Sundara Krishnan vs State

V. Kanagaraj, J.—The above appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 27.6.89 made in C.C. No. 10/85 by the Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, convicting the appellant for an offence held proved under S. 161, I.P.C. and under S. 5(1)(d) r/w S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 2 years besides imposing a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo a further R.I. for 2 months.

Besides suspending the sentence of Imprisonment the appellant had also been ordered to be released on bail by this Court as per the orders passed in Crl.M.P. No. 8352/89 dated 19.7.89.

The charge as framed by the Court below against the appellant who was the sole accused before the lower Court was that the appellant was employed as a Village Administrative Officer, of Puthagaram Village, Gingee Taluk, South Arcot District and as defined by law he was a public Servant. That in pursuance of demand of a bribe of Rs. 50/- at Sepettai Village, Gingee Taluk, on 25.3.85 at 8.00 a.m. at his Office-cum-residence in Puthagaram Village of Sepettai Revenue Group the appellant accepted the said amount from the said Munusamy at 8.40 a.m. on 26.3.85 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or regard for issuing chitta extract in respect of the lands belonging to him to enable him to get the Government loan under subsidy scheme as a small farmer for the purpose of a tyre double-bullock-cart thus committing an offence punishable under S. 161, of I.P.C.

The further charge against the appellant was that at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction, the appellant accused being a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position as a public servant, obtaining from the said Munusamy the said sum of Rs. 50/- on 26.3.85 at about 8.40 a.m. in the circumstances as stated above, the appellant/accused has also committed criminal misconduct an offence punishable under S. 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

In proof of the above charges on the part of the Respondent/State six witnesses have been examined, (for oral evidence) as P.Ws. 1 to 6, 12 documents have been marked (for documentary evidence) as Exhibits P1 to P12 and further 4 material objects have also been marked as M.Os. 1 to 4. On the part of the appellant/accused, though no witness was examined, 6 documents have been marked as Exhibits D1 to D6.

In appreciation of the above evidence placed before the lower Court in its own way, the Court below had arrived at the conclusion to convict the accused/appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine as stated supra, testifying the validity of which the appellant has preferred the above appeal on grounds that i) the Lower Court failed to note the bitter enmity that existed between the appellant and P.W. 1, the complainant and the Court below ought to have viewed the evidence of P.W. 1 with great care and caution which it had failed to do: (ii) that the explanation offered on the part of the appellant before the Lower Court being more probable and the preponderance of probabilities for being decided since only in favour of the appellant, the court below failed to consider the same; (iii) that the court below had also failed to see that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove specifically the demand of illegal gratification, strictly in accordance with law and the same was fatal to the case of the prosecution (iv) that since the acceptance had not been proved in a trust-worthy manner, the benefit of doubt should have been accorded by the Court below in favour of the appellant, which the lower court had failed to do so.

In the legal test whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts with abundant, valid and voluminous evidence, we have to weigh the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution both oral and documentary and by means of the material objects in the context of the circumstances and the position of law so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the judgment had been delivered in accordance with the law.

P.W. 1 is the complainant viz., Munusamy and he would adduce evidence to the effect that he was the native of Seppettai Village and his occupation was agriculture and having only 1 3/4 acres of land he was classified as a small farmer and that the appellant whom he knew as his village administrative officer, came to him 3 days prior to the occurrence and informed him that for a small farmer to purchase tyre bullock carts, loans being provided with and that he was eligible to get the loan and asked him to come and get the Chitta extracts from him which was essential for getting the said loan. On 25.3.85 at 8.00 a.m. P.W. 1 accompanied by one Perumal P.W. 2 met the appellant at his residence-cum-office in Puthagaram village and requested him to give him the chitta extract for which the appellant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 50/- and inspite of his persistent effort, the appellant did not budge and since P.W. 1 was not equipped with the said amount at that time, informing the appellant that he would come the next morning and get the Chitta extract left the place along with the said Perumal.

