The State By Dy. Superintendent Of ... vs Sri. S. Parthasarathy on 30 June, 2015

[Cites 38, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

The State By Dy. Superintendent Of ... vs Sri. S. Parthasarathy on 30 June, 2015

   IN THE COURT OF THE XXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
  SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
               BANGALORE (CCH.34)

                          PRESENT:

           Sri. Pradeep S.Balikai, B.Com., LL.B., (Spl),
             XXXII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and
                Spl. Judge for C.B.I., cases, Bengaluru.

                 Dated This the 30th June, 2015

                       SPL.CC.NO. 190/2007


COMPLAINANT:           The State by Dy. Superintendent of Police,
                       C.B.I/ACB, Bengaluru.

                       (By Spl.Public Prosecutor, C.B.I.,)

                               V/s

ACCUSED     :          Sri. S. Parthasarathy,
                       S/o. Sri. K.R.Srinivasan,
                       Traffic Superintendent (S.G)
                       Indian Airlines Ltd., (NACIL)
                       R/o. No.104, 17th B Main.
                       HAL II Stage,
                       Benglauru-560 008.

                       (By Sri.Ganesh Kumar.R, Advocate)

                       JUDGEMENT

This is a charge sheet submitted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I/ACB, Bengaluru against the accused alleging that 2 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 accused has committed the offences punishable U/Ss.7 and 13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution are as below:

Accused was said to be working as the Traffic superintendent, Indian Airlines Ltd., (NACIL), and he being a public servant, is said to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- from one Sri. M.Pulakesavan s/o. Varadaiah, Chief Manager, M/s. Venkateswara Cargo Forwarders, Bengaluru for forwarding the Cargo through Indian Airlines flights during the month of September, 2007 and that, in pursuance of such demand, on 10.10.2007 he demanded and accepted Rs. 15,000/- as advance bribe amount at the Control Room of Cargo Section and when accepting this part payment of Rs.15,000/- on 10.10.07 a Trap was laid by the Investigating officer on 10.10.07 itself and the accused was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting the said bribe amount. As such, the prosecution alleges that the accused committed criminal misconduct by abusing his official position and thereby, committed the offences punishable u/ss.7 and 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

3. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer /Dy.Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru has laid the Charge sheet against accused on 28.11.07/5.12.07. In pursuance of the summons issued to the accused, he has entered appearance through his Counsel and the accused has been enlarged on bail. Copies of the Charge Sheet papers were furnished to him as contemplated u/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Investigating Officer has produced the required Sanction Order in Ex.P.28 given u/s. 19(1) (a) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of the accused for the offences levelled issued by P.W.14/Sri. E.A.Vergheese, the then Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Air-India.

5. After hearing the accused, charge was framed and read over to the accused in the language known to him. Accused has denied the Prosecution case in to-to and claimed to be tried for the offences levelled.

6. To prove the offences levelled against the accused, Prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 15 and got 4 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 marked the documents in Ex.P.1 to 29. M.Os.1 to 8 are also marked for the Prosecution side. Thereafter, statement of the accused is recorded on 1.1.13 as provided u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has produced defence evidence of the witnesses as DWs.1 to 5 and has relied on the documents marked in Exs.D.1 to 12.

7. Heard arguments at length.

8. The points that arise for my consideration are as below:

1. Whether Prosecution proves that the Sanction Order in Ex.P.28 issued for the Prosecution of accused is valid and legal one?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being public servant while working as the Traffic superintendent, Indian Airlines (NACIL), Bengaluru, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- from Sri. M.Pulakesavan, the Chief Manager, M/s. Venkateswara Cargo Forwarders, for forwarding the cargo through Indian Airlines flights during the month of September, 2007 and that in pursuance of such demand, on 10.10.07, he demanded and accepted advance bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- at the Control Room of the Cargo Section for doing official favour and was caught red-handed by the Trap Laying Team and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

3. Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the 5 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 same day and place, the accused being the public servant committed criminal misconduct by abusing his official position and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant as part of the bribe of Rs. 30,000/- in order to show official favour and obtained pecuniary advantage and thereby, committed the offences punishable u/s. 13 (2) r/w. u/s. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

4. What order?

9. My answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: As per the final order, for the following, REASONS Point No.1:

10. The Prosecution has produced the Sanction Order in the case in Ex.P.28 issued by P.W.14/Sri. Sri. E.A.Vargheese. The learned Counsel representing the accused states that the Sanctioning Authority without proper application of mind, has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused and as such, the sanction obtained by the Prosecution is not valid and proper one. The Prosecution has produced the Sanction Order in Ex.P.28 and 6 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 has adduced evidence of P.W.14 who was the Sanctioning Authority to issue Ex.P.28 for prosecution of the accused.

11. P.W.14 has deposed in his evidence that he was working as the Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Air India at Chennai during the relevant period. As the Executive Regional Director, he was delegated with the powers of appointing the Officers up to the cadre of Traffic Superintendent and he was also having power to remove such Officers from the post. He was a Disciplinary Authority also. He states that he knows the accused in the case who was then working as a Traffic Superintendent. The CBI had sent certain papers to the Administrative Office which were made available to him. The CBI had requested to accord Sanction to prosecute the accused. After perusing the documents sent by the CBI, on verification of al the papers, having satisfied about the commission of the offences by the accused and having found that it is a fit case where he can accord necessary sanction to prosecute the accused and he being the competent authority to remove the accused from his post at that time, he has issued Sanction Order in the case to prosecute the accused. Ex.P.28 is the Sanction Order. 7

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Ex.P.28(a) is the signature of PW.14. It is also stated by the witness that the CBI had laid a Trap against the accused and it recovered illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- received by the accused as part payment of the bribe amount. Before giving sanction to prosecute the accused he has applied his mind, after carefully going through all the documents and having satisfied that it is a fit case to accord sanction.

12. I have carefully gone through the oral evidence of P.W.14 as well as the Sanction Order produced by the Prosecution in Ex.P.28 to prosecute the accused. To a suggestion put to the witness in his cross-examination stating that he did not peruse any of the documents made available to him before subscribing his signature to Ex.P.28 and issuing the Sanction Order, P.W.14 has firmly denied the suggestion. The witness states that the Administrative delegation of powers entrusted to him itself is the authority vested in him to accord Sanction to prosecute the accused. It is firmly deposed by him that the bunch of papers which were forwarded by the CBI with a request made to him for according the requisite Sanction were perused by him and he also went through 8 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 the Investigation Report made by the Investigating Officer. The suggestion put to P.W.14 stating that he has not gone through the investigation papers properly and without application of mind he accorded Sanction to prosecute the accused for the offences leveled, is firmly denied by him. On analyzing the evidence of P.W.14, there is nothing in the cross-examination of the witness to suggest that this witness either lacked competence or failed to apply his mind to enter satisfaction about the existence of prima facie case for according Sanction for prosecution of the accused. Mere suggestion to the witness stating that without proper application of mind, Sanction Order has been issued and there is no application of mind, are not sufficient and mere suggestions cannot take the place of proof.

13. P.W. 14 has firmly stated in his evidence that on going through the entire papers forwarded to him by the CBI, on application of mind he accorded Sanction to prosecute the accused and he had the power to accord such Sanction for prosecution. When there is such specific evidence regarding the power to accord Sanction by P.W.14, the person who has actually accorded Sanction 9 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 to prosecute the accused, as rightly pointed out by the learned Spl. PP, it is incumbent on the accused who challenges that, to prove that P.W.14 had no power to accord Sanction; if necessary; by calling for the relevant Rules and Documents. In the decision reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 564 (Shivendra Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra), it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is for the party who challenges that the Authority competent to accord sanction but, some other who is competent to grant the Sanction Order to prosecute the accused and not the person who accorded the sanction. The same is the principle laid down in yet another decision reported in Crl.Appl.No.483/96 dt. 23.4.2004 (M.K.Sirajjudin Vs. State). On evaluating the evidence of P.W.14 on record and on going through Ex.P.28, I am of the considered opinion that the Prosecution has ably proved that the Sanction Order obtained through P.W.14 in Ex.P.28 is a valid and legal Sanction Order under law. As such, I hold point No.1 for consideration in the Affirmative.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Point Nos.2 & 3:

14. Both these points being interconnected to each other, in order to avoid repetition of appreciation of evidence adduced before the court, these two points are taken together for consideration.

15. The Prosecution has relied on the Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 15 in order to establish the guilt of accused. P.W.1 is the Complainant, P.W.2 is the shadow witness who has even signed to the Entrustment Mahazar as well as the Recovery Mahazar in Ex.P.2 and 3. P.W.3 is the Trap Laying Officer, P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.14 is the Officer who has given Sanction to prosecute the accused. The rest of the witnesses examined are the employees of the Indian Airlines or the Cargo Sub-agents who have spoken regarding the incident.

