Madras High Court
Rajasingh vs The State on 27 July, 1994
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises from the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge, Krishnagiri, in C.C. No. 1 of 1982 dated 31-12-1985 for the offence under Section 161, Penal Code and also Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :
P.W. 1 Nagarajan was selected by the P.A. to the Collector of Dharmapuri under Ex. P. 10 on 6-12-1980 for the post of Teacher in Ottampatti Elementary School, which is under the control of Oothangarai Panchayat Union. He joined duty on 26-12-80 and his service register should be opened within one week from the date of joining the service, as per Ex. P. 11 direction. Therefore on 3-1-81 he came to Oothangarai Panchayat Union Office and met P.W. 3 the Manager of the Office for the purpose of opening the service register and P.W. 3 directed P.W. 1 to meet this appellant, who was working as the Head Clerk in the office, When P.W. 1 approached this appellant for opening the service register, he directed him to remit a sum of Rs. 3.25 in the Treasury towards the cost of the book and produce counter-foil of the remittance challan. P.W. 1 remitted the amount as instructed by him and produced the counterfoil of the challan Ex. P. 2. to this appellant. The appellants informed P.W. 1 that he would collect the service book in a week and directed him to meet him after a week along with this qualification certificates. On 12-1-1981, P.W. 1 met this appellant in his office for opening the service book and as directed by the appellant, P.W. 1 got the service book Ex. P. 4 from the manager P.W. 3. When this book was produced by P.W. 1 along with his qualification certificates Exs. P. 5 to P. 9 to this appellant for making necessary entries in the service book, the appellant demanded Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification for making the entries. When P.W. 1 told him that he was from a poor family and was unable to give the amount, the appellant informed him that without payment he would not open the service book and would not return his qualification certificates also and kept them in his bureau. Without no order go, P.W. 1 agreed to pay the amount but required time to arrange for money and to meet him after Pongal Festival, P.W. 1 sold his goat for Rs. 150/- and gathered Rs. 50/- making a total of Rs. 200/- for payment to this appellant. However, as it was pestering his mind that he had to pay illegal gratification even for such small matters, he felt that this should be brought to the notice of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Squad. Therefore, in the morning of 20-1-81, he went to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Squad, Dharmapuri and met P.W. 8 the Inspector and narrated him the whole incident. P.W. 8 directed him to give the complaint in writing and Ex. P. 14 complaint was given by P.W. 1. P.W. 8 directed him to come with Rs. 200/- the amount demanded by the appellant, and in the meanwhile he contacted the Electricity Board and P.W. 5 office of depute responsible officers to be witnesses for the trap case. P.W. 7 the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electricity Board, and one Babaram, Assistant Executive Engineer of Public works Department, came to the office of Anti-Corruption Vigilance Squad agreeing to be witnesses and P.W. 1. was introduced them and he narrated the facts to them. P.W. 8, the Inspector, demonstrated before them how Phenopthalene powder changes the colour of Sodium Carborate solution and in their presence he sprayed phenopthalene powder in the amount of Rs. 200/- M.O. 1 to M.O. 3 series, brought by P.W. 1. He also asked the witnesses to touch the currency notes sprayed with phenopthalene powder and dip their fingers in Sodium Carbonate solution and on doing so, the solution turned into pink colour. A Mahazar Ex. P. 15 was prepared in their presence with regard to the numbers in the currency notes M.O. 1 to M.O. 3 series brought by P.W. 1 P.W. 8 handed over the cash to P.W. 1 and asked him to pay this cash to the appellant only when he demanded P.Ws. 1, 7, 8 the other witness Babaram and the police officials left for Uthangarai Panchayat Union Office in a jeep and P.W. 8 directed P.W. 1 to go ahead, meet the appellant and make a signal if the appellant had received the cash M.Os. 1 to 3 from him. P.W. 8 and others remained away at a distance of about 200 feet. P.W. 1 entered the office of this appellant at 11.00 a.m. and informed the appellant that he had come with money. The appellant then made the entries in the service book Ex. P. 4 and asked P.W. 1 to sigh in certain pages. Then the appellant asked P.W. 1 to follow him and led him to the varandah leading to the toilet room. On reaching there, he demanded the money from P.W. 1. P.W. 1 handed over the amount M.Os. 1 to 3 cash and the appellant, after counting the cash, kept the same in his shirt pocket and came to his seat. Then he directed P.W. 1 to come after some time and in the meanwhile, he would obtain the signature of Commissioner of Panchayat Union in the service register. P.W. 1 coming out of the office, made the signal as indicated by P.W. 8 who came to the office with P.W. 7 and other officers. P.W. 8 approached the appellant and asked him whether he received any cash from P.W. 1. The appellant did not answer but stood perplexed. P.W. 8 prepared the Sodium Carbonate solution and this appellant was directed to dip his fingers in it. When he did so, it turned into pink colour. Then the appellant handed over the cash Rs. 200 to the Inspector. The pocket portion of the Shirt, M.O. 4 was dipped in Sodium Carbonate Solution and then also, it turned into pink colour. The inspector prepared the mahazar Ex. P. 24 and seized the cash and shirt M.O. 4 in the presence of the witnesses. The appellant was arrested and P.W. 8 took up the investigation.