P.W. 1 would further depose that himself and Perumal decided to lodge the complaint on that day itself and went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption at cuddalore wherein P.W. 6 Inspector was present and when P.W. 1 told him orally P.W. 6 insisted him to get it reduced into writing and bring it to him, as a result of which P.W. 1 himself prepared Exhibit P-1 complaint at the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption itself and handed it over to P.W. 6. As per the advise of P.W. 6 Inspector, P.Ws.1 and 2 stayed at the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption office itself that night.

The next phase of the prosecution case as projected through P.W. 1 commences at 4.00 a.m. on 26.3.85 when P.W. 3 an Officer of the Agriculture Department and one Rajarajan from the Statistics Department came to the Vigilance and Anticorruption office and P.W. 6 the Inspector would get himself and P.W. 2 introduced to those officers and on the vice versa Then P.W. 6 handed over Exhibit P-1 with the said two officers and asked them to go through it. Then P.W. 6 demanded M.O.2 series (Currency Notes Four in number in Rs. 10/- denomination and two in number of Rs. 5/- denomination) and P.W. 1 handing over the same with him, the phenolphthalein test was demonstrated to P.Ws 1 to 3 and me other officer Rajarajan and ultimately smearing phenolphthalein powder in M.O.2 series, handed over the same with P.W. 1 asking him to keep them in his pocket with instructions to hand over the same to the appellant as and when demanded by him and in case it was accepted, to inform him immediately. All those that happened that day at the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had been reduced into writing as Exhibit P-2 pre-trap mahazar, which had been signed by P.Ws.1 and 3, and Rajarajan, and two Inspectors.

Then P.Ws.1 to 3 the said Rajarajan, a Police Sub Inspector and the entire party started towards the place of residence of the appellant in a jeep and at the outskirts of the village of pukkarai they got down from the jeep at 8.30 a.m. P.W. 6 imparted instructions to P.Ws.1 and 2 to go and meet the appellant at his residence and while they went, the raiding party followed them at a distance, and they took strategic positions. P.Ws. 1 and 2 then met the appellant at his residence who was sitting in a chair facing south, only wearing a dothi and preparing something. P.W. 1 then asked him whether he had brought the money and when M.O.2 sense were handed over to him, he counted them with his hands and kept them in the left side drawer and then handed over the chitta extract with P.W. 1. P.Ws.1 and 2 then coming out of the house of the appellant, P.W. 1 informed P.W. 6 about what happened and they all went to the house of the appellant. In a little while P.W. 1 went out of the house of the appellant and himself and P.W. 2 remain outside the house. Exhibit P-3 is the Chitta extract and the loan forms in a format is Exhibit P-4. This witness would also say that afterwards P.W. 6 recovered from him Exhibits P-3 and P-4 and after a couple of weeks he received summons to appear before the II Class Magistrate''s Court, Cuddalore, who recorded his statement in connection with the case and later he would adduce evidence before the Magistrate and the same had been recorded by the said Magistrate. This witness would also depose that P.W. 6 based on Exhibit P-1 prepared the printed F.I.R. in Exhibit P-5.

P.W. 2 in his evidence would reveal that himself and P.W. 1 met the appellant on 25.3.85 at 8.00 a.m. at the appellant''s residence wherein P.W. 1 requested to issue the Chitta extract for which the appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 50/- and when. P.W. 1 wanted the chitta extract to be given promising that he would get the said amount the next day, the appellant asked him to bring me money and get the chitta extract and they both the left the place informing the appellant than they would come with the money the next day. This witness would also depose to the effect that himself and P.W. 1 took the decision to lodge the complaint with the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police on the same day at 3.30 p.m. that they went to the office of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and lodged Exhibit P-1, Complaint based on which Exhibit P-5 printed First Information Report was made ready which was also signed by P.W. 1 and himself and both of them stayed in the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office itself that night. This witness would also narrate the whole thing that occurred thereafter from 4.00 a.m. the next day morning till the appellant is said to have been arrested on acceptance of the illegal gratification from P.W. 1, thus giving the vivid picture of what happened during that time on 26.3.85, thus P.W. 2 adducing evidence adhering the evidence of P.W. 1 so far as the material particulars of the trap are concerned.