16. The complainant/P.W.1 Sri. M.Pulakesavan has stated in his evidence that he is working as the Chief Manager in M/s. Venkateshwara Cargo Forwarders. His cousin Mrs. Bhanumathi is the Proprietrix of the said Concern. As the Chief Manager, he is doing the work of Booking of Cargo, Delivery, Bank work etc. The goods like flowers, vegetables, fabrics are being sent by the Flights 11 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 to the places like Delhi, Calcutta and other places across the Country. They are the Sub-agents for M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Tulsidas Kimji Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. BFMA Cargo Movers. On an average they used to book Cargo of the quantity of 40-45 tones every month. He knows the accused very well who was working as the Cargo Traffic Superintendent, Indian Airlines Bengaluru. Generally they used to send the goods by morning flights to Calcutta and Delhi. The accused used to demand bribe amount of Rs.1.50 per kg for dispatching the Cargo in the morning flights and for evening flights he used to demand bribe of Rs.1.00 per kg. The accused used to decline to forward the Cargo in case they failed to pay the bribe amount as demanded. During the month of August, 2007 he paid an amount of Rs.34,000/- as bribe amount to the accused as demanded. For the goods sent during the month of September, 2007 the accused demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as bribe amount. He was asked to pay Rs.15,000/- on 10.10.07 as part payment and the balance on a later date. As he was not willing to pay the bribe amount as demanded by the accused, he approached the CBI on 9.10.07 and has lodged a written Complaint as per Ex.P.1 with the CBI. His signature on the Complaint is marked as 12 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Ex.P.1(a). The SP, CBI instructed his colleague/P.W.3 Sri. K.Hariom Prakash, PI to examine the contents of the Complaint. The Complainant was told by the CBI officials to come on the next day at 7.30 a.m. and was asked to bring the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- as demanded for the purpose of laying Trap against the accused. Accordingly, he came to the Office of the CBI in the morning as asked on 10.10.07 along with a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Two witnesses by name Mr. Prashanth (P.W.2) and one Mr.Cibi (C.W.4) were present in the Office of the CBI when he reached there. There were other CBI Officers also present there.

17. The PI, K.Hariom Prakash showed the copy of the Complaint to the witnesses/Mr. Prashanth & Sri. Cibi and they went through the contents of the Complaint. The witnesses were convinced about the genuineness of the Complaint regarding the bribe amount demanded by the accused. At the say of the TLO/P.W.3, he produced the Cash of Rs.15,000/- consisting of Rs.500/- notes numbering 30 before the witnesses and the TLO. P.W.3 was instructed to note down the numbers of the notes produced by him and even the denominations of the currency notes. 13

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 The official of the CBI was instructed to prepare Sodium Carbonate Solution and the same was prepared in a glass. Mr. Prashanth/P.W.2 was asked to dip his fingers in the Solution and when the instructions were followed, there was no change in the colour of the Solution. The Complainant states that thereafter, the Currency Notes were treated with Phenolphthalein powder and P.W.2 was asked to count the Currency Notes and after counting the Notes, when he was instructed to dip his right finger in the Solution prepared, the Solution turned pink in colour. The TLO explained the significance of the Chemical Test to him as well as to the witnesses present, including P.W.2.

18. P.W.2 was thereafter instructed by the TLO to keep the Currency Notes brought by him in his right side pant pocket, which was done by him accordingly. Thereafter, all the members of the Trap Laying Team washed their hands and the Solution prepared was destroyed at the instructions of P.W.3. He was instructed by the TLO not to touch the Currency Notes till the Accused demand and accept the money. The witness/P.W.2 was instructed to accompany him to the Office of the accused and to watch the 14 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 transactions. He was instructed by the TLO to give signal by wiping his hair and the other witnesses were asked to stand near the gate in the Office Premises of the accused and to wait for the signal. The complainant speaks about preparing of the Entrustment Mahazar as per Ex.P.2 by the TLO. He identifies his signature marked in Ex.P.2(a). He states that the two witnesses/P.W.2 and Mr. Cibi have subscribed their signatures on Ex.P.2. He states that the details of the Currency Notes, including their numbers and denomination are mentioned in Ex.P.2. The Complainant states that a kit containing the required articles to lay Trap were carried from the Office of the CBI.

19. The complainant has deposed that they reached the Indian Airlines Cargo office at about 10.00 or 10.15 a.m. and the CBI team waited near the gate. Mr. Prashanth followed him to the Cabin. He entered the Cabin and at that time he noticed the accused sitting near the Computer. When the accused asked him whether he brought the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- he told yes and when demanded, he handed over the said amount to the accused. The accused received the amount by his right hand and 15 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 kept it in his left side pant pocket. Thereafter, he came out from the Cabin of the accused and gave pre-arranged signal by wiping his hair. The CBI team rushed to the Cabin of the accused. The TLO/P.W.3 after introducing himself as the PI of CBI, when enquired the accused as to whether he has received the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from the Complainant, the accused told him of having demanded and accepting the bribe amount from the Complainant. He had become nervous at that time. The TLO asked his subordinate to prepare the Sodium Carbonate Solution immediately and when it was prepared, the accused was instructed by the TLO to dip his right hand fingers in the Solution and when the accused dipped his right hand fingers in the Solution, it turned to pink in colour. The said solution was collected in a separate bottle and sealed before the witnesses. A label containing the signatures of the witnesses was affixed to the sealed bottle.

20. The complainant/PW.1 further states that at the instruction of the TLO, a fresh Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared in a separate glass which was colourless. The accused was asked to dip his left hand fingers in the said Solution and when 16 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 the instructions were followed and the accused dipped his left hand fingers in the Solution prepared, the said solution turned pink. Thereafter, the Solution was collected in a separate bottle and was sealed. A label containing the signatures of the witnesses was affixed to the said sealed bottle also. M.O.4 is the bottle containing the left hand wash of the accused. The TLO asked P.W.2 to search the person of accused and when the instructions were followed, Currency Notes were found in the left side pant pocket of the accused. P.W.2 removed the Currency Notes from the pocket and when compared the Currency Notes' numbers and denominations with reference to the details of the Currency Notes and numbers mentioned in Ex.P.2, they were found to be identical. The complainant identifies the Currency Notes amounting to Rs.15,000/- which were recovered form the accused at the time of Trap. They are marked in M.O.1. He states that the Currency Notes were kept in a sealed cover by the TLO before the witnesses at that time. He even identifies the cover sealed by the TLO at that time which was signed by the independent witnesses. The said cover is marked in M.O.2.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

21. The complainant states that the TLO arranged another pant to wear for the accused and he instructed the accused to remove the pant which was of navy blue colour. The complainant/P.W.1 has spoken that a separate Sodium Carbonate Solution was again prepared and the inner portion of the left side pant pocket of the accused was dipped in the said Solution. They found the Solution turned to pink colour. The Solution was collected in separate bottle and was sealed by the TLO before the witnesses and the blue navy colour pant was kept in a separate cover and sealed by the TLO before the witnesses. M.O.5 is the bottle containing Solution of the left hand side pant pocket of the accused. M.O.6 is the navy blue pant worn by the accused at the time of Trap. M.O.7 is the cover containing M.O.6. Complainant states regarding the search conducted of the person of the accused and drawing of a Mahazar in that regard also. He states that Ex.P.3/Recovery Mahazar was also drawn by the TLO before the witnesses. Signature of the complainant is marked in Ex.P.3 (a). Details of the articles seized during the Recovery Mahazar are mentioned in Ex.P.3. The complainant speaks regarding 2 written slips seized from the accused at the time of drawing the Mahazar 18 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 which are marked in Ex.P.4 and 5 which consist of 2 sheets each. Even he speaks regarding signing by the independent witnesses to Ex.P.4 and 5 also.

22. The Complainant speaks regarding the independent witnesses having subscribed their signatures to Ex.P.4 and 5. A small book containing carbon copies of Ex.P.4 and 5 is marked in Ex.P.6. A sheet containing Specimen seals is marked as Ex.P.7. The Airway Bills for the months of August, 2007 and September, 2007 are marked as Ex.P.8 and 9 respectively. It is stated by the Complainant that the independent witnesses have also subscribed their signatures to the Recovery Mahazar in Ex.P.3. He also speaks regarding conducting search in the Cabin of the accused and recovering a car owned by the accused at the time of drawing the Mahazar.

