndicate Bank Officer-Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations 1976 and the Syndicate Bank Officer-Employees'' (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1976. P.W.2 is Manoharan. According to him, he has studied upto S.S.L.C. and admittedly, he was not employed in any government
office or bank. According to P.W.2 he was getting a monthly income of Rs. 200/- or Rs. 250/- per month. He was doing work as a collection
agent. He was in search of jobs. On one day, he went to Mylapore area for collection of loans. On 21-4-1984 when he was coming back near
Nageswara Rao Park he saw the Board as Syndicate. Bank, Regional Office. He went to the first floor at about 11.30 a.m. and found many
persons in the entrance hall. He enquired a person sitting in the entrance whether he could get any job. He was informed that vacancies would be
published in newspapers for the post of clerk. But with regard to the post of peons, persons would be called for through employment exchange
and no recruitment directly was possible. So he stepped down from the upstairs and he was called by a person who is none other than the
accused. The accused asked P.W.2 whether he required any loan. The accused also told him that he would get loan from the bank if P.W.2 would
require it. Then the accused took him to a separate place within the campus where P.W.2 told him that he was unemployed and asked him
whether he could get any job for which the accused asked him regarding his qualification and P.W.2 told him that he has studied upto S.S.L.C.
The accused told him that he would secure jobs for P.W.2 and P.W.2 asked him as to how the accused would get job directly without going
through employment exchange. The evidence of P.W.2 is that the accused took out a letter showing that he was the President of SC/ST
Association, that he knew big officers and that he would get a job for P.W.2. The accused also told him that some amount would be required for
that purpose. P.W.2 asked the accused as to how much money would be required. The accused told him that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- should be paid
by P.W.2. P.W.2 replied that he had no money to pay to the accused. The accused also told him that the money is not only meant for the accused
but also for other officers to be paid. The accused also told P.W.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the present and pay the remaining sum of Rs.
2,000/- after P.W.2 got the job. P.W.2 thought that the accused was demanding bribe. P.W.2 did not think of getting job by paying bribe because
he had studied in the newspapers that CBI police were charging corruptive persons. P.W.2 enquired a constable standing at place as to where the
CBI office is situated. That police constable told him that the office is at Shastri Bhavan. P.W.2 went to Shastri Bhavan and reported the matter to
the Inspector of Police, Chelladurai who is not a witness in this case. P.W.2 gave a written report Ex.P.4 to the Inspector of Police, Chelladurai.
P.W.2 assured the said Inspector that he would help CBI police for catching the accused red-handed. The P.W.2 was introduced to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vidyasagar who is P.W.4. Then a trap was laid and P.W.2 was directed to come to the CBI Office at Shastri Bhavan at
6.30 a.m. on 23-4-1984. P.W.2 returned to his house and asked his friend Babu P.W.5 to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- to him urgently P.W.5 Babu
gave him Rs. 700/-. P.W.4 sent for Balakrishnan P.W.3 and another Santhanam from the office of the Regional metrological Centre.
Accordingly P.W.3 and Santhanam were permitted to meet P.W.5 at 6.30 a.m. on 23-4-1984 at Shastri Bhavan. Then P.W.3 and Santhanam
were introduced to P.W.2 and P.W.2 also narrated to them about the details of the case. P.W.5 asked P.W.2 whether the latter had brought Rs.
1,000/- for which P.W.2 replied that he had brought the money in the denomination of ten hundred rupee currency notes. The currency notes were
counted and the numbers of the currency notes were noted in a paper by P.W.4. Phenolphthalein powder was spread over the currency notes.