P.W. 3, is the public witness working as an Agricultural Officer in the Agriculture Department, Cuddalore and this witness would depose to the effect that on 25.3.85 in the evening hours P.W. 6, Inspector of Police, came to his office and requested him to assist him in the investigation of a corruption case. Arriving at the office at 4.00 a.m. on 26.3.85 which he did and one Rajarajan, working in the Statistics Department also having arrived at that time they got introduced to each other and also to P.Ws. 1 and 2 and vice-versa. Then the two public witnesses were supplied with the F.I.R. for their perusal and on perusal of the same they interrogated P.W. 1 of the case. P.W. 1 then produced M.O.2 series of Indian Currency (4 Currency notices of Rs. 10/- and 2 Currency notes of Rs. 5/- denominations thus totaling Rs. 50/- ) to P.W. 6 Inspector. Then P.W. 6 would prepare Sodium Carbonate solution and would show them all the phenolphthalein demonstration and smearing Ex. P2 series of currency notes on the sides with phenolphthalein powder and making P.W. 1 handle the same further subjecting his hands to dip in the sodium Carbonate solution in result the solution turning pink in colour thus explaining the importance of the phenolphthalein test.

This witness would also further depose that P.W. 6 the Inspector would handover Ex. P.2 series to P.W. 1 and asking him to pay the same to the appellant if only demanded and in case it had been obtained to come out and inform the Inspector. Ultimately P.W. 6 would prepare Ex. P.2 mahazar, which has been attested by P.W. 1 and the Police Inspectors. Then this witness would also explain as to what had happened thereafter towards trapping of the appellant at his residence-cum-office at 8.30 a.m. on 26.3.1985, when P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside and in 15 minutes came out and P.W. 1 informed the raiding party that the appellant had obtained M.O.2 series and handling the same also kept them in the table drawer and on hearing the same the police party accompanied by P.W. 1 entered into the appellant''s residence wherein P.W. 1 having identified the appellant went out of the house.

The further story of the prosecution case, as to what happened thereafter would be revealed only by this witness since neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 2 was there at that time when the subsequent proceedings took place at the residence of the appellant. This witness would say that the appellant was wearing only a dothi and nothing else and was seated in a chair facing south and writing something and on seeing the raiding party he stood up when P.W. 6 not only got introduced himself but also the other members of the raiding party to the appellant and ultimately P.W. 6 when asked him to return the amount given by P.W. 1, the appellant admitted saying that it was not demanded by him nor accepted voluntarily but it was rather volunteered by P.W. 1 in handing over the money to him which he kept inside the drawers. Then the phenolphthalein tests had been held on both hands and they proved positive and the resultant solution got preserved in two sealed bottles M.Os. 3 and 4 when P.W. 6 asked the appellant about M.O.2 currency notes of Rs. 50/- , the appellant opened the drawer ad taking the M.O.2 series handed over the same to the police and when the numbers of the currency notes were compared with those noted Exhibit P.2 they tallied. P.W. 6 caused the arrest of the appellant on the spot and men they seized M.Os. 1 to 4 under cover of Ex. P-6 Mahazar attested by Rajarajan and two inspectors. Then P.W. 6 also seized Exhibit P2, P3 and P4 respectively. The Chitta extract and some printed format from P.W. 1 under cover of Exhibit P. 7 Mahazar attested by P.W. 3 Rajarajan and inspectors, P.W. 6 and Ramasamy. Then in between 9.45 a.m. and 10.43 a.m. P.W. 6 and others searched the house of the accused wherein the seizure was only nil and the same had been recorded in the recovery list in the presence of the witnesses like P.W. 3 and Rajarajan, who attested the same. Then they all went back to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department at Cuddalore. P.W. 4 is none else than the head clerk in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, through whom M.Os.1 to 4 had been entrusted on 27.3.1985 and on requisition by the police with Ex-P-9 letter from the Court they were sent to the Chemical Analysis Centre through a constable and in Ex-P-10 the chemical analyst''s report for having examined M.Os. 1 to 4 had been received on 9.4.1985 by this witness.