23. P.W.2 has spoken in his evidence that he was working as the Asst. Manager in the Regional Office, National Insurance Company, Bengaluru. At that time one Mr. Cibi was also working in the same Office as the Administrative Officer. On 10.10.07 at about 7.30 a.m. on the instructions of the Regional Manager of their 19 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Company, they went to the CBI office, Bengaluru. P.W.3 was the DSP, CBI, Bengaluru at that time. They met him. Mr. Cibi also accompanied him on that day. The Complainant/P.W.1 was in the CBI Office at that time. He came to know that a written Complaint was lodged with the CBI by P.W.1 which was shown to him. He came to know that the accused who was working in the Cargo Department of the Airport had demanded a bribe of Rs.30,000/- from the Complainant and out of the said amount, the Complainant was asked to give Rs.15,000/- on 10.10.07 as advance bribe amount. On going through the contents of the Complaint, he was satisfied with the genuineness of the statement made in the Complaint. In the CBI office he was given currency Notes of Rs.500/- denomination which were brought by the Complainant and on counting the said Notes he found that the sum was Rs.15,000/-. The CBI officer asked him to dip his fingers in some chemical Solution which was then colourless and when he dipped his fingers in the chemical Solution prepared by the CBI officials, the said Solution turned into pink colour. To Trap the accused while accepting the bribe amount this trial was conducted before him to get himself satisfied.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

24. Thereafter, the bundle of currency Notes of Rs.500/- denomination was returned to the Complainant which was kept in his pocket. The CBI Officer instructed the Complainant to go to the Cargo Section of the Airport along with the money and when demanded by the accused, the Complainant was instructed to give the same to him. The CBI officer also instructed him to be along with the Complainant and watch what all that transpires between the Complainant and the accused. An Entrustment Mahazar was prepared at that time as per Ex.P.2 to which he has signed in Ex.P.2(b). In the Entrustment Mahazar prepared at that time, serial numbers of the currency Notes have been noted and all those persons who were participated while drawing the mahazar, have subscribed their signatures on Ex.P.2. Including him and Mr. Cibi all of them went to the Cargo Division of the Airport in 2 vehicles and when they reached the Cargo Office of the Airport, it was about 10.00 a.m. Inside the Cargo Office, he stood near the Cabin of the accused which had glass panes and which was transparent also. The Complainant went little ahead in the Cabin of the accused and made enquiry with him. When the CBI Officer asked the accused as 21 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 to whether he received bribe money from the Complainant, the accused became panic and shocked. He admitted about receiving money from the Complainant. A chemical Solution was prepared by the CBI personnel and the accused was asked to dip his right hand fingers in that Solution. When the accused dipped his fingers into the Solution, the Solution turned into pink colour. The CBI personnel collected the Solution in a bottle which was sealed thereafter. The said Solution is in M.O.3. Another Solution was prepared by the CBI personnel and the accused was asked to dip his left hand fingers into it and when followed the instructions, the Solution turned into pink colour. That Solution was also collected into another bottle and was sealed and a written slip was affixed to the sealed bottle containing signatures of the witnesses, including him. The said bottle is in M.O.4.

25. The witness has further stated that when he was asked by the CBI Officer to check the pant pockets of the accused and when he did so, he found a bundle of currency Notes of Rs.500/- denomination, in all amounting to Rs.15,000/-. The said amount was found in the left side pant pocket of the accused. When the 22 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 currency Notes were carefully gone through by him, he found the numbers of the currency Notes found in the pant pocket of the accused and the numbers of the Currency Notes as noted in the Seizure mahazar in Ex.P.2 are one and the same and that they were tallying. After arranging for another pant, the accused was asked to remove his pant which was worn by him and it was recovered before the witnesses. The CBI officer prepared a similar chemical Solution again and dipped the inner portion of the left side pant pocket of the accused in the Solution. The chemical Solution which was initially colourless turned to pink colour the moment the inner side of pant pocket was dipped into it. The said Solution was collected in another bottle and was sealed and a label containing the signatures of the witnesses present there, including him was pasted on the bottle. M.O.5 is the Solution which was recovered at that time. The pant which the accused was wearing at the time of incident was also recovered. The navy blue pant of the accused which was seized is marked in M.O.6 and the cover containing M.O.6 is marked in M.O.7. The witness states that he too has subscribed his signature along with other witnesses present there on the material objects seized in M.Os.3 to 7.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

26. P.W.2 has further spoken that the person of the accused was also searched by the CBI Officer and 21 articles found in his possession were also recovered. Arrest cum Personal Search Memo as per Ex.P.10 was prepared by the CBI Officer to which he has signed in Ex.P.10(a). At that time, Mr. Cibi and P.W.3 were present. The Office Premises of the accused was also searched and certain articles which were found in the Office were recovered by the CBI Officer by preparing a Search List as per Ex.P.11. He has signed in Ex.P.11(a). Even a Ford Icon car owned by the accused was recovered by the CBI Officer which was parked near the Office. A Search List as per Ex.P.12 was also conducted to which he has signed in Ex.P.12(a). His colleague Mr. Cibi and the CBI Officers present there signed on Ex.P.11 & 12. P.W.2 has also spoken with regard to he having signed on the written slips marked in Ex.P.4 and 5 at Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.5(a). He states that Ex.P.5 and 6 were recovered from the pant pocket of the accused and in that regard there is a mention in Ex.P.10. He speaks regarding he having subscribed his signature on the Recovery Mahazar in Ex.P.3. His signature on the last page of the document is marked in Ex.P.3(b). 24

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 The witness has further spoken that seal of the CBI which was affixed on the bottles containing chemical Solution was also given to him by the CBI Officer with a direction to keep it with him and to produce the same at the time of trial. He states that the said seal has been produced by him before the Court which is in M.O.8.

27. P.W.3 is the Trap Laying Officer. He has spoken in his evidence that he was working as the Police Inspector, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru during the relevant period. On 9.10.07 the then SP Mr. Narasimha Komar called him to his chamber and introduced the Complainant/P.W.1. The SP marked the Complaint (Ex.P.1) which was submitted to him by P.W.1 and instructed him to verify its genuineness and proceed further in accordance with law. Thereafter, he had a discussion with the Complainant and on verification of the averments made in the written Complaint, he found the genuineness of the Complaint and he came to know that the accused has demanded bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- as stated in the Complaint. He made arrangements for the appearance of the independent witnesses in his Office on 10.10.07 at about 7.30 a.m. The said 2 witnesses were from the National Insurance Company, 25 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Bengaluru. On 10.10.07, he reported to the SP about the genuineness of the Complaint and requested him to register the case. Accordingly, the SP registered a case against the accused in RC 20(A)/2007 ACB/C.B.I., Bengaluru for the offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused. He can identify the signature of the SP, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru and his hand writing also. The FIR which was registered by the SP is marked as Ex.P.13 and the signature of Mr. Narasimha Komar, SP, CBI/ACB on the FIR is marked as Ex.P.13(a). The original FIR was forwarded to the Court immediately.

28. On verification made by him through various sources and on discussion with the Complainant, he found that for booking Cargo and to forward it in the morning flights, the accused was demanding a sum of Rs.1.50 per kg over and above the stipulated rates and for the evening flights he was demanding Rs.1.00 extra per kg over and above the stipulated rate. On 9.10.07 the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as bribe money for the cargo that was forwarded by M/s. Venkateshwara Cargo Forwarders during the month of September, 2007 and a demand was made by the 26 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 accused to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as part payment of the bribe money on 10.10.07. He made a request to his colleague Officers to assist him for investigation in the case and had requested his colleague Officers to assemble in the CBI Office. When they assembled on 10.10.07 in the CBI Office, he made a request to Mr.Cibi/C.W.4 and Mr.B.S.Prashanth/P.W.2 who were present in the Office at that time to assist in the Trap and he introduced the Complainant to all of them. Copy of the Complaint was shown to the independent witnesses and after perusing the said Complaint the independent witnesses were satisfied about the genuineness of the Complaint. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was brought by the Complaint as instructed to him earlier by them. The said amount of 30 currency notes was in the denomination of Rs.500/- each.

29. At his instructions Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared and he instructed P.W.2 to dip his right hand fingers in that glass containing the solution and on his dipping the fingers, there was no change in the colour of the Solution. P.W.3 speaks regarding he asking his CBI Constable to smear Phenolphthalein powder on the Currency Notes which were produced by the 27 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Complainant and after he did so, he asking P.W.2 to count those Currency Notes and on his doing so, he requested him to dip his right hand fingers again in that Solution. He states that when P.W.2 did so, the colour of that Solution was changed immediately to pink colour. He also speaks regarding he explaining the significance of conducting the test to the Complainant as well as the independent witnesses gathered there. P.W.3 states that he asked the Complainant to insert the said amount of Rs.15,000/- into his right side pant pocket and asking him not to touch the Currency Notes again unless demanded by the accused for the payment of bribe money. He speaks regarding he asking P.W.2 to follow the Complainant and to observe him from a close distance what all that transpires between the Complainant and the accused to the extent possible. He also speaks that he instructed the Complainant to give signal by combing his hair with hands immediately after the accused accepts the bribe money.

30. P.W.3 has also spoken regarding the personal searches conducted by the other team members mutually amongst themselves. He states that the articles which were found in their 28 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 individual possession were noted in the Entrustment Mahazar drawn as per Ex.P.2. He states that a Trap Kit containing Sodium Carbonate powder and other stationery was taken to the spot. They went to the spot in two Office cars. The entire proceedings which transpired in the Office of the CBI was reduced into writing as per the Entrustment Mahazar in Ex.P.2 to which he has subscribed his signature in Ex.P.2(c). The Complainant and P.W.2 proceeded towards the Cargo booking Office wherein the accused was in the Cabin and also, he speaks regarding P.W.2 waiting outside the Control Room observing things that were happening inside the Room through the glass panes. He states that the Complainant came out of the Control Room/Cabin and gave pre-arranged signal by combing his hair with his hands after money was given to the accused. He speaks regarding he and the other CBI Officers entering the Control Room and also speaks regarding he, after disclosing his identity and the identity of other team members, questioning the accused regarding what all happened there, including the acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from the Complainant.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

31. P.W.3 states that the accused became nervous and perplexed immediately and states that he admitted about he having received a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the Complainant few minutes ago. P.W.3 further states that the accused told him that the said amount is kept in his left side pant pocket. Immediately he arranged for preparing Sodium Carbonate Solution afresh and asked the accused to dip and wash his right hand fingers into that Solution. When he did so, the Solution turned into light pink colour. The same was collected in a clean bottle and was sealed. The said bottle was identified by the TLO in M.O.3. Again he asked his staff to prepare fresh Sodium Carbonate Solution and subsequently, he instructed the accused to dip his left hand fingers into that solution and when he did so, the Solution turned to pink colour. The said Solution was also collected in a bottle and was sealed. The same is in M.O.4. When he asked P.W.2 to conduct the personal search of the accused and when he did so, P.W.2 found a bundle of Currency Notes in his left side pant pocket. The same was counted before the independent witnesses and also verified the serial numbers of the Notes found in the pocket of the accused. The denominations of the 30 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Notes and the serial numbers were one and the same as mentioned in the Entrustment Mahazar/Ex.P.2.