3. After the evidence was over, the appellant was questioned under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances found against him. The appellant denied the allegations and he said that as P.W. 1 did not produce the transfer certificate and conduct certificate along with the qualification Certificate, he insisted for production of those two certificates but P.W. 1 was evading to produce the same, that on 20-1-1981 when P.W. 1 met him to open the service register, he consulted P.W. 3 the Manager whether to open the service register without the transfer certificate and conduct certificate for which P.W. 3 directed him to open the service register mentioning that those two certificates were not produced and therefore, he asked P.W. 1 to produce his qualification certificates and also received S.S.L.C. Book Ex. P. 5. He has further stated that after making entries, he found Rupees 200/- kept within the S.S.L.C. book Ex. P. 5 and thinking that P.W. 1 had kept this amount by mistake, he searched for P.W. 1 through the peon P.W. 3 to handover the money, but as P.W. 1 could not be found there, he was keeping the amount in his pocket to handover the same to P.W. 1 when he returned to receive the service register book, but in the meanwhile the Inspector of Police, P.W. 8 arrested him. He has also stated that the Secretary of the Teachers' Union by name Chandrasekaran was acting against him and at his instance, he is implicated in this case. He has examined D.W. 1 record clerk, D.W. 2 tractor driver and D.W. 3 peon, all working in his office, to speak that he was trying to handover the cash of Rs. 200/- to P.W. 1 as this amount was found in the qualification certificate produced by P.W. 1. Another witness, D.W. 4, examined on his side has stated that one Chandrasekaran, the Secretary of the Tamilnadu Teachers' Union was swearing that this appellant was not yielding to him and therefore he would make arrangements to transfer him.
4. The Learned Special Judge found him guilty and convicted in the manner said above.
5. The learned senior counsel Mr. Krishnan, appearing for the appellant, would contend that there are so many Infirmities in this case especially in the sanction order to prosecute this appellant and the Court below has not properly appreciated the defence case portrayed through D.Ws. 1 to 4 whose evidence is more probable and the appellant has implicated falsely by the Secretary of the Teacher's Union, who was inimical towards this appellant. According to the learned counsel, P.W. 1 was studying in B.A. class in a College, at the time of his selection on 26-12-80 and as he wanted to continue his studies in the College and at the same time to work as a Teacher in the Elementary School of Ottampatti as he was selected for the post of a Teacher, he did not produce his transfer certificate and conduct certificate, which he could not get as he was continuing his studies in the College and as this appellant insisted for the production of the transfer certificate and conduct certificate P.W. 1 got aggrieved against the appellant and sought the aid of the Secretary of the Teachers' Union, Chandrasekaran, who had schemed for this plot, falsely implicating the appellant. He would also contend that P.W. 1 is like an accomplice and his evidence cannot be accepted without sufficient corroboration and in this case to prove the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant, there is no proof except the evidence of P.W. 1 and therefore basing upon the evidence of P.W. 1 the prosecution case cannot be accepted.
