S. Ramoo vs State

S. Tamilvanan, J.—This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 21.02.2001 made in C.C. No. 27/98 on the file of

the Principal Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

The appellant is the accused before the trial court, who was convicted for an offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence and also convicted for an offence punishable u/s

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default

sentence.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The appellant/accused was employed as Deputy Secretary in the Madras Port Trust, Chennai, during the relevant period in the year 1997. As per

the prosecution case, on 05.08.1997, the appellant/accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and subsequently, accepted the same on

07.08.1997, as illegal gratification from P.W.2, S.R. Venkatesan for arranging a job for him. The appellant was arrested, on the ground that he

had received the illegal gratification on 07.08.1997 in his Office at Port Trust, Administrative Block and thereby committed offence punishable u/s

7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

As per the records available, it is seen that necessary santion u/s 19(1)(C) of the said Act was accorded by the competent authority. After

furnishing of copies of documents to the appellant/accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides, the trial court framed the following charges

against the appellant/accused:

Charge No. I : The accused being a public servant has demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- from Shri. S.R. Venkatesan, as incentive or

reward for arranging for him a job in the Port Trust to him, other than legal remuneration on 05.08.1997. The accused subsequently, on

08.08.1997 between 2.15 p.m and 2.30 p.m, demanded and accepted the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- from Shri Venkatesan as illegal gratification

for the above said purpose and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Charge No. II : The accused being a public servant functioning as Deputy Secretary at Port Trust, Chennai, on 08.08.1997 by corrupt or illegal

means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, had obtained for himself a pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- from

Shri. S.R. Venkatesan on the above date, as illegal gratification and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988.

As the charges were denied by the appellant/accused, the case was posted for trial. In support of the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 7 were

examined, and Exs.P.1 to 10 were marked, apart from M.Os.1 to 5. On the side of the appellant/accused D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined.

According to Mr. R. Sitaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was

falsified by the evidence of D.W.2. He has further contended that as per the evidence of the defacto complainant, he could not have met the

appellant/accused on 05.08.1997 and asked the complainant to meet him on 07.08.1997. He has further contended that the prosecution case is

vitiated on account of delay caused by the prosecution.

Per contra, Mr. N. Chandrasekan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, appearing for the respondent contended that the evidence

of D.W.2 does not create any suspicious circumstance in favour of the appellant/accused. According to him, there is no delay, so as to vitiate the

prosecution case and the defence raised by the appellant/accused are trivial in nature, and not legally sustainable and according to him, the guilt

against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It is not in dispute that P.W.1 was the Chairman of the Madras Port Trust, during the relevant period and as the competent authority for

appointment and removal of the officers, employed in the cadre of Deputy Secretary, Port Trust, Chennai, sanction was accorded by him and the

notification for the same was marked as Ex.P.1.

As per the evidence of P.W.2, on the advice of Bala @ Balasubramaniam, he contacted the Deputy Secretary, Port Trust, the

appellant/accused herein for getting a job in the Port Trust of Chennai, in the Sportsmen quota and produced necessary certificates, relating to his

qualification for the said appointment. Then, on the advice of the appellant/accused, P.W.2 again met him on 05.08.1997, while so, the

appellant/accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe to arrange for the job, then, he accepted to receive a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and accordingly, he

instructed that the amount should be paid on 08.08.1997. As P.W.2 did not want to give any bribe, on 07.08.1997 itself, he lodged a complaint

before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai, and on his direction, he met P.W.4, Inspector Sunil, who introduced P.W.2 to the other

witnesses, who were present there. Then, as per the advice of the Inspector, P.W.2 arranged Rs. 5,000/- as bribe and went to CBI Office on

08.08.1997 at 10 a.m. At that time, the prosecution witness, Mr. Sriram (P.W.3) was introduced to P.W.2 by the Police Officers. The aforesaid

Inspector read out the written complaint given by P.W.2 and P.W.2 handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the Inspector and the

Inspector, subsequently demonstrated Phenolphthalein test to P.W.2 and other witnesses. The said amount was placed in the shirt pocket of

P.W.2 and advised him to hand over the above money to the appellant/accused on his demand, till such time, P.W.2 was advised not to touch the

currency notes. P.W.3, Sriram, accompanied P.W.2 to the appellant, stating him as his cousin brother and after the receipt of the bribe amount by

the appellant/accused, P.W.3 Sriram gave signal to the Inspector.