32. The amount found in the person of the accused was recovered by drawing Mahazar which was signed by the independent witnesses including him. The said amount was kept in a separate cover and was sealed. A spare pant was arranged for the accused and the navy blue pant worn by the accused was seized under the Mahazar. M.O.6 is the navy blue pant worn by the accused at the time of incident. At his instructions, a fresh Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared and the inner portion of the left side pant was dipped into the Solution which turned into pink colour. That Solution was again collected in a separate bottle and was sealed before the witnesses. M.O.5 is the bottle containing the Solution of left side pant pocket of the accused. The cover in which the pant was kept is marked in M.O.7. P.W.3 states that he arrested the accused and he conducted his personal search. Ex.P.10 is the Arrest cum Personal Search Memo. The grounds of arrest were informed to the wife of the accused and the Manager (Commercial) where the accused was serving. The premises of the Office of the 31 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 accused was also searched. A Search List as per Ex.P.11 was prepared. It was found that the accused owns a Ford Company car and in the said car 5 articles were seized under the Search List in Ex.P.12.

33. P.W.3/ the Trap Laying Officer speaks that out of 21 items which were seized from the person of the accused under Ex.P.10, two items were the Slips wherein details regarding the Cargo forwarded for transporting through flights of the Indian Airlines and were for the months of August and September, 2007. He identifies that Ex.P.4 and 5 are the said Slips. He states that Ex.P.7 is the sheet containing the specimen Seal of the CBI. P.W.3 also speaks regarding conducting search of the residence of the accused after informing his higher officers. The search of the residence of the parents of the accused was also conducted after intimating the SP. Ex.P.14 and 15 are the recording made u/s.165 (1) of Cr.P.C., in this regard. P.W.3 also speaks regarding conducting searches in the residence of Mr. Rajkumar (P.W.7)/ the Secretary of the Air Corporation Employees Union (Southern Region) for which, the accused was the Chairman. He states that the Brass Seal used for 32 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 seizing the material objects produced in the case was handed over to P.W.2 with instruction to produce before the Court when summoned. He states that M.O.8 is the Brass Seal of the CBI. The Acknowledgement given by P.W.2 is in Ex.P.18. P.W.3 has also spoken regarding he producing the accused before the Court on 11.10.07 with Remand Application. He identifies that the Currency Notes of Rs.500/- denomination which were recovered under the Recovery Mahazar before the witnesses are in M.O.1. He states that the said amount was kept in a cover marked in M.O.2. P.W.3 has also spoken of he having subscribed his signatures on the Mahazars drawn, documents seized under the Search List and the Material Objects seized in the case. He also speaks regarding the independent witnesses having signed on those documents and the material objects. He states that further investigation in the case was handed over to Mr. Giri, Dy.SP, CBI/ACB, (P.W.9) as per the orders of the SP.

34. P.W.4 has stated in his evidence that he is the Manager of M/s. Pawan Air Freight. They are the authorised Cargo agents forwarding consignments which include perishable goods, garments, 33 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 documents, pharmaceuticals etc. He has been enquired by the CBI in this case. He knows the accused also. He is well acquainted with the signature of the proprietor of M/s. Pawan Air Freight - Mr. K.S.Balaji. The Cheque in Ex.P.19 belongs to their Concern which is signed by Mr. Balaji in Ex.P.19(a). He has spoken that this Cheque was handed over to the accused. The Cheque was not filled at the request made by Smt. Chandra Parthasarathi. He is treated as hostile by the Prosecution. Even though, he is cross-examined at length after treating the witness as hostile, nothing worth has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness.

35. P.W.5 is the Manager of M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. They prepare Invoices for the cargo to be forwarded. A certain percentage will be given as commission to their Agents. He states that M/s. Venkateshwara Cargo Forwarders is their Agent and the Complainant in the case (P.W.1) is the Proprietor of M/s. Venkateshwara Cargo Forwarders. He too has been enquired by the C.B.I. His statement is recorded by them. The four Tax Invoices marked in Ex.P.20 to 23 are handed over to the CBI at their direction. At the instance of the CBI, he has produced the same. 34

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

36. P.W.6 states that he is a Sales Executive in Canara Sales Corporation, J C Road, Bengaluru and one Mr. L.V.Kudva was the CMD of the said Company. He is enquired by the CBI. The Cheque bearing No.972461 Dt.25.7.07, is marked through this witness as Ex.P.24. The witness states the Cheque has been signed by the CMD/Mr. Kudva. He states that the Cheque was issued to the accused.

37. P.W.7 has stated in his evidence that he is the Manager of M/s. Tulsidas Kimji Pvt. Ltd., and he has been working in the Branch Office at Bengaluru since 23 years. P.W.1 is the owner of M/s. Venkateshwara Cargo Forwarders and he is their sub-agent. He knows the Complainant personally as he used to visit their Office and was transacting with him. They were giving some percentage as Commission for the Cargo forwarded through flights. He too has been examined by the CBI in the case.

38. P.W.8 has spoken in his evidence that he is the retired Traffic Superintendent, Indian Airlines, Chennai. In the year 2007, he was the Secretary of the Air Corporation Employees Union at 35 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Chennai which is the Regional Head Quarters covering all the Southern Region Stations of the Indian Airlines except Hyderabad. He knows the accused well. He was holding the post of Regional Chairman of the Union. The witness states that on 10.10.07 the accused was Trapped by the CBI for accepting illegal gratification. His house was also searched at Chennai by the CBI officials. He has never asked the accused to collect money as illegal gratification at the time of accepting Cargo for their shipment in the Airways. The Regional Office of the Union maintains Accounts and as the Secretary of the Union, it was his responsibility to maintain the Accounts. For the purpose of publishing Annual Souvenir at the time of Union Day Celebrations they invite the interested parties to publish their products as advertisement for general circulation and for the said purpose, even they distribute pamphlets. They maintain Accounts in this regard.

39. P.W.10 Speaks that he was working as the Manager, Cargo at Indian Airlines, Air-Cargo complex during the year 2007 till his retirement. He had other Offices and officials also working under him in the said Unit. He knows the accused in the case. He was 36 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 one of the Traffic Superintendent in the Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru Airport. On 10.10.07 when he was on duty, the CBI officials met him and informed that they have to arrest the accused in the case in connection with illegal gratification received by him from the Complainant in the case. At that time, accused was working under him. When he was on duty on 10.10.07, he noticed the accused in the Cabin and on enquiry with Mr. Babu and Mr. Maruthi Rao and also the accused, he came to know what all happened on that day from morning hours till then. Through the CBI Officers he came to know that since the accused had received Rs.15,000/- from the Complainant in the case, they want to arrest him. He states that the Complainant in the case is one of the Sub- agents of a Cargo Agent. He speaks regarding he being enquired by the CBI authorities in respect of the case.

40. P.W.11 is the Dy. Manager (Security), Air India, Bengaluru. He speaks that he was working as the Dy. Manager (Vigilance) during the relevant time. His duty was to co-ordinate Executives of various Units of Indian Airlines and also liaison with the Law Enforcing Agencies. Duties of the Asst. Traffic 37 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Superintendents and Superintendents in the Cargo section was to accept the cargoes, deliver cargoes and ensure proper revenue to the Indian Airlines. During relevant time, the accused was working as a Senior Traffic Superintendent and he was on duty in the morning shift on 10.10.07. On 10.10.07, the CBI officials came to the Office and carried out some official work and he was informed that the accused had received a bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from one Mr. Pulakesavan (Complainant) who was a Cargo sub-agent and the said amount was received as illegal gratification in connection with transshipment of cargoes. He was also informed that 13 bottles of IMFL Liquor was recovered from the chambers of the accused and the said liquor was handed over to him for further action. He was also informed by the CBI officials that they have arrested the accused and informed him that the same has been communicated to the Head Office i.e., Cargo Manager/P.W.10. The witness also speaks that the Complainant in the case is a Cargo Sub- agent and he has seen him in the Cargo section during his working hours. The witness also states regarding he being enquired by the CBI and they recording his statement in this connection. 38

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

41. P.W.12 is the Manager (Personal) working with the Indian Airlines Ltd., Bengaluru. He knows the accused very well. The witness speaks that the accused was a senior Traffic Superintendent in the Cargo section of the Indian Airlines at the relevant time when the incident took place. He was enquired by the CBI authorities. The details of the accused as maintained in the Section of the Office were handed over by him to the CBI. The xerox copy of the Letter duly certified by him along with two attested documents showing Cargo section staff were handed over to the CBI. All these 3 documents together have been marked as Ex.P.29.