6. The contention of the learned counsel with regard to the sanction may be considered first, Ex. P. 23 is the sanction issued by the Collector, Dharmapuri, to prosecute this appellant for the offences under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) read with S. 51(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. A feeble attack was made to say that the Collector of Dharmapuri was not the competent authority to give sanction for the prosecution of the revision petitioner and the District Development Authority was the competent person. This arguments based on the evidence of P.W. 6 the then Sherastadar of the District Collector. This witness, both in the chief examination and the cross-examination has stated that in the Collector was the competent person to remove the appellant from his service. As a matter of fact, even it was suggested to him that the Collector has no powers to remove the appellant from service for which he denied and also asserted that the Collector had powers to place the appellant in suspension after this incident. However, in cross-examination he added that the Divisional Development Officer has powers to remove the appellant from service. This must be a mistake either in the recording of the deposition or in the expression of P.W. 6 because when P.W. 6 has positively denied the suggestion that Collector had no powers to remove him from service, there is no question of his admission in the next sentence that Divisional Development Officer is the authority to remove him from service. In Ex. P. 23 sanction order, the Collector has stated that he is the competent authority to remove the appellant from his office. P.W. 6 has also stated that the Collector had placed him under suspension. Therefore it is beyond doubt, that Collector alone is the competent authority to remove the appellant from service and therefore he alone had the power to sanction for prosecution.
7. The learned senior counsel Mr. Krishnan contended that except the Collector stating in Ex. P. 23 that he examined the materials placed before him and being satisfied with the allegation, he sanctioned for the prosecution, there is no other material available before the Court to accept that he applied his mind for sanction and as the sanctioning authority was not examined as a witness in this case to find out the truth of his applying his mind. Ex. P. 23 itself is not sufficient proof for the application of the mind and therefore the sanction is not in accordance with the Rules and when the sanction itself is not valid, the prosecution will be illegal. In Support of his contention, the has cited a series of decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court. In State by Public Prosecutor v. K. N. Vedalingam, (1994) I Mad LW (Cri) 11 (Sh N) K. M. Natarajan, J. has held that form of sanction that the sanction authority considered the evidence before it and after consideration of all the circumstances of the case, sanctioned the prosecution, shall be proved by other evidence and in the sanction itself, the fact should be referred, to indicate that the sanctionig authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, In Periyasamy v. Inspector, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Department, 1994 Cri LJ 753, Swamidurai J. had held that the sanction order must contain the details as to on what basis the sanctioning authority satisfied itself that the case for sanction was made out. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Supreme Court has laid the dictum that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that the case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence and this should be done by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. In another decision of this Court in Ramakrishn Reddiar v. State, 1978 Mad LW (Cri) 116 : (1978 Cri LJ NOC 266), Ratnavel Pandian, J (as he then was) has observed that the mere production of the documents before the Sanctioning authority by itself would not go to show that the Sanctioning Authority had perused the documents and applied its mind to the facts contained therein and the Court cannot draw inference that the report of the Investigating Officer contained all the facts that were necessary to enable the Sanctioning Authority to accord sanction and therefore there was no valid sanction. In all these decisions, the fact emphasized is that the Sanctioning Authority should have applied its mind to the facts alleged and only after being satisfied that the sanction was a necessity, the sanction should have been signed. In this case, even though the Collector of Dharmapuri, who accorded sanction, was not examined as a witness, Ex. P. 23 the sanction order gives the details of the records and his perusal before granting sanction. In Ex. P. 23 on the top, under the caption 'reference', it is mentioned that detailed in investigation report and connected records in Dharmapuri Detachment Cr. No. 1/AC/81 were placed before him. Therefore, the detailed investigation report and the connected records were sent to the Collector for his perusal. The Collector has stated in his order that he, after fully and carefully examining the materials placed before him with regard to the allegations and the circumstances of the case, was satisfied that this appellant should be prosecuted in Court of law. Even though the learned senior counsel would urge that there is no independent evidence to accept that the Collector had examined the papers and applied his mind, when it is patent from Ex. P. 23 that the records were placed before the Collector and the Collector also has stated that he examined the materials placed before him and thereafter satisfied for the prosecution of the appellant herein, I feel that there is no need to suspect the correctness of the statement of the Collector that he studied the records and applied his mind before according the sanction for prosecution. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Damodaran, the Supreme Court has observed that when the relevant records namely the statement under S. 161 Code of Criminal Procedure were produced before the Sanctioning Authority and the Sanctioning Authority had granted sanction after perusal, the Court is not justified in reaching the conclusion that the Sanctioning Authority had not applied its mind and mechanically granted sanction. Similarly in this case also for the reason that the Collector was not examined as a witness, we cannot infer that what is stated in Ex. P. 23, that the Collector carefully examined the material placed before him with regard to the allegations and thereafter, he having been satisfied, accorded sanction, cannot be correct or that the sanction was signed mechanically. Therefore, the first contention of the learned Senior Counsel fails.
8. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Krishnan contended that P.W. 1, who was a student in a degree course in a College though selected for the post of a teacher, wanted to continue his studies also fraudulently and he was also subsequently suspended as seen from the evidence and when such is the conduct of P.W. 1, who developed grievance against the appellant as he insisted for the production of the transfer certificate and the conduct certificate, P.W. 1 who wanted to quench his vengeance against this appellant, joined hands with the Teachers' Union Secretary Chandrasekaran and therefore the uncorroborated testimony of PW 1 cannot be accepted when especially he is in the position of an accomplice as he offered bribe to this appellant, which is also an offence.
9. The evidence discloses that soon after this occurrence, P.W. 1, was suspended on the allegation that he joined the service while he was studying in a College. But PW 1 has explained that subsequently, the order of suspension was cancelled because he did not continue his studies by attending the College after his selection to the post of Teacher. When he was a student of the College, he got selected as a Teacher and after his selection, it appears, he did not attend the College. Even though initially action was taken against him, the Collector after being satisfied that he did not attend the College thereafter, cancelled the suspension order. Probably taking advantage of this situation, the appellant has developed a story that he insisted the Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate to be produced by PW. 1 and as he did not produce them, he developed grievance against him. Ex. P. 10 is the order of appointment. The order directs him to produce the medical fitness certificate on the date of joining the duty. All the qualification certificates were to be produced before the selecting authority on the date of interview. There is no direction in Ex. P. 10 to produce the transfer certificate or the conduct certificate while joining duty or before the Panchayat Union Officers. The transfer certificate and conduct certificate are required for joining the educational institutions. The appellant has not pointed out any rule prescribing the production of the conduct certificate and the transfer certificate at the time of joining the service or opening the service register. As a matter of fact, even without the Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate, Ex. P. 4 service book was opened for PW. 1 on 20-1-1981. That shows that there is no need for a Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate for opening the service register. Therefore, there was no occasion for P.W. 1 to develop grievance against this appellant to join hands with Chandrasekaran, the Union Secretary, within a few days of his joining the service. The evidence does not disclose any grievance for PW 1 against this appellant except for the demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 200/-.
10. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that PW. 1 is an accomplice cannot be accepted. An accomplice is a co-accused, who has participated in the commission of the offence. In this case, it cannot be stated that PW. 1 has committed any office. No doubt the payment of the illegal gratification also is an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But in this case PW. 1 had no intention of achieving his purpose by payment of Rs. 200/- to the appellant but only in order to expose the conduct of this appellant and to bring him to book, he paid the amount as directed by the police. Therefore, he cannot be treated as an accomplice. In State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, , the Supreme Court has observed that if any of the witnesses are accomplices who are 'particeps criminals' in respect of the actual crime charged, there evidence must be treated as the evidence of accomplice, if they are not accomplices but are partisan witnesses or interested witnesses, who are concerned in the success of the trial, their evidence must be treated in the same way as other interested evidence, is tested by application of diverse considerations which must vary from case to case. Therefore, as PW. 1 was not participant of the crime, he cannot be called as an accomplice. It is true that the Supreme Court in Darshan Lal v. Delhi Admn., has ruled that there should be independent and trustworthy corroboration of the evidence of the trial witness. He cannot be treated as a partisan witness because he has no other motive or enmity against the appellant and as the appellant demanded the illegal gratification of Rs. 200/- he gave the complaint Ex. P. 14 and in proof of this complaint, he paid Rs. 200/- when demanded by the appellant. Therefore it cannot be stated that he is a partisan witness.