The complaint/report given by P.W.2 was marked as Ex.P.3. The entrustment mahazar signed by witnesses was marked as Ex.P.4 before the

trial court. The aforesaid witnesses immediately after the signal, started to the Office, where the appellant was working. P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to

the seat of the appellant/accused, who was not available there. At about 2.15 p.m, when the accused came to his seat, P.W.2 introduced P.W.3

as his cousin brother, then, the appellant/accused took them to the Auditorium in the fourth floor, where he demanded the bribe amount and P.W.2

handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant/accused, which was received by the appellant/accused by both of his hands and put

the same in the back pocket of his pant. On seeing the same, P.W.3, Sriram went out of his office and gave signal. Then, P.W.4, Inspector with

other officials entered into the office of the appellant/accused and informed the appellant/accused that he was under arrest. The appellant was

brought to the office room, sodium carbonate solution was prepared in a glass tumbler and the right hand fingers of the accused was directed to

dip in to the solution. Accordingly, when the appellant dipped his fingers in the solution, the same turned into pink colour. The solution was

preserved in a bottle and label A was affixed. Separate sodium carbonate tests were conducted for the left hand fingers and the back side pocket

of the pant of the accused. During the said test, the sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour. The solution were preserved in separate

bottles and labeled B and C were affixed on them. Witnesses have signed on the labels. Then the accused was personally searched. The personal

money of Rs. 700/- was returned to the appellant/accused, though bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- was seized from him. The mahazar Ex.P.5 was

singed by the witnesses. Thus, the trap proceedings were completed at about 5.30 p.m, on the same day in the presence of the witnesses.

It is clear that the prosecution has to establish the demand of bribe or illegal gratification made by the appellant/accused, the acceptance of

such illegal gratification and subsequent recovery of the same from him.

As per the first charge, the appellant/accused has committed offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by demanding a

bribe of Rs. 5,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant on 05.08.1997 and 08.08.1997.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that non-examination of Balasubramaniam by the prosecution would create suspicion

on the evidence of P.W.2. Admittedly, the said Balasubramainam was not examined as prosecution witness, but, he has been examined as defence

witness (D.W.2). He has deposed that he is a friend of P.W.2 and the father of P.W.2 had expired during the month of July 1997 and in the last

week of July 1997, P.W.2, approached him and requested to arrange for a job. As D.W.2 supported the evidence of P.W.2, he was treated

hostile by the counsel for the accused. Therefore, the non-examination of the said Balasubramaniam as prosecution witness will not affect the

prosecution case.

As per the evidence of P.W.2, he met the appellant/accused on 28.07.1997 for the first time. In the written report filed by P.W.2, he has

mentioned the said date. According to P.W.2, subsequently on 05.08.1997, he met the appellant/accused to arrange for a job in the Madras Port

Trust under sports quota and the accused originally demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe and finally the proposed amount of illegal gratification was

reduced to Rs. 5,000/- by the appellant and asked P.W.2 to bring the said amount on 08.08.1997.

Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused contended that as per the prosecution case, P.W.2 met the appellant on 28.07.1997, then on

05.08.1997, but the complaint/report was filed only on 07.08.1997 and there is no explanation for the delay by the prosecution.

Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.2, where he has stated that he had gone

through the newspapers that CBI would take appropriate action in such cases and hence, he went to the CBI Office on 07.08.1997 and lodged

Ex.P.3, the Complaint. In Ex.P.3, Superintendent of Police, CBI, has also made endorsement directing the Inspector to take appropriate action on

the complaint. Therefore, as held by the court below, the delay has been explained and hence, the same would no way affect the prosecution case.

It is seen that after registering FIR, P.W.2 was directed to produce Rs. 5,000/- on 08.08.1997 to arrange for the trap proceedings against the

appellant. The evidence of P.W.2 supported by other corroborative evidence would show that the alleged bribe/illegal gratification, was demanded

by the appellant/accused, a public servant. Prior to the trap proceedings, P.W.2 lodged his written complaint before the CBI authorities and the

FIR was registered. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 would be sufficient for the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant/accused from

P.W.2. It has been established by the prosecution by way of phenolphthalein test that the appellant/accused had received the amount by both

hands and put it in his back side pant pocket, subsequently, when he was asked to dip his hands in sodium carbonate solution, his fingers turned

into pink colour. The currency were also recovered under the mahazar in the presence of witnesses and marked as M.O.1. Therefore, as

contended by the Special Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has established the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant/accused from

P.W.2, the receipt of the said amount by the appellant from P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.3, who introduced himself as cousin brother of P.W.2.

The phenolphthalein test and the recovery of the currency notes from the appellant/accused would clearly show that the prosecution has

established the guilt against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The Hon''ble Apex Court has held in the decision, Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 34, that

mere fact that the currency notes reached the hands of the appellant is not a sufficient corroboration of the trap witness. But, in the instant case, the

demand of illegal gratification, receipt and recovery of the same from the appellant/accused have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, I am of the considered view that the defence raised by the appellant/accused would hold no water and on the facts and

circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the court below, so as to warrant the

interference of this Court. Hence, the appeal fails.

In the result, confirming the conviction and sentence, imposed by the court below, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.