42. P.W.13 states that she was working as a Senior Traffic Superintendent in the Cargo Section during the relevant period. She too was entrusted with the work of booking Cargoes, delivery of parcels, dispatch of Cargo etc. She knows the accused in the case. There was also a senior Traffic Suptd., working with her at that time and he was working in the next room attached to her Room. On 10.10.07 at about 11.00 am., some CBI Officer came into her Room where she was working. The accused in the case had come to the Room where she was working in order to keep some files in the 39 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Locker on that day. Mr. Shankar Narayan, one of her colleagues was also in the Room where she was working then. The CBI Officer asked Mr. Shankar Narayan as to whether he is Mr. Parthasarathi (accused) and Mr. Shankar Narayan pointed towards the accused, showing him to the CBI Officer. The CBI Officer asked the accused as to whether he received any money and at that time, the accused told that he did receive Rs.15,000/-. At that time, the accused was tensed. She was then asked about the sequence of events that took place on that day. She states that the CBI Officer has recorded her statement in the case.

43. P.W.15 has stated in his evidence that he was working as the Senior Traffic Superintendent in the Commercial Department of the Indian Air lines at that time. He knows the accused very well. He knows Smt. Prabhavati (P.W.13) and the accused in the case. On 10.10.07 when himself and the accused and P.W.13 were there in the Office Cabin, the CBI officials came and when enquired about the accused, she showed the accused who was sitting in the Cabin to the CBI Officer. Even he noticed the CBI officials preparing some solution, sprinkling some powder in it and asking the accused to dip 40 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 his fingers in the Solution. He also saw the Solution prepared by the CBI official turning into light pink colour on his dipping fingers in the Solution. He observed all these simultaneously while attempting to collect Bay no. of the flight which was scheduled to land on that day. He also came to know that some amount has been recovered from the accused by the CBI Officer. It is stated by the witness that his statement has been recorded by the CBI in the case.

44. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer in the case. He has stated in his evidence that he has worked under the then SP Mr. Narasimha Komar, CBI/ACB, Bengaluru who had registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.RC-20(A)/2007. He can identify his signature and hand writing. He states that Ex.P.13 is the FIR and the SP has signed in Ex.P.13(a). In this case, a Complaint was lodged by the Complaint as per Ex.P.1 and on the direction of the SP he took further investigation in the case on 12.10.07 from P.W.3. He went through the Investigation Papers and the investigation carried out so far by P.W.3. The material objects seized in the case by P.W.3 collected in separate bottles and the trouser wash collect in separate bottle of the accused were sent to Chemical Examiner, 41 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Bengaluru for his opinion. On 20.10.07 he recorded the Statement of P.W.3 and on 23.10.07 he recorded the statement of Sri. Cibi. On 24.10.07 he recorded the statement of P.W.15. On 2.11.07 he recorded the statement of P.W.11 and on 3.11.07 he recorded the further statement of Complainant. On 22.11.07 he recorded the statement of P.W.1. The Sanction Order to prosecute the accused was received from the competent Authority which was included in the investigation papers. A questionnaire was prepared as per Ex.P.27 by him. The original Letter addressed by the CBI to the Superintendent of Chemical Examiner is in Ex.P.26. The Report of the Chemical Examiner received by the Investigating Officer is in Ex.P.25. Through P.W.9 the Sanction Order to Prosecute the accused issued by the competent Authority Dt.22.11.07 is got marked in Ex.P.28. The Investigating Officer states that as there were sufficient materials to prosecute the accused for the offences levelled, Charge Sheet was filed against the accused by him on 27.11.07.

45. Based on the written Complainant as per Ex.P.1 filed by P.W.1/M.Pulakesavan, the Chief Manager, M/s. Venkateshwara 42 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Cargo Forwarders, Bengaluru against accused, FIR was registered by the CBI as per Ex.P.13. It is alleged in the Complaint that the accused being a Traffic Superintendent (SG) Indian Airlines, Bengaluru, had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- from the Complainant for forwarding the Cargo through Indian Airlines flights during the month of September, 2007. P.W.1 deposes that after he lodged Complaint with the SP, the SP instructed P.W.3 to examine the veracity of the Complaint. Thereafter, he was asked to come to the Office of the CBI on the next day i.e., on 10.10.07 at 7.30 in the morning along with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of laying Trap against the accused. It has come in the evidence of P.W.1 that when he came to the Office of the CBI on 10.10.07 along with cash, P.W.1/ the TLO had already arranged for the independent witnesses before whom he was asked to produce the amount. Further, the TLO detailed about conducting of the demonstration of Phenolphthalein Powder test and also noted down the denomination of the Notes he had brought and also the serial numbers of the Currency Notes in the Entrustment Mahazar prepared as per Ex.P.2 on that day.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

46. P.W.1 speaks that as per the instructions of the TLO, P.W.2 kept the Currency Notes in his right side pant pocket and thereafter, all of them washed their hands. He has stated in his evidence that he was instructed not to touch the bribe amount unless and until demanded by the accused. It has also come in the evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.2/Prashanth was instructed by the CBI Officer to accompany him to observe the transactions that would likely to take place between him and the accused. Even he was instructed to give signal by wiping his hair immediately after the accused demands and accepts the bribe amount. The TLO asked the other Trap Team members to take proper positions near the Office Premises of the accused and to wait for the signal. It has also come in the evidence of Prosecution that the Trap Team reached the Indian Airlines Cargo Office along with necessary equipments at about 10.00 a.m. As planned earlier, the Trap Team followed the Complainant to the Cabin of the accused. It has come in the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 that when the Complainant entered the Cabin of the accused, P.W.2 was watching from outside through the Glass Panes. P.Ws.1 & 3 have firmly stated in their evidence that when the accused asked P.W.1 whether he has brought 44 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Rs.15,000/- as demanded by him, the Complainant answered in the affirmative and handed over the said cash to the accused who received the same with his right hand and kept in his left side pant pocket. The Complainant speaks that thereafter, he came out from the Cabin and gave pre-arranged signal as instructed and on noticing the same, the Trap Team rushed into the Cabin of the accused. After TLO introduced himself the accused was asked whether he received money from the Complainant. The witnesses examined here by the Prosecution have stated that the accused became nervous thereafter and subsequently, he stated regarding he accepting the amount of Rs.15,000/- from the Complainant. However, he clarified that the said amount is not illegal gratification but, the amount was received by him towards publication of advertisement in the Souvenir.

47. The Prosecution witnesses have also stated clearly in their evidence that Phenolphthalein Powder test was conducted thereafter by the TLO which gave positive results with respect to the right and left hand wash of the accused. When the shadow witness/P.W.2 was asked to search the person of accused and P.W.2 did so, he 45 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 found a bundle of Rs.500/- denomination Currency Notes, in all amounting to Rs.15,000/- in the left side pant pocket of the accused, which were taken out and compared with the denominations and numbers with the one already noted in the Entrustment Mahazar/Ex.P.2. The same found tallied. Then the pant wash was also taken which also gave the positive result. The Prosecution has got marked the Currency Notes of Rs.15,000/- in M.O.1, right hand wash of accused in M.O.3, left hand wash of accused in M.O.4 and left side pant pocket wash of accused in M.O.5. It has also come in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses that all the incidents that took place after reaching the Trap spot were reduced in writing in Ex.P.3 Mahazar. The written Slips handed over to the accused by P.W.1 containing the details of Cargo forwarded during the month of September, 2007 and calculation of the bribe amount payable to the accused was also recovered from the accused. These Slips (in 2 sheets) are marked in Ex.P.4 & 5. Ex.P.4(a) & 5(a) are the signatures of the shadow witness/P.W.2. Small Book containing carbon copies of Ex.P.4 & 5 is marked in Ex.P.6. Ex.P.6(a) and (b) are the copies of Ex.P.4 & 5 respectively. Airway Bills for the month of August, 2007 (total 112 sheets) and for 46 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 the month of September 2007 (total 100 sheets) are marked in Ex.P.8 and 9 respectively.

48. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 a suggestion put to him by the defence stating that he had not carried the amount of Rs.15,000/- cash to the CBI Office but, the said amount was supplied by the CBI Officer only is firmly denied by the Complainant. Another suggestion put at page-22, in the cross-examination of P.W.1 stating that the shadow witness/Mr. B.S.Prashanth was near the gate of the Indian Airlines Cargo Office is denied by him. It is firmly stated by the Complainant that when he went inside the Cabin where the accused was working, P.W.2 had stood out side the Cabin and through the Glass Door, he was watching what all that transpires there. The Complainant has spoken that at the time of the incident, the Indian Airline Duty Officers by name Sri. Maruthi Rao, Sri. A Babu, Sri. Chales Vedanayagam (P.W.10) were all present in that Cabin. The evidence of P.W.10 if gone through, fortifies that he too was present when the CBI had laid Trap. To a suggestion put to the Complainant, at page 22 of his evidence stating that the Complainant on his own went inside the Control 47 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Room i.e., the Chamber of the accused and voluntarily paid Rs.15,000/- to him to publish the advertisement of their Concern in the Souvenir proposed to be released by the Air Corporation Employees Union, Delhi is denied.

