Madras High Court
K.Pounammal vs State Rep. By on 4 August, 2010
Author: S.Palanivelu
Bench: S.Palanivelu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/08/2010 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Criminal Appeal No.1750 of 2003 K.Pounammal ... Petitioner Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, SPE/CBT/ACB, Chennai, (R.C.No.MA1 2002-A-0046) ... Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai in C.C.No.2/2003 on 05.11.2003 for the offences under Section 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing her to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. !For Petitioner ... Mr. B.Gopinath Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Prabath ^For Respondent ... Mr.Rozario Sundar Raj Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI cases *** :JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai in C.C.No.2/2003 on 05.11.2003 for the offences under Section 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing her to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.
2. The following is the factual matrix of the prosecution case:
2(a). P.W.2 is working as a Supervisor in Parani Match Works in Sengamalapatti of Sivakasi Taluk. One Tmt.Dhanalakshmi and her son Balagangatharan are partners of the said match factory. The factory comes under the jurisdiction of Thiruthangal-II Range. At the outset, a Certificate of Registration in Certificate No.2/CH/36M/93 was issued to the factory. The Central Excise Department directed to issue fresh certificates with ten digit PAN number, requiring the registrants to apply for the same and accordingly P.W.2 applied on behalf of the factory before the above said range, to the Inspector of Central Excise Tmt.Paunammal, the accused, in April 2002.
2(b). She informed that the certificate was prepared and was given number as 2404062682. In spite of many requests, she was delaying the issuance of certificate. While he asked as such on 16.09.2002, she demanded bribe of Rs.300/- to issue the certificate and he informed the said demand to Balagangatharan, who told that there was no need to pay any bribe. On 20.09.2002, he again asked her to give the certificate for which, she told that she would issue the same on payment of the said amount on 23.09.2002 at about 12.00 noon at her office and in default, she would not sign the records which would be presented for the purchase of Central Excise stamps from the treasury.
2(c). He conveyed it to Balagangatharan on 20.09.2002 itself and he repeated the same version that they need not pay any money. If the Inspector did not sign, they could not purchase stamp for match boxes and there would be heavy loss. Since he did not want to pay bribe as demanded by the Inspector, P.W.2 lodged the complaint. Balagangatharan asked him to hand over the complaint to the officer who would come to retiring room in Virudhunagar Railway station as per his conversation with the authorities on 21.09.2002. Since Balagangatharan was occupied in other work busily, on his direction, P.W.2 lodged the complaint, Ex.P2, in which Balagangatharan has signed as witness on the same date i.e. 21.09.2002. Balagangatharan was sitting M.L.A during the relevant time.
2(d). P.W.1, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Tirunelveli who is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary action and to pass any orders including dismissal against the accused. He accorded sanction by means of Ex.P1 to prosecute the accused in this case.
2(e). P.W.4 working as Inspector of CBI/ACB, Chennai. While he was on duty on 22.09.2002, his Superintendent of Police called him and instructed him to proceed to Virudhunagar along with a team consisting of Mr.Salam, Inspector, Mr.Somaiya, Sub Inspector, Mr.Shunmugam, Police Constable, Mr.Suresh Stalin, Constable and Railway Sectional Officer, Mr.Ravikumar. The Superintendent of Police also told him that on 23.09.2002 at Virudhunagar Railway Station the complainant Velappan would come and give complaint and after receipt of that he had to proceed. Accordingly, he came to Virudhunagar and stayed in the retiring room No.5 in the railway station. At about 07.15 hours, P.W.2 Velappan reached his room and gave complaint. P.W.4 perused the same and asked him to wait outside the room. He secretly verified the sources about the accused and learnt that the allegations might be true.
2(f). On his information to Superintendent of Police, he directed him to proceed further and lay trap on the accused. He sent the complaint to Superintendent of Police with the covering letter under Ex.P8 through a special messenger Ramakrishnan, Head Constable. He also secured assistance of two State women police personnel and he arranged two official witnesses Mr.Chandrasekar (P.W.3) who is working as Train Ticket Examiner in Virudhunagar Railway station and one Mr.Ramasamy, Divisional Commercial Inspector, Virudhunagar/Southern Railways. Both the independent witnesses and two women police constables arrived at his room around 09.50 a.m. At about 9.55 a.m., he called P.W.2 into his room and introduced the official witnesses and the team members who were present there. They also introduced themselves to P.W.2.