11. In this case, it cannot be stated that his evidence lacks of any corroboration or unsupported by any other evidence. This is a case in which the appellant himself admits the passing of the cash M.Os. 1 to 3 series from PW. 1 to him though according to him, this amount was cleverly delivered to him concealing it within the S.S.L.C. book without his knowledge. Therefore, no proof is needed for payment of cash by PW 1 to the appellant. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Krishnan would argue that for the reason that the cash brought by the complainant was found in the hands of the accused, the Court cannot infer that the accused had received illegal gratification. In support of his argument, he cited the decisions in Surajmal v. State (Delhi Admn), and Charles Waker Devadas v. State by the Inspector of Police, 1993 Mad LW (Cri) 346. In the former case, the Supreme Court has held that mere recovery of money from accused is not sufficient to convict him for the offence of receiving bribe. In the latter case, the decision of this Court it is held that the recovery of money pursuant to a trap was of no consequence in establishing the guilt. According to the learned senior counsel the appellant has offered explanation for having come its custody of the cash which also has been corroborated by D.Ws. 1 to 3 and in the light of these circumstances, the defence theory ought to have been accepted by the Court below. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that when he received the qualification certificates from PW. 1 for making entries in Ex. P. 4 on 20-1-81, he found the currency notes of Rs. 200/- within the S.S.L.C. book which he received and by the time he opened the SSLC book PW. 1 was not there as he had left already, that he thinking that P.W. 1 had kept this cash by mistake within that book, wanted to hand over the cash and also searched for P.W. 1 through D.W. 3 but as he could not be seen, he kept the cash within his shirt pocket to hand over the same to P.W. 1 but meanwhile he was arrested by the Inspector of Police. D.W. 1 the record clerk sitting adjacent to the seat of the appellant, also would support this version. D.W. 2, who was working as a Tractor driver in Panchayat Union Office and left the service in 1972, also would support this, as he was sitting near this appellant when P.W. 1 handed over the qualification certificates. According to him, he came to receive his services register from the appellant and, therefore, he happened to witness this occurrence. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Krishnan would contend that the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3 is more probable and, therefore, the defence version should have been accepted by the Court below. In this case, there is sufficient corroborative evidence to accept the version of P.W. 1. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that on 12-1-81 when he met this appellant in his office to open the service book after handing over the qualification certificates, he demanded Rs. 200/- from his as bribe to open the service book. P.W. 1 is the Head Master of Ottampatti Primary School. He has stated in his evidence that he directed P.W. 1 to arrange for opening the service book as per the direction in Ex. P. 10 and as the schools was closed from 5-1-81 to 18-1-81 for World Tamil Conference and Pongal Festival, the school opened on 19-1-81 on which day, P.W. 1 came to the school and when he asked P.W. 1 whether he had opened the service register, he replied him that on 3-1-81 itself, he had remitted the amount towards the cost of the service book but on 12-1-81, the appellant demanded Rs. 200/- from him for opening the service book in spite of his pleading with him and promise to pay the amount after receiving the salary and therefore he returned without opening the service book and that he had to arrange for payment to him. This evidence has come from a stranger to the appellant. There was no need for P.W. 2, the Head Master of a Primary School Teacher, to falsely depose against this appellant when especially they are strangers to each other. The evidence of P.W. 2 supports the version of PW. 1 that this appellant demanded Rs. 200/- from him as bribe on 12-1-81 for opening the service book and P.W. 1 got vexed with this appellant for his attitude of demanding bribe, expressed his feelings to P.W. 2, his immediate superior in the school. I find no reason to reject the testimony of P.W. 2.