49. To another suggestion put in the cross-examination of P.W.1, at page 23, stating that the two Slips in Ex.P.4 & 5 pertaining to the Cargo sent during the month of September, 2007 were kept in the midst of the amount of Rs.15,000/- (in M.O.1) and was handed over to the accused is also firmly denied. To another suggestion, at page 23 of the cross-examination of P.W.1 saying that the accused collected the cash from him the moment it was given and kept in his left side pant pocket is answered to be true. Another suggestion put to the witness/P.W.1, at page-27 of his evidence stating that listening to the words of Sri. Sundaram (P.W.11) that he has lodged a false complaint to the CBI has been denied by the witness. The suggestion stating that the Trap was laid by the CBI at the instigation of Sri. Sundaram/P.W.11 and another person by name Sri. Rajagopal, a resident of Chennai, witness states that it is not so. It is firmly stated, at page 30 of the 48 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 evidence of P.W.1 that on 9.10.07, accused had demanded him to pay the bribe amount in respect of the Cargo dispatched during the month of September,2007. In para-31 of the evidence of P.W.1, the suggestion put to the witness saying that Ex.P.4 & 5 have been concocted by the Complainant and Sri. Sundaram with the assistance of the CBI has been firmly denied.

50. The shadow witness/P.W.2 has firmly stated that when he was standing near the Cabin which had Glass Panes that was transparent, the accused came near the Complainant who was inside his Cabin and he found both of them talking with each other. He was able to see through the Glass Panes which were transparent. It is firmly stated by P.W.2 that he saw the Complainant handing over cash of Rs.15,000/- to the accused but, he could not listen what they were talking. P.W.2 states that the accused received the amount given by the Complainant and put the amount in his left side pant pocket. P.W.2 has spoken that thereafter, the Trap Team arrived at the scene and recovered the amount and has also spoken with regard to hand wash taken of the left and right hand fingers of the accused at the instructions of the CBI Officer and recovery of 49 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 the tainted amount. P.W.2 has also spoken with regard to the inner portion wash of the trouser of the accused that was worn by him at the time of the incident and recovery of the trouser by conducting Seizure Mahazar. Even P.W.2 identifies the amount which is in M.O.1 produced by the Prosecution. To a suggestion put to P.W.2, at page 14 of his evidence stating that the recovered amount was supplied to the Complainant by the CBI he denies the said suggestion. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, in para-6, at page 15, it is not elicited that from the place where he was standing on that day, he could not have observed anything what was happening inside the Cabin of the accused.

51. The rough sketch of the Cabin of the accused which was prepared by the CBI is got marked in Ex.D.1. In the evidence of P.W.2, at page 15, it is elicited that Ex.D.1(a) is the place of standing of P.W.2, Ex.D.1(b) is the place of standing of the accused and Ex.D.1(c) is the place of standing of the Complainant. To a suggestion to the witness, at page-15, he has stated that from the place where P.W.2 was standing (Ex.D.1(a)), he could not had the opportunity to see where the accused was standing (Ex.D.1(b)) and 50 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 the Complainant was standing (Ex.D.1(c)). The learned Counsel for the accused states that accused is the Chairman of Air Corporation Employees Union and was a Member of the 'Souvenir Committee' and the money of Rs.15,000/- paid by the accused on 10.10.07 is for the purpose of publishing his advertisement in the Souvenir and at no stretch of imagination, it is illegal gratification demanded and accepted by the accused. My attention is drawn by the Counsel for the accused to the evidence of P.W.2, at page Nos.8 to 10 of his evidence, evidence of P.W.8, P.W.11 and also to the evidence of defence side produced by DWs 1 to 5 in support of this version of the accused. My attention is even drawn to the document marked in Ex.D.11 on behalf of the accused.

52. It is relevant to note here Sec.4 and Sec.114 illustration No.(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Expressions 'may presume' 'shall presume' are defined in Sec.4 of the Evidence Act. The presumptions failing under the former category are compendiously known as 'factual presumptions' or 'discretionary presumptions' and those falling under the later as 'legal presumptions' or 'compulsory presumptions'. When the expression 'shall be presumed' is 51 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 employed in Sec.4(1) of the Act, it must have the same proof of conclusion. The condition for drawing a legal presumption u/s.4 of the Indian Evidence Act is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through only direct evidence.

53. The learned Spl.PP has placed reliance on the decision reported in (2004) 9 SCC 319 (State of A.P. Vs. V.Vasudeva Rao). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below in the said decision.

"Criminal Appeal No.208 of 1997, decided on November 13, 2003 prevention of Corruption Act, 1987 - ss.4(1), 5(2) r/w S.5(1)(d) - Penal Code, 1860 - S.161 - Evidence Act, 1872

- S.114 III.(a) - Presumption Under S.4(1) -"Held- is a legal or compulsory presumption -Manner of proving that the condition precedent for drawing such presumption is satisfied -Held, can be proved by factual presumption and not necessarily by direct evidence - On facts, reliable materials brought on record by Prosecution to prove the recovery of money from the accused - Plea of accused that the said money was received towards the repayment of loan advanced to Complainant by him, not found credible - Presumptions under S.114 III (a), Evidence Act & Sec.4, PC Act, held, applicable - Conviction by trial Court restored - Evidence Act, 1872 Ss.4 and 114 III.(a)."

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 The learned Spl.PP has drawn my attention to the illustration

(a) to Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act and states that the Court may presume that, a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.

54. In the case on hand also the presumption (a) to Sec.114 of Indian Evidence can be used as the Prosecution has brought reliable materials by examining the Complainant whose evidence is well corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2-the shadow witness and also corroborated with the evidence of the TLO with respect to the recovery of money of Rs.15,000/- from the accused. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned Spl.PP this aspect has been successfully proved by the Prosecution by factual presumptions. Ex.D.11 is the Souvenir Order Form. As could be seen, there was no impediment for the accused to give a Receipt immediately for receipt of Rs.15,000/- in case he had received the tainted money recovered here, for Publication of the advertisement from the Complainant as contended by him. As could be seen, the Proforma in Ex.D.11 includes the Receipt to be passed by the concerned which 53 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 is part of Order Form. In these circumstances, the contention of the accused that Rs.15,000/- was accepted by him towards Union activities is not believable, in my considered view.

55. On behalf of the accused, it is also contended that another witness to the Recovery Mahazar who had accompanied with P.W.2/Mr.Cibi has not been examined by the Prosecution for the best reasons known to it. Non-examination of this witness certainly creates suspicion in the Prosecution case according to the accused. Per contra, the learned Spl. PP strongly contends that conviction can be recorded based even on the testimony of the Police witness and in support of this, he has placed reliance on the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589 (Girija Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of M.P.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as below:

"(C). Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Police witness - Not always to be disbelieved- Presumption of honest behaviour applies equally to police officials -

Conviction can be based on testimony of police official.

It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a Court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of complainant or a Police official but it is not the law that Police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every 54 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of Police officials merely because they belong to Police force. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence. (para-24)"

Same is the principle laid down by the Ho'nble Supreme Court in the decisions reported in AIR 1974 SC 1024 (Gian Singh Vs. State Punjab) and AIR 1980 SC 873 (Hazari Lal Vs. The State (Delhi Admn). In the case of Gian Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Police officials cannot be discredited in a Trap case merely because they are police Officials, nor can other witnesses be rejected because on some other occasion they have been witnesses for the Prosecution in the past. Basically the Court has to view the evidence in the light of the probabilities and the intrinsic credibility of those who testify. In the case of Hazari Lal, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the evidence of Police Officer who laid Trap is found entirely trustworthy, there is no need to seek any corroboration. In the instant case also, on analyzing the evidence of entire Prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of the Complainant, the shadow witness and the TLO, they found trustworthy and reliable, in my view.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

56. Here, the Traffic Superintendent (SG)/Delinquent Official (accused) has been caught red-handed in the Trap laid by the Trap Officer. The Complainant's evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Trap Officer. It has come in the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.30,000/- for forwarding the Cargo through Indian Airlines flights and received the advance bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- on 10.10.07. There is no animosity elicited in the evidence of either the Complainant or the shadow witness so as to grind axe against the accused. As held in the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 1474 (State of UP Vs. Zakaullah), even the evidence of the Trap Officer can be relied on even without corroboration. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, at page 23, 8th line onwards it is elicited that the moment the accused collected the cash form the witness, he kept the money in his left side pant pocket. P.W.2 has corroborated the version of the Complainant that he was present in the CBI office on 10.10.07 and watched the entire proceedings standing near the Cabin of the accused. The TLO has stated in para-8, on page-6 of his evidence that the complainant had told him that the accused will not accept the amount if paid, if it is in 56 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 the presence of a stranger. Hence, the shadow witness/PW.2 was instructed to follow the complainant and to observe from a close distance what all that transpires between the complainant and the accused to the extent possible and also over hear the conversation that may take place between them. The shadow witness has spoken about the demonstration of Phenolphthalein test, noting down the denominations and serial nos. of the proposed bribe Currency Notes in the Mahazar, drawing of the Entrustment Mahazar in Ex.P.2, then going to the spot of Trap and catching hold of the accused after receiving the tainted money, conducting test of hand wash, inner side pant pocket wash which resulted in turning the colour of the Solution into pink colour and thereafter, recovery of money and drawing of the Mahazar in Ex.P.3. In these circumstances, reading of his deposition makes it quite clear that there is absolute verbatim corroboration of the facts narrated by P.W.1 in his evidence.