2(g). P.W.4 read out the contents of Ex.P2 to all the team members and the witnesses. He asked P.W.2 whether he had brought the money. He produced M.O.1 series Rs.300/- in Rs.100/- denomination. He asked Shanmugam, Constable to prepare Sodium Carbonate solution who did so and he asked P.W.3 to count three currency notes produced by P.W.2 and asked him to dip the fingers into the Sodium Carbonate Solution and on doing so, there was no change in the colour of the solution. He asked Constable Shanmugam to smear Phenolphthalein powder over the currencies and again he asked P.W.3 to count the notes, which he did so. He got the notes from P.W.3 and put them inside the left shirt pocket of P.W.2 and instructed him not to touch the money till the accused demanded.
2(h). Then, he asked P.W.3 to dip his fingers in Sodium Carbonate Solution and on doing so, the colour of the solution turned to pink. He explained the significance of the phenolphthalein test to the team members and other witnesses. He instructed P.W.2 to give the M.O.1 series tainted currency notes to the accused only if she demanded and in the event of demand and acceptance of money by her, P.W.2 should come out and give pre-arranged signal by scratching his face thrice with hand and similar instruction was also given to P.W.3.
2(i). Thereafter, he prepared Ex.P3 Entrustment Mahazar and all the persons present signed in the mahazar, who left Virudhunagar for Sivakasi at about 11.00 hours in a TATA Sumo Car and reached the place 100 feet away from the Central Excise office at Sivakasi around 11.50 hours. Then, P.Ws.2 and 3 went inside the office and the other members were waiting there. At about 12.05 p.m. P.Ws.2 and 3 came out from the office and P.W.3 first gave the pre-arranged signal followed by P.W.2. Immediately, P.W.4 along with Salam, Women Police officials and others rushed into the office of the accused. P.W.2 identified the accused. P.W.4 and Salam showed their identity cards to the accused and he asked her whether she had demanded and accepted bribe money from P.W.2. She became nervous and after a while, he again asked her and she replied. He told her that she was arrested and then both the women police personnel stood by the side of the accused.
2(j). The constable Suresh Stalin prepared Sodium Carbonate solution and P.W.4 asked the accused to dip her right fingers in the solution and the accused also did so and then the colour of the solution turned to pink. The right hand wash was collected in a bottle and was sealed, which is M.O.2. Again another tumbler of Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and the accused was asked to dip her left fingers into the same and on doing so, the colour of the solution turned to pink and this time also the solution was collected in a separate bottle and sealed and the same is M.O.3. Both the lables of the bottles were signed by P.W.3 Ramasamy.
2(k). Then P.W.4 prepared specimen seal impressions on two separate sheets of papers which were attested by two women police personnel and independent officials which are M.O.4 series. While P.W.4 asked the accused where the money was, she took out M.O.1 series from beneath a file placed on her table and gave the same to P.W.3 Chandrasekaran. Then P.W.3 and Mr.Ramasamy compared M.O.1 series currencies with the particulars mentioned in Ex.P3 Mahazar, and found them tallying. P.W.4 seized M.O.1 series currency notes.
2(l). On enquiry, P.W.3 told P.W.4 that while both he and P.W.2 met the accused in the office, she asked them to sit. She further enquired P.W.2 about P.W.3 who was he for which, P.W.2 replied that he was his elder brother. P.W.2 asked her about the issue of certificate. The accused asked him whether he has brought as required by her and P.W.2 told that he had brought it and he also handed over Rs.300/- to the accused who received it by her right hand, counted them and kept the notes under the file and left the seat stating that she was going to contact Sepoy Murugesan over phone. P.W.2 came from the side exit and he (P.W.3) came from the main entrance and afterwards, they gave pre-arranged signal.