11A. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that when P.W. 1 had approached the appellant even on 3-1-81 to open the service book, the appellant did not demand any amount from him on that day and therefore if really he had the intention of demanding the bribe from P.W. 1, he would have certainly demanded money even on 3-1-81 itself and he would not have demanded the money after 10 days, that is on 12-8-81, and therefore this version is artificial. This argument has no force because even though P.W. 1 approached the appellant on 3-1-81, the service book was not opened on that day. As this appellant wanted to collect the bribe before the work was completed, he would not have immediately demanded the money from P.W. 1 because there was sufficient time for completing the work, namely opening of the service register. Secondly, there may be some persons who themselves may offer to pay the tips voluntarily, for certain works to be done in the public offices. Therefore, the appellant might have wanted to see whether P.W. 1 himself voluntarily tendered the amount to him or he had to demand the money from him. There is nothing unnatural, in not making any demand by the appellant on 3-1-81 when P.W. 1 approached him. On the next occasion, that is on 12-1-81, as P.W. 1 simply handed over the qualification certificates and requested the appellant to open the service register, having found that P.W. 1 had not tendered the tips, the appellant seems to have demanded the money from him. Hence, this ground taken by the learned Senior Counsel lacks of any force in the argument.
12. P.W. 1 has narrated that on 20-1-81 only when he stated to the appellant that he had come with money, he asked him to verify the calendar whether it was auspicious time and he also verified the calendar hanging over the wall, near the table of P.W. 3 and after making entry in Ex. P. 4, the appellant asked him to follow him, that after reaching the varandah, leading to the toilet room outside the office, he demanded the money from him and he paid Rs. 200/-. P.W. 1 has further stated that this appellant after receiving the cash, counted it and kept in his pocket. As the appellant wanted to receive the illegal gratification, he did not want to do it in the presence of the other staff members, who were staying in the same room. Therefore, he took P.W. 1 outside the office room as though he was going to the toilet room and received the money from P.W. 1 outside the office room. P.W. 3, who is the Office Manager of Oothankarai Panchayat Union, has corroborated a part of this version of PW. 1, in his testimony. PW. 3 has stated in his evidence that on 20-1-81 at about 11.45 AM, PW. 1 came to his table and he wanted to verify the calendar hanging in the wall above his seat as to the auspicious time as required by the appellant and after some time, the appellant was not in his seat and he returned only half an hour later. Therefore, after the arrival of PW. 1. The appellant was with this witness for some time and was absent in his seat for about half an hour thereafter. This piece of evidence of PW. 3, the Office Manager, also corroborates that the appellant had gone out of the office room to receive the bribe amount from P.W. 1.
13. The next corroboration comes from PWs. 7 and 8. P.W. 1, is the Assistant Divisional Engineer employed in Electricity Board in Dharmapuri and he was requested by the Inspector of Police P.W. 8 to be present as a witness in a trap case. Therefore, he and another Engineer employed in Public Works Department, accompanied P.W. 8 to Oothankarai Panchayat Union Office. After making the payment to the appellant, P.W. 1 came out and made the signal to P.W. 8 informing the payment of the cash to him. P.W. 8 came along with P.W. 7 and others and when P.W. 8 approached this appellant he revealed his identity and asked him whether he received any cash from the appellant. Though P.W. 8 would say that this appellant did not answer him, P.W. 7 would say that the appellant denied. Thereafter, admittedly, the sodium carbonate test was conducted in the presence of P.W. 7 and this appellant after seeing the change of the colour of the solution, handed over the cash of Rs. 200/- from his pocket. Even though P.W. 8 would state that the appellant did not answer him, when questioned, P.W. 7 would say that the appellant denied. As this appellant did not accept the payment by PW. 1, and stood dumb founded, PW. 7 seems to have taken it as denial. Anyhow, the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 establish the fact that this appellant did not admit the possession of cash of Rs. 200/- belonging to P.W. 1. Only after the test was conducted, he handed over the cash to the Inspector. P.W. 7 a responsible officer in the Electricity Board, need not falsely support the police to implicate this appellant in the crime. If the version of the accused that this cash of Rs. 200/- was found concealing in the SSLC book and that he was keeping this amount to hand it over to PW. 1, the appellant could have immediately stated that fact to the Inspector. But he was not even prepared to accept the possession of the cash of P.W. 1. This piece of evidence also supports the evidence of P.W. 1 that this appellant had received the bribe by demanding from P.W. 1.
14. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Krishnan argues that usually the independent witness will be allowed to go with the trap witness to see and hear the transaction between the accused and the trap witness and in this case even though P.W. 7 was brought from Dharmapuri, he was not allowed to go with P.W. 1 and this is suspicious circumstance leading to accept the defence case that the trap was arranged at the instance of the Teachers' Union Secretary Chandrasekaran to implicate this appellant. This argument also lacks of any substance. It is not a rule that along with the trap witness, another independent witness should accompany. Sometimes too many persons or even one stranger along with a trap witness may create suspicion in the minds of the accused to behave differently. Therefore, no motive can be attributed for not sending P.W. 7 the independent witness, along with the trap witness. Anyhow, P.W. 7 accompanied P.W. 8 when the appellant was questioned and this appellant could have certainly mentioned the truth if the cash of Rs. 200/- had come to his pocket, as it was found within the SSLC book and he received the book without notice of the cash within it. On the other hand he denied the payment of P.W. 1, without verbal expression. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the defence version is more probable is unacceptable.
15. The learned Senior Counsel argued about the delay in giving the complaint and according to him, even though P.W. 1 would state that the appellant demanded the bribe on 12-1-1981, he did not make any complaint till 20-1-1981, and therefore if there is any truth in the version of P.W. 1, he should have given complaint immediately. This argument also has no substance because PW 1 in his evidence has stated that he wanted to pay the amount as demanded by this appellant as he could not draw his salary unless the service book was opened. However on 19-1-1981 night, it was pestering his mind that in spite of his educational qualification and also selection to the post, he had to part with bribe even for a small work and therefore he decided to complain this to the police. There is nothing unnatural in this conduct of P.W. 1. When the bribe was demanded from P.W. 1 though he is an educated man joined as a teacher, we cannot expect him to rush immediately with a complaint to the police. He might have deeply thought the pros and cons. However, after gathering the funds, as he realised the unhealthy conduct of demanding bribe even for the small duties, it appears that P.W. 1, a young man afresh from the College, felt that complaint should be given against such activities. Therefore it cannot be treated as a delay in giving the complaint. The narration of facts by PW. 1 has been supported in parts by the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 7 and 8. Therefore, the version of the appellant that the cash was found within the SSLC book which her received unknowingly, cannot be true and this explanation is only to extricate himself from the clutches of law as he was caught by PW. 8. Therefore, the story has been spun by the appellant that this trap was on the instigation of one Chandrasekaran. Even if Chandrasekaran had ill-feelings against this appellant, there was no reason for P.W. 1 to join hands with him even within a few days of joining the service. D.W. 1 is a colleague, who also had worked under this appellant. D.W. 3 is a peon in the same office. Therefore, there is nothing strange for these persons coming to support the appellant to save him. The evidence of D.W. 2 is most unnatural as he said that he came to receive his service book after 9 years of leaving the services. Usually, the service register will not be returned to the employee. Therefore, the entire evidence and the circumstances, go a long way to support the prosecution case and the court below was right in accepting the guilt of the accused.
16. Coming to the punishment, the Court below has convicted this appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, which, I feel, is a deserving punishment for such persons, who are demoralising the society by demanding illegal gratification.
17. In the result, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below, the appeal is dismissed.
In view of the G.O.Ms. No. 180 Home (Prison IV) Dept. dt. 28-1-1989 and G.O.Ms. No. 781 (PRC) (Prison IV) dt. 11-4-1990, the entire period of conviction stands remitted. Therefore, the appellant cannot be arrested or detained, though his appeal is dismissed.
18. Appeal dismissed.