57. At page 21 of the evidence of P.W.3/the TLO (in para-24), a suggestion put to him stating that the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- mentioned in the Entrustment Mahazar/Ex.P.2 was 57 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 supplied to the Complainant by the C.B.I. is firmly denied. At page 20 of the evidence of the TLO, another suggestion put to him (in para-22) stating that P.W.2 is the Stock witness of the CBI chosen by the TLO is also firmly denied. On careful evaluation of the evidence of TLO, I don't find any reasons to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of the TLO produced before the Court is reliable and trustworthy, in my view. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused states that the Prosecution has not examined the Proprietrix of M/s. Venkateshwara Cargo Forwarders, Smt. Bhanumathi. The Trap team did not arrange for an 'Audio Recorder' to record the conversation that took place on that day between the accused and the Complainant and likewise, no Telephone conversation between the accused and the Complainant was also sought to be recorded and the transcript produced before the Court. However, these minor infirmities or lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer do not shake the basic version of the Prosecution case, in my considered view. In the decisions (i) Crl.Apl.No.31/2013 Dt.7.1.13 (SC) (Hema Vs. State) (ii) Crl.Apl.No.1591/07 Dt.31.7.12 (SC) (K.Mondal Vs. State of W.B) (iii) Crl.Apl.No. 941/03 Dt.10.3.04 (SC) (Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & ots Vs. State of Punjab) & (iv) 58 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 1118/04 Dt.4.7.13 (SC) (G.Singh Vs. State of M.P.) relied on by the learned Spl.PP, it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that defective investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal.

58. It is also contended on behalf of the accused that there was no work pending of the Complainant with the accused and in the circumstances, question of accepting the money seized here will not arise at all. Further, for transportation of Cargo in the month of September, 2007, bribe is alleged to have been paid on 10.10.07 which is also not believable. The goods were not only transported but, were consumed already and there was no occasion or motive for the Complainant to reach out the accused for his work which got over a month ago. However, the learned Spl.PP states that question of pendency of work with the accused is not important here. He has placed reliance on the decision reported in (2004) 12 SCC 29 (State of WB Vs. Kailash Chandra Pandey ) wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that when the Bills in question had already been released prior to the alleged tender of the money, on facts it is held that from the chain of circumstances, the Prosecution story stood fully substantiated. Here also, from the chain of 59 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 circumstances produced before the Court, I am of the view that the Prosecution has substantiated its case by producing convincing and reliable evidence.

59. The learned Counsel for the accused states that C.W.4/Mr. Cibi- another Trap witness has not been examined and his non- examination here in the Trap case creates strong suspicion. The learned Spl. PP states that Prosecution is required to lay before the Court all material evidence available to it which is necessary for unfolding its case; but it would be unsound to lay down as a general rule that every witness must be examined even though his evidence may not be very material. On this point, he has has placed reliance on the decisions reported in (i) 2001 Crl.L.J.511 (Hukam Singh & others Vs. state of Rajasthan), (ii) AIR 1974 SC 902 (BH Hamsa & others Vs. state of Kerala) and (iii) 1993 Crl.L.J. 3517 (Pirthi s/o Mangal Vs. State of Haryana). In these cases, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts is similar in general wherein it is held that the material witnesses considered necessary for unfolding the Prosecution story alone can be produced. The Prosecution is not bound to produce all the witnesses cited to its case as the witnesses who have seen the occurrence.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

60. In the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, it has come that when the Trap was laid, on giving signal by the Complainant and when the CBI team rushed to the Cabin of the accused and recovered the tainted money on his questioning and seizing of money from his trouser, the accused became nervous. In fact P.W.2/ the shadow witness has firmly stated, at page 4 of his evidence, that when the CBI Officer asked him as to whether the Complainant gave money to him, the accused became panic and was shocked. P.W.13/a colleague of the accused states in her evidence, at page 2, that when the CBI Officer asked the accused whether he received Rs.15,000/- the accused was tensed. The TLO/P.W.3 has stated that the accused after the incident had became nervous and perplexed. The learned PP states that the conduct of the accused is also required to be seen here which is not natural one and which suggests indication towards guilt. Reliance is placed by the Prosecution on the decisions reported in (i) AIR 1979 SC 400 (Prakash Chand Vs. State) (Delhi Administration) (ii) AIR 1976 SC 449 Maha Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (iii) AIR 1958 SC 61 (The State of Madras Vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer) and (iv) (2004) 9 SCC 319 (State of AP Vs. V.Vasudeva Rao). The 61 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Principle laid down in these decisions is similar. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the conduct of a person against whom the offence is alleged under P.C Act is admissible u/s. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Prosecution evidence led to show regarding the conduct of the accused is important here. The specific evidence of PWs. 2, 3 and 13 regarding the conduct of accused as deposed here lends circumstantial assurance to the testimony of the TLO/P.W.3, in my considered view.

61. The learned Counsel for accused states that there is no believable evidence produced by the Prosecution to show the demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe by accused and infact, there is no demand at all of illegal gratification made by the accused. He states that the amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by the accused on 10.10.07 is for the purpose of publishing his advertisement in the Souvenir and not any illegal gratification. The learned Spl.PP states that every public servant is expected to perform his duties and to discharge his functions irrespective of any consideration which does not amount to a legal remuneration. Therefore, if a public servant insists upon a particular payment, 62 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 which does not amount to a legal remuneration as consideration for the discharge of his duties, he does commit an act which amounts to an offence under the P.C Act. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in 1977 Crl.L.J. 626 - Guj (S.S Gheewala Vs. State of Gujrat) and 1994 Crl.L.J.2304 (M.Nazeeruddin Vs. State of A.P.). In the case of S.S Gheewala, an amount of Rs.10/- was received by the accused by way of Flag contribution which was collected for the purpose of 'Flag Day' , where as in the case of M.Nazeeruddin, an amount of Rs.480/- was received by the accused stating that the said amount is towards meeting the expenses spent on audit party. It is held in these decisions that the moment the amount was received for doing or for forbearing to do an official act and if that amount is not the legal remuneration for doing or forbearing to do that act, the offence contemplated in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would be complete, even though it is proved that the amount was received for a laudable cause. Scanning through the evidence produced before the Court by the Prosecution, here leaves no doubt with regard to the receipt of 15,000/- by the accused, in my view. In fact, the accused himself admits the receipt of the same but, his plea of defence that he did not receive the same as 63 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 illegal gratification but, collected the same towards publication of advertisement in Annual Souvenir, he being the Regional Chairman of the Union, is immaterial, in my view. This particular defence appears to have raised here only with a view to escape from the legal consequences of the acceptance of the amount which is obviously received by him as illegal gratification for transshipment of Cargo of the Complainant, in my considered view.

62. The other contentions raised on behalf of the accused that the Complainant cannot have entered the Cabin, which was a sterile area and as it was on line booking, it was highly impossible for the accused to hold back the Cargo as contended are immaterial here. Drawing my attention to the evidence of PW.2, it is stated by the Spl.PP that, in page-14 of the evidence it is asked to the witness that, 'when online booking is there, why did you not asked as to how and why the accused could ask you to bribe?'. However, this question was not put to the Complainant in his cross-examination to get a proper explanation. Hence, this aspect does not call for serious consideration, in my view. His other contentions that most of the days during the relevant period of August and September, 2007 he 64 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 was absent as could be seen from the Muster Roll (Ex.D.5 to 9) has also not been proved here. These minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Prosecution evidence are not significant, in my view so as to suspect the Prosecution case. The learned Counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decisions reported in,

1. Crl.Appeal No.205/96 Dt.4.1.2000 (S. Surayanarayana Rao Vs. State of Karnataka.

2. Crl.Appeal No.639/04 Dt. 26.5.2009 SC (A.Subair Vs. State of Kerala)

3. (2000) 5 SCC 21 (Meena W/o Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra.)

4. 2001 AIR SCW 2392 (State of UP Vs. Jagdish Singh Malhotra)

5. Orders of the Madras High Court in Crl.Appeal No.719/04 (Mrs. Baby Saroja Vs. State.)

6. Orders of Delhi High Court in Crl.A.728/02 (T.C.Chawla Vs. CBI).

7. Crl. Appeal No.212/09 Dt.1.6.12 (T.P.Basavaraju Vs. CBI, Bengaluru).

8. Orders of High Court at New Delhi Dt. 6.5.13 in CRL.A.33/03 (Sri. Rajkumar Jain Kishore Vs. State).

I have carefully gone through the above cited decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for accused. The facts and circumstances of these cases, on which reliance is placed being distinguishable with the facts of the present case, the said decisions are inapplicable to the case on hand. The contention of the accused that post 65 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 liberalization in 1992 Airlines were privatized and with the advent of many private Airlines, Cargo monopoly was not with the Indian Airlines alone and thus, in view of these market conditions, the case of the Complainant that he had to bribe the accused for transshipment of his Cargo on the face of it improbable is immaterial here as it is the choice of the Cargo Forwarders to choose the Airline. Further contention of the accused that the complainant's commission being only Rs.555/- and as such, any sane person would not have paid a whooping sum of Rs.30,000/- as bribe, is also immaterial here and it is not relevant. There is overwhelming evidence produced before the court to hold that he demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant as leveled by the prosecution against him.