2(m). Sepoy Murugesan came there and he took out Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 application and Register respectively from a tray behind the chair of the accused. When P.W.4 asked Murugesan why he had not handed over the file to P.W.2, he replied that the accused had instructed him not to hand over the file except her instruction. He (P.W.4) released the accused on bail there itself. A recovery mahazar Ex.P4 was prepared by him through Sub Inspector Mr.Somaiya and the same was signed by all the team members including the witnesses, a copy of which was given to the accused under acknowledgment. Sepoy Murugesan also had signed. P.W.4 afterwards conducted house search in the residential premises of the accused after giving prior intimation to the Court at Srivilliputur and no items were taken from there. As per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, he handed over the records and material objects to the Inspector of Police Mr.Narendradev.
2(n). From Mr.Narendradev, P.W.5 Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai, obtained the file and proceeded with the investigation. He examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements. He prepared Ex.P10 rough sketch. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.
2(o). After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating materials available against her in the prosecution evidence. She denied complicity in the offence. She has stated that in the returns and records submitted by Parani Match works, there were so many errors and she used to instruct the persons concerned to maintain them properly, that she was informed that M.L.A. Balagangatharan wanted her to come to his house for which she told that why should she go to his house, that she is a Central Government official and if necessary, he might come over to office and met her and being enraged on this, in order to wreak vengeance, he has foisted a false case, that she had to face disgrace in the society and that she is an innocent. She has not examined any witnesses and no documents has been marked on her side.
3. Point for consideration:
"Whether the charges framed against the accused have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt?"
4. The gist of the matter is that the accused being the authority who was in charge of the jurisdiction in which Parani Match works run by the then M.L.A Balagangatharan was functioning. It is the case of the prosecution that a new certificate, as per the instruction of the Central Excise Department, has to be issued to every registrants and Parani Match works was also one among them. She demanded Rs.300/- as bribe from P.W.2 who was Supervisor of that factory and the owner Balagangatharan did not pay the amount who asked P.W.2 to lay a complaint against her. The complaint was accordingly laid and a trap was organised by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption officials and she was trapped after she received bribe amount.
5. It is the defence of the accused that she used to instruct the person who was in charge of Parani Match works to maintain the accounts properly and she refused to go and meet Balagangatharan and asked him to come to her office to meet her and keeping this in mind, he has laid a false complaint against her. It is also stated by her that the certificate was immediately handed over to the said person and Balagangatharan along with the police officials maneuvered to keep Ex.P6 Registration certificate in her rack.
6. As far as the demand and acceptance of money by the accused as projected by the prosecution is concerned, the evidence of independent witness is available. P.W.3 is a Train Ticket Examiner in Virudhunagar Railway station. P.W.4 the investigation officer, who graphically narrated the events from the inception. As far as this case is concerned, it is to be seen whether the oral evidence of P.W.2 complainant has been corroborated by other materials. It is profitable to discuss about the oral account adduced by P.W.3 which is in line with that of P.W.2.
7. P.W.3 is an uninterested witness against whom no motive was attributed on behalf of the accused. His services were availed by the police after getting permission from his superiors. As far as the earlier discussion preceding the trap held in the retiring room No.5 in Virudhunagar railway station is concerned, the oral evidence is clear. P.Ws.2, to 4 have spoken about it. It is in the evidence that P.W.2 and witnesses were required to come to the retiring room, that they met the other witnesses and women police personnel and the significance of phenolphthalein test was explained to them. Thereafter, they proceeded to Sivakasi in a Tata Sumo Car and P.Ws.2 and 3 alone entered into her office.
8. P.W.3 deposes that both of them met the accused who asked them to be seated, she asked P.W.2 who P.W.3 was and P.W.2 responded that he was his brother, that she asked P.W.2 whether he had brought as she required and P.W.2 gave positive answer, that he handed over Rs.300/- to her, that the accused received it and kept beneath the file on the table and she left stating that she had to contact Sepoy Murugesan and that both P.Ws.2 and 3 came out from various entrances of the office and they gave pre-arranged signal to the police and afterwards, they got entry into the office.