P.W. 5 is the sanctioning authority and at that time of the occurrence he was working as a Revenue Divisional Officer, at Tindivanam, and he was the competent authority to appoint and remove the Village Administrative Officers within the division. This witness would depose that on a letter requesting sanction for prosecution of the accused had been obtained and sent secretly from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption along with certain documents on perusal of which he accorded sanction in Ex. P-11 sanction order P.W. 6, is not only the Inspector but also the investigation officer, who would depose to the entire role connected to the prosecution case right from framing of the F.I.R. down to laying the charge sheet as we have already seen through the other witnesses.

On the part of the defence in their arguments they would vehemently contend that (i) the Official act complained of has not been proved and unless there is a nexus between the illegal gratification and the official act, question of gratification does not arise, (ii) the alleged money of Rs. 50/- had been paid by P.W. 1 under pretext that he was effecting the payment of the tax (iii) The defective sanction had been accorded which makes the trial void ab initio according to reported decision (iv) that there was no criminality involved in the acceptance of the M.O.2 series by the appellant since the same had not been obtained by him with a consenting mind, which the prosecution has thoroughly failed to prove.

Like every other criminal case, a case of bribery is subject to the rule that the accused is presumed innocent and that the burden to discharge the said innocence is paramountry on the prosecution. However strong the suspicion against the accused if every reasonable possibility of innocence has not been excluded, he is entitled to acquittal. Whenever circumstances arise, they must be proved and not by themselves presumed. No single item of evidence can be singled out and given prominence nor the accused''s theory of the case can be withdrawn from consideration. What constitutes bribery is a question of law; whether on the evidence, the crime has been committed is a question of fact. If therefore the evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe leaves room for doubt and does not displace the presence of innocence wholly, the charge cannot be said to have been established.

The case of the prosecution if put in a nutshell from the point of view of proof that are necessary in order to arrive at the conclusion whether the prosecution had proved its case to the expectations of law i.e., with proof beyond reasonable doubts so as to justify the conclusion arrived at by the court below to convict the accused, we have to study the case in various angles and in the context of the defence of the accused/appellant before the lower Court. Contrary to the case of the prosecution, the theory of the accused is found as answers in the questioning of the accused/appellant under S. 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein it has been pointed out by the appellant that P.W. 1 requested on 11.3.1985 for the chitta extract to be given for which the appellant had asked him to remit the land tax as a pre-condition for the issue of the chitta extract as a result of which on 25.3.1985 he remitted part of the land tax amount and demanded the chitta extract to be given for which the appellant refused to give stating that unless he remitted the entire amount he would not get it and taking exception for which P.W. 1 went out angrily. The subsequent day that was on 26.3.1985, on receipt of the tax amount that P.W. 1 had paid and at the time that he was filling up the tax receipts in the name of P.W. 1 and his wife and while preparing the C.S.M.B., receipts, P.W. 1 went out saying that he would come in a short while and came back only with the Vigilance Officers and their party and P.W. 1 pointing out the appellant, went out and stood on the road. Further the appellant would contend that P.W. 1''s wife Ellammal was working as a Balasevika and that she was in the habit of stealing articles like rice, dhall nuts etc. and while thus stealing one day the villagers caught her red-handed and entrusted her with him and in turn he reported the matter to the Tahsildar, who, since it was me first time let her with a severe warning and further that P.W. 1 himself wanted to get a certificate to the effect that he was a landless poor, so as to get free dothi and saree from the Government which had been outrightly rejected by the appellant and further even as against P.W. 2 he initiated action since he did not pay Rs. 138/- as difference in stamp duty that was due to the Government and hence P.Ws. 1 and 2 got aggrieved against him and in order to wreak vengeance they have conspired and trapped him with motives.

