MADHAVAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused, as appellant, has filed this criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500 and in default two months rigorous imprisonment under Sec.7 and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500 and in default two months rigorous imprisonment under Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as "the Act"), on 27.3.1995 in Special C.C.No. 104 of 1993 on the file of the Special Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode.

(2.) THE Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode has filed the final report against the appellant, Accountant, Madhavakrishnan, the first accused before the trial Court and the Assistant Manager, Kandasamy, the second accused before the trial Court, working in Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited, Erode (herein after referred to as "TAHDCO") stating that both the accused, who are public servants, have demanded and received illegal gratification as motive or reward a sum of Rs. 300 from the complainant Subramaniam to recommend at the earliest stage, a loan of Rs.6,000 out of which Rs.3,000 was paid as subsidy under the Self Employment Scheme, at 11.15 a.m. on 20.3.1992 in their office in the abovesaid Corporation with common intention and thereby committed offences punishable under Secs. 7 and Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act and read with Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act and read with Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act and read with Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act and read with Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act and read with Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act and read with Sec.13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act and read with Sec. 34, I.P.C.

(3.) P.W.3 and Selvin Durai came to the office of P.W.13 at 9.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992. P.W.2 only came to the said office immediately thereafter since P.W.6 had gone to Sathyamangalam to meet P.W.8 Madhesh and others. P.W.8 Madhesh, who had also applied for loan for self employment, was also not inclined to pay Rs.300 for sanction of the loan of Rs. 6,000 including subsidy of Rs.3,000. P.W.2 insisted for action on the complaint Ex.P-2 given by him and handed over the sum of Rs.300, which was handed over to him by P.W. 13 to give the same to the appellant if the appellant demands from P.W.2. The four fifty rupee notes and one hundred rupee note totalling to Rs.300 were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the numbers of the abovesaid notes were also noted in the mahazar Ex.P-4 prepared in the office of P.W. 13 at 10.00 a.m. on 20.3.1992. The abovesaid witnesses attested the abovesaid mahazar again. P.Ws.2 and 3, Selvin Durai, P.W. 13 and his police party went in the jeep bearing registration No.TSJ 4949 owned by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department and P.Ws.2 and 3 were dropped at Teachers" Colony to proceed to the office of TAHDCO. Selvin Durai, P.W. 13 and his police party were watching the office of TAHDCO from East-West Bharathidhasan Street. P.Ws.2 and 3 entered into the abovesaid office at 10.45 a.m. on 20.3.1992 and found the second accused Kandasamy alone, but not the appellant in the office. The second accused, after ascertaining whether the other five applicants had come or not, asked as to whether they had come with what they asked. P.W.2 replied stating that he has brought the money to the extent possible. The second accused asked P.Ws.2 and 3 to wait since the appellant will come to the office within a short while. P.Ws.2 and 3 were waiting outside the office and the appellant came at about 11.00 a.m. to the office. P.Ws.2 and 3 approached the appellant and the appellant asked P.W.2 as to whether he had brought as it was informed to him already. P.W.2 answered in the affirmative. He also ascertained as to whether the other applicants had also come on that date, but P.W.2 replied in the negative. The appellant demanded the money and P.W.2 gave the sum of Rs.300 to the appellant. The appellant received the said money with his right hand. At that time P.W.6, Selvaraj also came there and noticed the receipt of the sum of Rs.300 by the appellant from P.W.2. The second accused informed P.W.2 after handing over the abovesaid sum of Rs. 300 to the appellant that they will take care of the loan proceedings. Thereafter P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 came out of the office by 11.20 a.m. and gave signal to P.W.13 by folding lungi, which P.W.2 was wearing, to the level of his knees. P.W.13 immediately rushed to the scene and asked as to who had received the said sum of Rs. 300. P.Ws.2 and 3 informed P.W.13 that the appellant had received the money and also identified the appellant. Thereafter P.Ws.2 and 6 were asked to go to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption by P.W.13. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 and to the extent of receiving the said sum of Rs.300 by the appellant from P.W.2 by P.W.6.