9. It is his further evidence that the CBI officials showed their identity cards to the accused and asked her whether she received Rs.300/- as bribe, that P.W.4 informed her that she was arrested, that in a tumbler, Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and the accused was asked to dip her right fingers into the solution and on doing so, it turned to pink, that again in another tumbler the like solution was prepared and she was required to dip her left fingers and the colour of the solution changed to pink, that both the bottles were seized, necessary mahazars were prepared and attested by the witnesses and that P.W.6 Sepoy Murugesan came, traced the file pertaining to Parani Match works from the tray on the backside of the accused and handed over it to P.W.4.
10. The above said events as to the organisation and execution of trap upon the accused has been candidly depicted by P.W.3. In his cross-examination, his evidence adduced in the chief examination could not be shattered. Some discrepancies among his oral evidence and his statement in 161(3) Cr.P.C. were elicited to him which are not material nor significant to discard his clinching evidence available in his deposition. He has stated in the cross-examination that it is incorrect to suggest that in the police investigation he has stated that both himself and P.W.2 came out to give pre-arranged signal. But, both of them were sitting inside the office while police entered into the office. P.W.4 has stated that in the retiring room of the railway station, he got currency notes from P.W.3 and put it inside the shirt pocket of P.W.2. But, P.W.3 has stated in his cross-examination that he put the currency notes in the shirt pocket of P.W.2. It is stated by the prosecution that the accused gave instruction to P.W.6 Sepoy Murugesan that without her instruction he should not issue certificate Ex.P5 to anybody else. But, P.W.6 in his chief examination has denied such instruction from the accused.
11. P.W.2, in his cross-examination, would state that it is not correct to suggest that when both of them met the accused, she asked him who P.W.3 was and he replied that he was his brother and that he does not know whether he has stated before police and that he was sitting inside the office and P.W.3 only came out and gave pre-arranged signal. He denies the suggestion that he did not state during the police investigation that he wiped his face thrice and gave pre-arranged signal. The above said discrepancies are available in the oral evidence. But, in the considered view of this Court that they do not have the gravity to make the Court to disbelieve the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses.
12. It is the defence as available from the cross-examination of P.W.2 that he planted the money under the file on the table of the accused and afterwards P.W.3 went out and gave pre-arranged signal, that the police officials threatened the accused by saying that she was arrested and asked her to take M.O.1 series and count them, that afraid of them, she took the money and counted it and that she represented before the police that she did not receive the money and she left the seat to speak to Balagangatharan and taking advantage of her absence, P.W.2 placed the money under the file.
13. While the above said circumstances are scrutinized by this Court in a careful manner, it comes to light that the accused received bribe money from P.W.2 and kept under the file and it was recovered by the police officials as described by P.W.2 to P.W.4. The following events also would fortify the said conclusion of this Court.
14. In the application form to be given by the registrants to the Central Excise office for getting the ten digit registration certificate, there is a sentence reading as "your registration certificate will be provided within 7 working days from today". P.W.7 the Superintendent in the accused office says that application for conversion of registration certificate Ex.P5 was received from Parani Match Works on 28.03.2002 and he put his initial on it on the same date, that after assigning the PAN number and after issuing the required certificate of registration, he would forward the same to the concerned Inspector through their Sepoy for being handed over to the party and that Tmt. Pounammal was the inspector concerned for handing over the certificate in Ex.P5 to the concerned registrant. She was on leave from 16.03.2002 till 07.04.2002. Hence, after issuing Ex.P5 the Sepoy should have handed over to Mr.Muniappan, inspector of other Sector who was holding additional charge of accused sector also and Ex.P6 Register will not indicate whether the concerned registrant had received the certificate etc.
15. His further oral testimony is that if any certificate of registration is to be handed over to the party in person, the acknowledgement of party should be obtained in the office copy of the certificate. But it was not available in Ex.P5. Hence, it is seen that P.W.7 signed the certificate immediately, which was handed over to Mr.Muniappan who was in charge for the Sector of the accused, since she was on leave for the dates stated above and afterwards, it came to her custody as evident from the oral accounts of P.W.6 and P.W.7 and that the file was taken from the rack behind the seat of the accused. She joined duty after leave on 07.04.2002, but till 23.09.2002, it was kept with her without being issued.