The appellant would also answer a specific question pertaining to the trap and seizure of M.O.2 series from him wherein He is specific in his answer to the effect that the police officers immediately after coming to him first effected the seizure of M.O.2 series asking him to return the money that was due to the Government paid by P.W. 1 and that he handed over the same with them and then only they asked him to dip his fingers in the Sodium Carbonate Solution. The appellant would also state as an answer to another question that at the time of the search of his house by the police they seized from his house the chitta extracts prepared already infavour of P.W. 1, a cash amount of Rs. 1467/- , one professional tax receipt and two receipts prepared in the name of his wife and the C.S.M.B., receipt prepared in the name of P.W. 1 (out of which Exhibit P3 the Chitta extract, Exhibit P4 the format for obtaining loan, Exhibit P7 the Mahazar prepared in connection with Exhibit P3, have been marked in relation to the documents said to have been seized at the residence of the appellant). It would also be pointed out on the part of the appellant''s counsel that the ingredients of the Section have not been proved; that P.W. 1 would depose quite against what case had been set up based on Exhibit P-1, that P.W. 6 the Investigating Officer would not investigate the material aspects of the case regarding either issue of loans in the Panchayat Union for the purchase of tyre bullock carts to poor agriculturists or would he ascertain whether anyone else had been provided with such loans, but only would formally deny the suggestion that there had been any arrears of land tax to be paid on the part of P.W. 1 and would formally deny that he seized Rs. 1467/- from upon the table of the appellant and taking Rs. 50/- from out of it and that rest of the amount had been returned to the appellant at the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Office. This witness (P.W. 6) would admit that Exhibits Dl and D2 were dated 1.3.1985 and that Exhibit D3 series of tax receipts bearing Nos. 13, 18, 19 and 20 were dated 26.3.1985 in which it has been indicated in Ex. P-6 and further showing the name of P.W. 1 K. Munuswamy and they have been filed along with the counter foil and that there had been entries in P.C. No. 24582, tax receipt dated 26.3.1985 that is Exhibit D4. This witness would also admit Exhibit D5 and D6 which were incomplete in filling up. This witness would deny the suggestion that he did not allow P.W. 1 to complete the same. This witness would not satisfactorily explain his slackness in not effecting the seizure of those documents such as the chitta Adangal Exhibits P-3, and P-4, and would also deny the suggestion that he collected Exhibit P-4 from the printing press at Gingee. This witness would also admit that in Exhibit P-6 Mahazar it had been mentioned only as P.W. 1 had demanded and obtained money and there is no indication whether it had been paid as a bribe money or under other pretext. The counsel for the appellant would also vehemently contend that in C.S.M.B. Register, the Inspector had manipulated me writings besides tearing the relevant pages.

With the above evidence, if the prosecution case has to be analysed it could be summed up that the appellant had demanded and accepted M.O.2 series bribe amount Rs. 50/- from P.W. 1 for the purpose of issuing chitta extract in order to get the loan. As far as the demand theory is concerned, both Ex. P-1 complaint and Ex. P-5 FIR would only reveal that at the first time P.Ws. 1 and 2 approached the appellant at his residence-cum-office in Puthaharam Village for the first time on 25.3.1985 at 8.00 a.m. wherein the appellant is said to have demanded Rs. 50/- as illegal gratification form P.W. 1 for issuing the chitta extract. On the contrary, P.W. 1 would depose to the effect that 3 days prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant himself came to P.W. 1 and informed him of the loan scheme for the purchase of tyre bullock cart and invited him to come and get the chitta extract, and only men P.Ws.1 and 2 approached the appellant on 25.3.1985 at 8.00 a.m. at his residence, which are quite contradictory to each other and the prosecution has not taken any steps to explain me contradictory versions between me vital documents Exhibits P-4 and P- 5 and that of the evidence of P.W. 1. Moreover, if really the appellant had approached P.W. 1 three days prior to the occurrence as deposed by him, the demand should have been made that day itself when the appellant is said to have invited P.W. 1 to come and get the certificate. But no such demand has been admittedly made on that day. Hence it is not only me version that the appellant came to P.W. 1''s place and informed him of the loan provision which is improbable and unbelievable but also the ''demand theory'' itself becomes doubtful.