63. On analyzing the evidence of the Prosecution placed before the Court, I am of the view that the Prosecution has successfully proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences leveled. For the reasons narrated above, I hold points 2 and 3 in the affirmative.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 Point No.4:

64. In view of my findings on points 1 to 3 as above, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER Acting u/s 235 (2) of Cr.PC, I here by convict the accused -

S.Parthasarathy s/o. K.R.Srinivasan for the offences punishable u/ss.7 and 13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

To hear regarding sentence, call later on.

(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by me and then signed and pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of June, 2015.) (Pradeep S. Balikai) XXXII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore.

Accused present.

Heard Counsel representing the accused as well as the learned Spl.PP. regarding sentence.

The learned Spl.PP prays for imposing maximum Sentence in the case, the Court having held the accused guilty of the offences leveled. Accused prays for leniency stating that his father has died recently, his 67 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 mother is quite aged, his wife is unwell and also stating that his son is pursuing his studies.

In my view, the Provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked in the case.

On perusal of the circumstances of the case under which the offences have been committed and on hearing the accused, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Accused is sentenced to undergo RI for one (1) year and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence u/s. 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine imposed, suffer SI for three (3) months.

Accused is sentenced to undergo RI for two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence u/s.13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine imposed, suffer SI for six (6) months.

Substantive Sentence of imprisonment imposed shall run concurrently.

The Bail bonds of the accused and his Surety stand cancelled. M.O.1/the trap money shall be returned to the complainant/PW.1 and M.O.8/Seal of the C.B.I. be returned to the C.B.I. M.Os.2 to 7 being valueless are ordered to be destroyed.

Disposal of property to take effect after the Appeal period is over. Office to furnish a free copy of Judgment to the accused immediately.

(P.S.Balikai) XXXII Addl.CC & SJ and Spl.Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore.

SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 ANNEXURE:

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW.1 M.Pulakeshavan, S/o. Varadaiah, Chief Manager, M/s.Venkateshwara Cargo Forwarders, Bengaluru.

PW.2 B.S.Prashanth, Sr.Divl.Manager, NIC, Mysore.

PW.3                   K.Hariom Prakash, PI, C.B.I./ACB, Chennai
PW.4                   S.Raju - Manager M/s. Pawan Aircraft
PW.5                   Sathishkumar Agarwal - Manager M/s. Pawan
                       Cargo Forwards (p) Ltd.
PW.6                   Ramesh
PW.7                   Ravichandra - Manager M/s. Tulsidas Kimji (p)
                       Ltd.
PW.8                   S.Rajkumar - Traffic Superintendent
PW.9                   S.S.Giri, Addl. Suptd., of Police, C.B.I/ACB,
                       Bangalore (Investigating Officer)
P.W.10                 Chales Vedanayagam - Rtd Cargo Manager
P.W.11                 M.Sundaram - Dy.Manager (vig) Indian
                       Airlines
P.W.12                 N.Sunderashan - Manager (Personal) Indian
                       Airlines
P.W.13                 C.Prabhavathy - Sr.Traffic Supt.,
P.W.14                 E.A.Vergheese - Rtd. Ex.Director
P.W.15                 V.Shankara Narayan - Sr. Tr.Supt., Indian
                       Airlines.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1                   Complaint
Ex.P1(a)                Signature of PW1
Ex.P2                   Entrustment Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) (b) & (c)      Signatures of PWs1, 2 & 3 respectively
Ex.P3                   Recovery Mahazar
Ex.p.3(a), (b) & (c)    Signatures of P.Ws.1, 2 & 3 respectively
Ex.P4                   Written slip (in two sheets)
Ex.P. 4 (a)             Initial of PW.2
Ex.P5                   Written slip (in two sheets)
                                69
                                        SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004


Ex.P5 (a)      Initial of P.W.2
Ex.P6          Small book containing carbon copies of Ex.P.4
               &5
Ex.P6 (a)      Copy of Ex.P.4
Ex.P.6 (b)     Copy of Ex.P.5
Ex.P.7         Sheet containing specimen Seals.
Ex.P7(a)       Signature of pw.3
Ex.P.8         Copy of Airway Bill for Aug-07 (Total 112
               sheets)
Ex.p.9         Copy of Airway Bill for Sept. 2007 (Total 100
               sheets)
Ex.P.10        Arrest cum personal Search Memo.
Ex.P.10(a)     Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.10(b)     Signature of P.W.3
Ex.p.11        Search List
Ex.P.11(a)     Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.11(b)     Signature of P.W.3
Ex.p.12        Search List
Ex.P.12(a)     Signature of P.W.2
Ex.p.13        FIR
Ex.P.13(a)     Signature of Narasimha Komar/SP C.B.I/ACB
Ex.p.14        Record made u/s.165 (1) of Cr.P.C., by the IO.
Ex.P.14(a)     Signature of the IO/PW.3
Ex.p.15        Record made u/s.165 (1) of Cr.P.C., by the IO.
Ex.P.15(a)     Signature of the IO/PW.3
Ex.P.16        Search List
Ex.P.16(a)     Signature of Mr.B.R.Narayanamurthy.
Ex.p.17        Search List
Ex.P18         Acknowledgement given by Mr.
               Prashanth/PW.2
Ex.P19         Cheque No.444311 of Syndicate Bank.
Ex.P19(a)      Signature of Sri. Balaji, Proprietor of Pavan Air
               Freight.

Ex.P20 to 23 Tax invoices of Pavan Cargo Forwarders Pvt.

Ltd.

Ex.P24 Cheque bearing No.972461 of Oriental Bank of Commerce.

Ex.P.25        Chemical Examiner's Report
Ex.P.26        Letter of the CBI Dt.12.10.07.
                                70
                                        SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004


Ex.P.27        Questionnaire of the IO.
Ex.P.28        Sanction Order dt.22.11.07.
Ex.P.28(a)     Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.29        Attested copy of the Letter Dt.16.3.2006
               along with 2 attested docs. showing Cargo
               Sec. Staff.



LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:


M.O.1          Currency Notes of Rs.500 (30 Notes)
               (Denomination of Rs.500 x 30)
M.O.2          Cover containing M.O.1.
M.O.3          Bottle containing right hand wash of accused.
M.O.4          Bottle containing left hand wash of accused.
M.O.5          Bottle containing Solution of left hand side
               pant pocket of accused.
M.O.6          Navy blue Pant (1) of the accused.
M.O.7          Cover containing M.O.6.
M.O.8          Seal of the CBI.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE SIDE:


DW.1:            D.Murali, Station Manager, Air India employee
D.W.2:           Leslie Marcar, Rtd., Air India employee
D.W.3:           A.Babu, Rtd., Air India employee
D.W.4:           L.Kirubakaran, Rtd., Air India employee
D.W.5:           L.Nageshwara Rao, Rtd., Air India employee.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENCE SIDE:

Ex.D1          Rough sketch
Ex.D.1(a)      Place of standing of PW.2.
Ex.D.1(b)      Place of standing of Accd.
Ex.D.1(c)      Place of standing of Complainant.
Ex.D2          Copy of the Inventory of movable articles.
Ex.D3          Copy of the Search List
                                    71
                                             SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004


Ex.D4              Cheque bearing No.964136 of ICICI Bank.
Ex.D5 to 9         Muster Roll for the months of Aug. 07 to Dec. 07.

Ex.D.5(a) & 6(a) Signatures of the accd. in the Muster Roll.

Ex.D10             Attendance & Leave Record Register.
Ex.D.10(a)         Particulars of the leave of the accd.
                   maintained in pg-141.
Ex.D11             Souvenir Order Form
Ex.D12             Union Day Celebrations Form 2007.



                                     (P.S.Balikai),
                       XXXII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge,
                        and Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore.
                      72
                                   SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004




                            ORDER

Acting u/s 235 (2) of Cr.PC, I here by convict the accused - S.Parthasarathy s/o. K.R.Srinivasan for the offences punishable u/ss.7 and 13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

On hearing the accused;

Accused is sentenced to undergo RI for one (1) year and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence u/s. 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine imposed, suffer SI for three (3) months.

Accused is sentenced to undergo RI for two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence u/s.13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine imposed, suffer SI for six (6) months.

Substantive Sentence of imprisonment imposed shall run concurrently.

The Bail bonds of the accused and his Surety stand cancelled.

M.O.1/the trap money shall be returned to the complainant/PW.1 and M.O.8/Seal of the C.B.I. be returned to the C.B.I. M.Os.2 to 7 being valueless are ordered to be destroyed.

Disposal of property to take effect after the Appeal period is over.

Office to furnish a free copy of Judgment to the accused immediately.

73 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004 XXXII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore.

74 SPL.C.C.NO.190/2007/2004

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

The State By Dy. Superintendent Of ... vs Sri. S. Parthasarathy on 30 June, 2015