16. It is the categorical admission of P.W.7 also, who says that the certificate was signed by him on 28.03.2002 itself and the same was not handed over to the party till 23.09.2002. The retention of certificate by the accused would lend support to the view that she had been demanding money from P.W.2. In the cross-examination of P.W.7, he has also stated that as per the circular of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated 19.10.2001, the Registration Certificate should be handed over to the registrant either by post or personally as desired by the registrant within 7 working days of the receipt of application. But, the accused had not despatched it either by post or handed over personally to the party. There is no explanation for the lapse in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.
17. In view of the above said discussion, this Court reaches a conclusion that the prosecution case is true. There is no room to brush aside the evidence of P.W.3 who is a responsible officer, whose evidence is not motivated but it is natural and convincing. The other circumstances as adverted to above would also corroborate his version.
18. Mr.B.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant placed much reliance upon a Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 878 (Meena v. State of Maharashtra), wherein Their Lordships were pleased to hold that when the material witness had spoken something in departmental proceedings and otherwise in the police case, the witness could not be believed and that mere recovery of the currency note and positive result of the phenolphthalein test are not enough in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Relevant portions in the judgment are thus:
"The lady constable was said to have arrived first immediately and held both the hands of the accused who by then seems to have thrown the currency note from her hands on the table.
Reading the evidence of P.W.1, it was endeavoured to show that he had spoken altogether a different version in the departmental proceedings against the appellant where he deposed in respect of the very incident earlier on 30.09.1987 rendering him totally an unreliable witness and his evidence uncreditworthy. The controversy in respect of the manner of handing over the currency and its receipt was said to have been belittled and ignored when, according to the learned counsel, it cuts at the very root of the vital ingredient of acceptance of the money itself and on the other hand sufficiently proved the claim that P.W.1 only attempted to thrust the currency note into the hands of the appellant and when the appellant refused the same by pushing with her hand, not only did the currency note come into contact with her hand but in the process fell on the pad on the table from where only it was taken and seized.
The lady constable, Victoria, another shadow witness, who first arrived on the spot after the signal was given by P.W.1, was not examined at the trial. Law has always favoured the presence and importance of a shadow witness in the trap party, not only to facilitate such witness to see but also overhear what happens and how it happens also. In this case, the role of Victoria was to enter first and hold the hands of the accused immediately after the acceptance of the bribe amount and she was stated to have done that, as planned. For reasons best known, such a vital and important witness has been withheld by the prosecution, from being examined.
Even the other panch witness, P.W.5 categorically admitted that even as the Inspector of Police, P.W.6 arrived, the appellant gave the same version that P.W.1 tried to force into her hands the currency note which she turned down by pushing it away, and his evidence also does not lend credibility to the case of the prosecution. The contradictory version of P.W.1 of the very incident when earlier examined in departmental proceedings renders his testimony in this case untrustworthy. P.W.3, the Head Copyist, seems to be the brain behind all this and that P.W.1 as well as Jagdish Bokade appear to be working as a group in this affair and despite the blunt denial by P.W.3, his closeness to P.W.1 and Jagdhish Bokade stands well substantiated. All these relevant aspects of the case seem to have been completely overlooked by the courts below.
11. The learned Judge in the High Court seems to have mechanically affixed his approval to the findings recorded by the trial Judge by profusely extracting such findings. Mere recovery of the currency note of Rs.20 denomination, and that too lying on the pad on the table, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the acceptance of the bribe, in the peculiar circumstances of this case which lend also credence to the case of the appellant that it fell on the table in the process of the appellant pushing it away with her hands when attempted to be thrust into her hands by P.W.1. The results of phenolphthalein test, viewed in the context that the appellant could have also come into contact with the currency note when she pushed it away with her hands cannot by itself be considered to be of any relevance to prove that the appellant really accepted the bribe amount. With such perfunctory nature of materials and the prevaricating type of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, who seem to have a strong prejudice against the appellant, it would be not only unsafe but dangerous to rest conviction upon their testimony."