Then sodium corbonate was prepared. In the meantime, the witness Santhanam (not examined) was asked to count the currency notes and
compare the notes with the numbers already noted down in a paper. Thereafter, the said Santhanam was asked to dip his hands in the solution and
the colour of the solution turned pink. P.W.4 informed about the significance of the test to Santhanam and the other persons present there. P.W.4
kept the currency notes in the pant packet of P.W.2 and asked him not to touch them till they were given to the accused. Thereafter, P.W.2 and
Balakrishnan P.W.3 were directed to go to the office of the accused and hand over the money and P.W.3 was instructed to tell the accused that
he was the uncle of P.W.2. Thereafter all of them went to Nageswara Rao Park and P.W.2 and P.W.3 Balakrishnan were directed to go to the
office of the accused. P.W.4 had instructed P.W.2 that soon after the accused received the money, P.W.2 should give signal by rubbing his face
with his kerchief. Accordingly, P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the Office of the accused. The accused took P.Ws.2 and 3 to a nearby hotel called Select
Hotel where the accused ordered for tiffin. The accused took non-vegetarian tiffin and P.Ws.2 and 3 took only tea. After finishing the tiffin, the
accused asked P.W.2 whether he had brought Rs. 1,000/-. P.W.2 replied that he brought the money and he handed over the same to the accused
who received the same. The accused after counting the currency notes with his two hands kept them in the left side of his shirt packet. P.W.2 was
having a sum of Rs. 10/- with him and he paid the bill of Rs. 8.60 and received the balance of Rs. 1.40 from the cashier. P.W.2 got back the bill
Ex.P.6 from the cashier and kept it with him. P.W.3 Balakrishnan supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated the evidence of P.W.2
to the extent to which he was present after he came to know of this case through the police. P.W.4 Vidyasagar, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, C.B.I. Department after receiving Ex.P.4 complaint from P.W.2 registered the same as Cr. No. Rc. 22/84 u/s 161 I.P.C. Ex.P.14 is the
F.I.R. He sent a report to the court. Then he laid as stated above a trap with the help of P.W.2. He investigated the case with the help of Deputy
Superintendent of Police S.S. Nayar, Inspectors of Police, Chellathurai, Karunakaran and the constables Ramadoss and Loganathan. P.W.5 is
Babu. He is a friend of P.W.2 and according to him, he paid a sum of Rs. 700/- to P.W.2 as requested by him. P.W.6 Kunju Mohammed was the
cashier in the hotel Select at Mylapore. According to him P.W.2 and another came to his hotel, took tiffin and coffee and paid a sum of Rs. 8.60
towards the bill Ex.P.6. P.W.2 wanted the bill for himself and so he returned the bill after putting the paid seal. He was present at the time of
seizure of currency notes for which a mahazar Ex.P.11 was prepared in which he attested. P.W.7 Narayanan was the Inspector of Police, C.B.I.
He filed the sanction order dated 24-10-84 when he filed the charge sheet. The charge sheet was filed against the accused on 5-11-84 after
obtaining sanction u/s 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 161 I.P.C.
When questioned u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the charge and also pleaded not guilty. According to him, he was
selected as an officer in 1973 and he has deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the same. This case has been foisted against him in order to wreck
vengeance by the bank officials.
The accused has examined one B. Vasanthan as D.W.1. According to him he joined the Regional Office in 1982. During that time, the accused
was working there. D.W.1 was examined for the purpose of snowing that the accused was permitted to go for collection duty as per Exs.D.1
dated 18-2-84, Ex.D.2 dated 18-4- 84, Ex.D.3 dated 30-11-83 and Ex.D.4 dated 16-3-83. According to D.W.1 the accused had to report to
the office on the same day after collection. Under Ex.D.4, the reused was permitted to sign in the office on 9-3-1983. Learned Counsel for the
Appellant/accused submitted that the accused was on out-door duty as per those Exs.D.1 to D.4 and that the accused had not received any
money by way of bribe from P.W.2. In cross-examination D.W.1 has stated that he could not say whether the accused had actually availed the
permission granted to him on the basis of Exs.D.1 to D.4. He further admitted in cross-examination that to his knowledge, there was enmity
between the staff and the accused officer during his tenure of office.
