GANESAN Vs. K.SANKARALINGAM
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
(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
(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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.