Decided on January 22,2019

GANESAN Appellant


- (1.) These appeals have been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 14.11.2011 made in SC No.2 of 2001 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tirunelveli.
(2.) The case of the prosecution is that de facto complainant approached the respondent Police and lodged a complaint against A-1 alleging that A-1 demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for the expenditure incurred by him in respect of an enquiry conducted by him in respect of the money transaction between the de facto complainant and one Ayyappan, and based on the complaint FIR was registered.
(3.) Based on the FIR [Ex.P.2], a trap was planned by the Trap Laying Officer- PW.17 (in short as 'TLO'). Two independent witnesses, were summoned by the TLO and the TLO explained about the complaint given by PW.2, to the independent witnesses and conducted a pre trap demonstration proceedings. PW.2 brought Rs.1,000/- (Rs.500 x 1 and Rs.100X5) and the serial number of the currencies were noted down in the entrustment mahazar [ExP.9] prepared by TLO and later coated the currencies with phenolphthalein powder and gave them to PW.2. The TLO instructed PW.2 to go and meet A-1 and if he demanded the money, then only he should give the money to the appellant. PW.3 was also directed to accompany with PW.2 and TLO instructed them to show signal, after accepting the money. Accordingly, on 11.01.2000 about 06.45 pm, the TLO, along with his team and PW.2 to PW.4 to the place of occurrence. The de facto complainant along with PW.3 went to the Police station, there A-1 to A-3 were present. A-2, asked PW. 2 whether he had brought the money, PW.2 replied yes and A-2 asked to give the money and accordingly, PW.2 handed over money to A-2 and out of Rs.1,000/-, A-2 gave Rs.500/- to one Issaki Pandiyan, stating to settle the due to the tea shop and gave the balance Rs.500/- to A-3.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.