Learned Sessions Judge found that accused guilty of the offence u/s 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s
161 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence u/s 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No
separate sentence was imposed on the accused u/s 161 I.P.C.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that there are two sanction orders under Ex.x.P.1 and P.2. The second sanction order Ex.P.2
was obtained after the case was initiated against the accused under the above said provisions of law. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further
contended that there was malice against the accused officer and that this case was foisted against him falsely. He also submitted further that the
evidence of prosecution witnesses is not reliable on various grounds of which references are made below: P.W.2 Manoharan is stated to have
studied upto S.S.L.C. The accused has not verified his certificate whether he has studied upto S.S.L.C. or not. Further P.W.2 has stated before
the accused that he has registered his name with the Employment Exchange office in 1980. No proof has been shown to the accused. P.W.2 did
not see anybody in the other five nationalised banks which were also opened on that date of occurrence. P.W.2 was not definite about the name
and the designation of the accused before he went to CBI police office for giving a report. He did not enquire anybody else in the other banks
whether there was any vacancy or not. P.W.2 was earning only a sum of Rs. 250/- or so per month and his evidence is that a sum of Rs. 200/-
would be the balance after meeting all his expenses. That is not possible and his version with regard to the above is not believable. P.W.2 did not
even verify whether the accused was an officer or not and whether the accused was really employed in that bank. He did not mention in Ex.P.4
that the accused is having a position in the SC/ST Association. He did not, inform his parents that be required a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for getting a
job. P.W.5 Babu is having a cycle shop at No. 7, Alagar Perumal Koil Street, Vadapalani. According to P.W.2, he wanted only a sum of Rs.
700/- from P.W.5 even without telling the purpose for which he required the said amount. Immediately P.W.5 seemed to have given the money.
The evidence of P.W.5 cannot be relied upon for the reasons that he did not even ask the purpose for the demand of Rs. 700/-. Before the police,
P.W.5 told that P.W.2 wanted only a sum of Rs. 600/- P.W.2 is not at all a reliable witness because there is no necessity for the accused to get
the signature in Ex.P.5 of witnesses like P.W.3 and another person. This appears to be an anticipated trap by P.W.2 himself, otherwise, at the time
when the accused obtained Ex.P.5 from P.W.2, there was no necessity for the accused to get attestation of P.W.5. Even Santhanam (not a
witness) has attested without the knowledge of P.W.2. Ex.P.5 is not at all an application form. If the accused had really received bribe from P.W.2
certainly the accused would have asked P.W.3 as to who he was and when he was brought by P.W.2 to his office. The evidence of P.W.2 is that
the accused did not ask as who was P.W.5 and that the accused also did not suspect him. It is also surprising to note that as to why P.W.2 got
back the cash bill Ex.P.6 from the cashier P.W.6. P W.2 was not informed even by the police to get back the cash bill for the purpose of proving it
later on. It was suggested to P.W.2 that the bank itself has set up this case falsely and that P.W.2 is a tool for the said bank. P.W.2 Balakrishnan is
only a set up witness by the police. He was not present at the time when the alleged demand of bribe was made by the accused. His evidence is
only that the accused asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and that P.W.2 paid him from his shirt pocket. This was denied by the accused since
the case according to him was a fabricated one. His evidence also cannot be relied upon for this reason that there is no reason for the accused to
obtain the signature of P.W.5 as a witness in Ex.P.5. P.W.3 also did not ask the accused as to why he should attest the application form Ex.P.5.
P.W.3 is a Senior Supervisor in Meteorological Department. His evidence is also artificial in the sense that he simply attested the application form
Ex.P.5 which no ordinary prudent man would do. This witness is also not speaking the truth. The attestation is also not speaking the truth. The
attestation of P.W.3 in Ex.P.5 seems to be pre-planned, as otherwise, P.W.5 would have asked him as to why he should attest the application
form Ex.P.5. P.W.3 has admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.P.5 is not an application form and that normally nobody would attest a
document like Ex.P.5. He also admitted in cross-examination that he did not question the accused that Ex.P.5 is not an application form. He
denied the suggestion that this case was foisted against the accused at the instance of the bank. The suggestion of the accused is that the accused
was taken near the hotel by P.W.2 on the pretext that some of the office staff met with an accident. P.W.4 the Deputy Superintendent of Police
who laid the trap gave evidence with regard to seizure of currency note M.O.I series from the shirt pocket of the accused. He too admitted in the
cross-examination that Ex.P.5 does not appear to be an application form. He admitted that he did not file all the reports in connection with this
case in the lower court. His evidence cannot be relied upon for this reason that after receiving the information from P.W.2, there is no acceptable
evidence that P.W.4 went to the office of the accused and verified with the officers and the substance of the complaint given by P.W.2. In Ex.P.4,
in the column as to the time of occurrance, it is stated as ""during April 1984 Ex.P.4, FIR was dated 21-4- 84 at 4 p.m. There is no explanation for
the delay when P.W.2 left for Shastri Bhavan round about 12 noon. He admitted in cross-examination that on 21-4-84 he did not see the accused
referred to by P.W.2. P.W.4 also admitted in cross-examination that he did not know the accused at all.
He also admitted in cross-examination that he knew the name of the Regional Manager of the Bank and he did not examine the Regional Manager
also. P.W.4 did not also examine anybody else in the bank. This also appears to be strange because the investigating officer has not even examined
the Regional Manager regarding this case and verified the identity of the accused. P.W.4 also admitted that he did not instruct P.W.2 to get back
the cash bill Ex.P.6 from the cashier P.W.6. While so, there is no reason for P.W.2 to get back the cash bill from the cashier of Hotel Select.
Normally, hotel keepers do not permit giving of cash bills to the customers. There is no reliable evidence even from P.W.4 that he verified the
accusation made by P.W.2 in his complaint. As per evidence of P.W.3, if P.W.4 knew the accused earlier there is no necessity for P.W.4 to
ascertain whether Nithyanandam was the accused. While P.W.4 had not enquired anybody in the bank or even verified from P.W.2 whether he
could identify the accused whom P.W.2 had seen on 21-4-84, there is no acceptable reason for P.W.4 for believing the complaint given by P.W.2
especially when P.W.4 had not filed all the reports in the lower court. P.W.5 is admittedly a friend of P.W.2. Even after alleged payment of Rs.
1,000/- to the accused, P.W.2 did not tell P.W.5 about the payment of money to the accused. There is no documentary evidence for the payment
of Rs. 700/- by P.W.5 to the accused. According to P.W.5, P.W.2 already owed money to P.W.5. There is no evidence to show that the
previous loan was repaid to P.W.5. While that is so, it is not believable that P.W.5 would have lent further amounts to P.W.2. P.W.6 Kunchi
Mohammed is now residing in Kerala leaving his job as cashier. His evidence is that he gave the key of the hotel for affixing sample seal on Exs.P.8
and P.9. His case is that he attested Ex.P.11 observation mahazar prepared by the police. The key had not been produced and marked before the
lower court to show that key was used for affixing the sample seal in Exs.P.8 and P.9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the
prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt as against the accused. One other thing that has to be taken note of is that P.W.2
has not produced even his S.S.L.C. certificate or the employment registration card to show that he was really in need of job and that he was really
qualified. In these circumstances, the accused could not have demanded bribe from P.W.2 telling him that he would secure a job for P.W.2.
Normally, the accused being an officer of the bank, would have certainly demanded, the minimum requirement, namely, S.S.L.C. certificate and
the employment exchange registration card for securing even the post of a peon in the bank. The prosecution has not filed these documents to
show that P.W.2 was qualified for the post of peon. Further, the lower court has shifted the burden on the accused to show that he did not avail
permission as mentioned in Exs.D.1 to D.4 and that the accused was in his office on the date of occurrence. No records had been produced from
the Bank to show that the accused had not availed the permission as mentioned in Ex.D.1 to D.4. The lower court has shifted the burden on the
accused stating that he did not prove that he was not in the office on the date of occurrence. It is easy for the bank and it is also the duty of the
prosecution to prove that the accused did not avail permission and that he was in the office. The lower court is not correct in shifting the burden on
the accused. The prosecution has not examined any witness from the bank to show that the accused was in the office on the date of occurrence
and that he did not avail permission. Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that no motive has been suggested against the prosecution
witnesses and that there is no reason for them to give false evidence. The accused has stated in his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure
and also by way of defence that the case has been foisted against him maliciously at the instance of the bank officials. Even the defence witness has
stated in his deposition that there was enmity between the staff of the bank and the accused during his tenure of office. P.W.2 and his friend P.W.5
and P.W.6 are not all truthful witnesses. P.W.3 was brought by P.W.4 to support the case of the prosecution. His evidence cannot be accepted
even with regard to recovery or demand of Rs. 1,000/-.
I therefore, do not accept the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hence hold that the accused has not committed any offence. I accept the
defence and I find that the case has been foisted against the accused by P.W.2 and his friend Babu at the instance of the enemical officials of the
bank. I also find that the case of the prosecution is not true. I do not accept the findings of the lower court and I set aside the conviction and
sentence imposed on the accused by the lower court. The accused is acquitted and the appeal is allowed.