Coming to the manner in which Exhibit P-1 complaint came into existence in this case, if the evidence is assessed, it would be revealed that on 25.3.1985 immediately after demand by the appellant with P.Ws 1 and 2 they are said to have gone to the office of me Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to lodge the complaint along with M.O.2 series currency notes. It is the further case of the prosecution that after the receipt of Exhibit P-1 complaint from P.W. 1, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were made to stay at the office of the Vigilance & Anti Corruption itself during the night of 25.3.1985 and in the early hours of the next day by 4.00 a.m. on 26.3.1985 P.W. 3 public witness and another T. Rajarajan are stated to have arrived at the office in the presence of P.W. 1 and the entire phenolphthalein test had been held, which are all quite unnatural and unbelievable to occur without any aid or assistance by those who are conversant with the procedures adopted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption officers in a trap case. Moreover, P.W. 1 taking P.W. 2 along with him without any purpose for P.W. 2 to do so, gives way for still more suspicions and leads to think that P.W. 1 would have acted in the said manner on prior instructions imported by the Police Officials concerned and in consultation with them. This comes to be clarified in the evidence of P.W. 2 stating that only since P.W. 1 requested him to come along with him he accompanied him to the appellant''s residence as seen glaringly in his evidence. Top of all, great suspicions arise encircling the coming into being of Exhibit P-1 complaint, since admittedly its birth place is the police station.

In a case of oral complaint getting reduced into writing by the police, one could understand the natural way in which this vital document would have come into being. But on the contrary, in this case, the prosecution version is that P.W. 1 went to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption office at 3.30 p.m. on 25.3.1985 and orally lodged a complaint but it was not accepted nor got reduced into writing as warranted by law. But on the contrary, a different story is being told that as though the police told him that they could not act upon a oral complaint and emphasized to give it as a written complaint, as a result of which P.W. 1 is said to have reduced me same into writing, in the police station itself. Hence it cannot be ruled out that according to the dictates of the police Ex. P-1 came into existence and hence the contents of this vital document has to be viewed with very great suspicion. Unless by other means me version of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 are well established by other evidences based on me documents no conclusion could be arrived at, regarding the facts revealed in these document at this stage of the case.

The only corroborative evidence available in this case is that of P.W. 2 and as I already discussed mere is no reason for P.W. 2 to go along with P.W. 1 at his beck and call and to witness what is stated to have happened at me residence-cum office of the appellant on 25.3.1985 at 8.30 a.m. and men to go back home along with P.W. 1 for getting ready with M.O.2 series money, men again to go to Vigilance and Anti-corruption office by 3.30 p.m., men to remain in at the Vigilance and Anti-corruption office itself the whole night and men to accompany the raiding party till the appellant is said to have been trapped thus doing every thing till me entire process of trap was over. From the attitude of P.W. 2 one could only conclude that he had acted as me stock witness of the prosecution. Hence the demand said to have been made by me appellant which is said to have been witnessed by P.W. 2 alone, he being an interested stock witness, could only be treated as not wholly reliable.

So far as the acceptance of the tainted money contained in M.O.2 series is concerned, it is openly an admitted case on me part of the defence that the appellant accepted the M.O.2 series but attributed me reason that neither he accepted the same as a bribe money nor with the consenting mind. In answer to me question under S.313 of me code of the Criminal Procedure the appellant has stated that even as early as on 11.3.1985 itself P.W. 1 requested the appellant to issue me Chitta extract but since the appellant demanded from him the land tax and CSMB arrears as pre-condition for me issue of the Chitta extract, promising that he would pay the tax amount on 25.3.1985 and paid a part of the arrears of tax amount and demanded chitta extract to be given. But since the appellant emphasised the entire tax to be remitted for me issue of Chitta extract, P.W. 1 became angry and went out with a rough face and that in the name of paying the remaining part of the tax amount, P.W. 1 with the help of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption police had got him trapped and that he received M.O.2 series as the tax arrears legally paid on his part of P.W. 1 and not as bribe amount as falsely dubbed by the prosecution. In consummation of this argument, the appellant had filed certain documents i.e. Exhibits D-1 to D-6 on his part. Exhibits D-1 and D-2 are the tax receipts dated 11.3.1985. The appellant would also attribute motives to P.W. 1 and his wife giving earlier instances, thereby setting out reasons for P.W. 1 to have become aggrieved against him since the appellant acted against his interests in the said instances, which have not been stoutly rebutted on the part of the prosecution with valid and acceptable evidence.

In the circumstances of the case it is highly necessary to discuss on the proposition of law arrived at by different High Courts and me Apex Court. In a case of corruption, especially in a trap case, when the accused on admitting the acceptance of the tainted money, attributes different reasons for having obtained the same from the complaint, it becomes the duty of the accused to discharge the burden by establishing with valid evidence, the reason that is attributed by him for the acceptance of the tainted money. But while discussing as to what should be the standard of proof that could be expected from the accused under such circumstances wherein the accused takes up a plea admitting the acceptance of the tainted money, but comes forward to attribute other reasons for the acceptance of the same. At the initial stage of the development of me Corruption Laws in the country it had been held that since the accused being an individual and left with no investigation machinery no strict standard of proof i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubts could be expected by the courts and it was sufficient if the accused was able to produce evidence to that extent as it was required for the proof of a civil case that is preponderance of probabilities. After certain developments of the Corruptions Laws, the Apex Court still came down and held that under such circumstances wherein the accused is expected to discharge his burden, it would be unreasonable on the part of the courts to expect the accused to prove his version with such standard i.e., required for the proof of a civil case i.e., preponderance of probabilities but in such a situation if the accused is able to offer proper explanation to the satisfaction of the court in a convincing manner, that is sufficient for the courts to hold that the accused has cast off his burden of proof pertaining to the stand taken by him. Then yet another question also got resolved by the Apex Court under such circumstances, in a corruption case wherein the accused fails to offer even the minimum expected explanation to the satisfaction of the court in a convincing manner, whether automatically the accused becomes liable to be punished for the offence charged against him? The Apex Court has held that even in such event wherein the accused fails to discharge that part of the burden cast on him, still, since the accused is presumed innocent at the outset, the initial burden cast on the prosecution regarding the proof of the entire case against the accused with proof beyond reasonable doubts persists and unless the prosecution is able to prove with such standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubts, the accused would still become entitled to be acquitted.

As far as the case in hand is concerned, me appellant has not only, to an extent proved the stand taken by him, through Exhibits D-1 to D-5 but also is offering sufficient and tangible explanation during the questioning under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus discharging his part of the burden regarding the stand taken by him admittedly for the receipt of M.O.2 series currency notes and on the part of the prosecution it should be stated that the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts with such valid and acceptable evidence.

The law as laid down by various Judicial pronouncements requires independent corroboration from other than those belonging to me raiding party which includes the public witness also. The standard of proof and evidence required by law for both demand and acceptance is defined in the decided cases as given hereunder: -

The act being one of the important legislations of Criminal side, all allegations are required to be put to severe test of proof and all evidences led should be examined and weighed very carefully. Thus in a case Ayyasami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, it was observed that to prove demand of bribe, independent evidence is required. Therefore, where there is no independent evidence and the evidence available does not prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, conviction was considered to have been based on probability and was liable to be set aside. Also in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shri Vishnu Prasad Babele,

Same was in a case alleging offence of accepting illegal gratification. Witnesses forming part of raiding party were not found independent and hence it was held that evidence regarding handing over money to accused was not believable and therefore sanction was not sustained in Som Parkash Vs. State of Punjab, Supreme Court). Thus for trap cases under prevention of Corruption Act what has been held in the case Darshan Lal Vs. The Delhi Administration, , Supreme Court) still holds good. It was observed by the Apex Court that in cases under prevention of Corruption Act, there should be independent and trustworthy corroboration of evidence of trap witnesses. In another judgment the same court observed that in cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, evidence of interest and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witnesses. In proper case, court may look for independent corroboration before conviction of the accused person as held in Ram Prakash Arora Vs. State of Punjab,

It is not the duty of the Court to find as to where the complaint against the accused is probable or possible to occur as done in this case by the prosecution but whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, with proper, valid voluminous and overwhelming evidence thus bringing home the guilt of the accused so as to dislodge the presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. Neither the prosecution has put up a strong case in proper manner as warranted by law, nor the same had been properly investigated into nor proved, much less beyond reasonable doubts. The case of the prosecution suffers from infirmities, inconsistencies, laxities and lacunae so as to become unreliable for a conviction to sustain.

In result, the appeal shall stand allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate Cuddalore, in C.C. No. 10 of 1985 dated 27.6.1989 are hereby set aside. The fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.