19. In the above said case, P.W.1, in the departmental proceedings had given a contradictory version and in the police case he came out with different statement. The lady constable Victoria who held the hands of accused immediately after accepting the bribe amount was not examined and the Supreme Court learnt that money was thrusted into the hands of the accused by P.W.1 and hence, the currency notes came into contact with her hand. Prevailing of the above said circumstances led the Court to smell a rat upon the prosecution theory in the above said case. But, in the case on hand, the facts are entirely distinguishable as narrated earlier. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 are cogent, which portrayed the events. There was no circumstances under which lapse of the prosecution could be inferred. Hence, the accused cannot take recourse to the principles laid down in the above said decision.
20. On behalf of the appellant, another decision reported in 2007 Crl.L.J. 4689 (Ganapathi Sanya Naik v. State of Karnataka), was cited, in which it was pleaded that serious animosity towards accused and that currency notes had been put surreptitiously on his table and the defence is plausible. The following is the operative portion of the judgment:
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the view taken by the trial court was clearly possible on the evidence in the case. The Court had observed that the plea of the defence at the very initial stage was that P.W.6 had serious animosity towards the appellant and that the currency notes had been put on the table by the former was a plausible explanation. It is in the evidence that the currency notes had not been touched by the appellant or recovered from his person. It is also the prosecution case that the relevant documents had been handed over to Nagaraja immediately after the money had been put on the table. The argument therefore that there was no occasion to make a demand for any bribe is also plausible."
21. As far as the present case is concerned, even though a defence has been raised by the accused that due to grudge nurtured by Balagangatharan, the case has been falsely foisted. But, it has been established that the accused received the money from P.W.2 and kept underneath the file. Her touching the notes has been proved by Phenolphthalein test. The version that she was threatened and asked to take the notes cannot be believed in view of the oral evidence adduced by P.W.3.
22. In a decision of this Court reported in (2007) 2 MLJ (Cri) 931 (Chidambaram v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation), it is stated that there is no explanation from the prosecution for inordinate delay in sending material objects for chemical examination and though there was a trap and seizure, prosecution has not satisfactorily explained that only after registration of complaint under First Information Report, the investigation commenced. But, those circumstances have not occurred in this case.
23. Mr.Rozario Sundar Raj, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, would cite a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1242 (T.Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Praesh), in which an earlier decision in The State of UP v. Dr.G.K.Gosh (AIR 1984 SC 1453) has been referred, wherein it is observed thus:
"In case of an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court may feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction."
24. He also garnered support from another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) Cr.R. 569 (SC) (State of A.P. v. M.Radha Krishna Murthy), in which it is held as follows:
"5. On a bare reading of the judgment in Hari Dev Sharma v. State (Delhi Admn.,) (1977) 3 SCC 352, case (supra), it is clear that no rule of universal application was laid down that whenever a part of the case relating to demand and acceptance is not acceptable, the whole case would fail even if the case relating to trap, recovery of money and chemical test by the prosecution is established. When part of the prosecution version relating to demand and acceptance of bribe stands by itself, the ratio of the decision does not apply. Unfortunately, in the instant case the High Court has lost sight of the aforesaid aspects and by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision has directed acquittal.
25. As per the above said views, when demand and acceptance on the part of the accused come to light, there is no legal embargo for the Court to convict him. In the present case, abundant materials are available to show that there was demand and acceptance of bribe money of Rs.300/- by the accused from P.W.2 and the circumstances as projected by the prosecution have been proved to be true. The conduct of the accused in retaining the registration certificate without issuance promptly as per the circular of the department also constitutes a valid ground to support the version of prosecution. There is no explanation on her part for such retention for a long period.
26. An indepth study of the materials in this case would pave way to conclude that the accused is guilty of charges framed by the trial Court and the conclusion reached by it is also proper. This Court does not find the sentence harsh nor on the higher side. I answer the point accordingly. The charges framed against the accused have been established beyond all reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded by the trial Court and sentence handed down by it deserve to be confirmed and they are accordingly confirmed. The appeal fails.
27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. The period of incarceration already undergone by the accused shall be set off. The Trial Court is directed to issue warrant to commit the accused to prison to suffer the remaining portion of sentence.
srm To The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai.