Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Of the 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW2 is the complainant, PW1 is the C.B.I Inspector, who registered the F.I.R and laid the trap, and PW4 and PW5 are the trap witnesses arranged by the C.B.I. All these witnesses gave clear and consistent evidence proving the trap procedure and also the recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused. PW3 is the Under Secretary to the Government of India, examined to prove Ext.P17 prosecution sanction, PW6 to 10 are the Income Tax Officers and Commissioners, PW11 is the Chartered Accountant who had represented the complainant before the accused, PW12 is the C.B.I. Inspector who conducted investigation, and PW13 is the Inspector who laid charge. DW1 examined on the side of the accused is a former Sweeper in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam. MO1 to MO14 series material objects including the tainted money were identified by the witnesses during trial.

10. PW4 is the trap witness arranged by the detecting officer. He was the Administrative Officer in the regional office of the United India Insurance Company, Ernakulam. He has given consistent evidence corroborating that of PW1, proving all the pre-trap and post-trap procedures, and also recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused. He is definite that the tainted money identified during trial was seized from the table drawer of the accused in the afternoon of 31.7.2002. His evidence is that after demonstrating the required phenolphthalein test, PW1 instructed the complainant to go to the office of the accused, and make payment of the tainted money, on demand. He was also directed to give the pre-arranged signal after acceptance of money by the accused. Accordingly, after a few minutes, the complainant gave the pre-arranged signal, and within no time, the C.B.I team led by PW1 reached at the office of the accused, seized the tainted money, conducted phenolphthalein test which turned positive, and arrested the accused on the spot. He has also attested the Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by PW4. He is well consistent on all material particulars and he fully supports PW1 regarding the process of recovery.

"Denny.P.O. Attends. States that no penalty under Section 271A was initiated."The next posting was on 22.7.2002. The proceeding recorded on the said day is as follows:
"Sri.Johny.K. appears. Written submission filed". Thus, I find that the accused had not recorded anything in the proceedings on 1.7.2002 or on 22.7.2002 regarding the Ext.P20 order passed by him on 1.7.2002. I find that the case of the complainant is well acceptable that he came to know of the said order only after 31.7.2002, and that the accused suppressed the said order till 31.7.2002 with the object of receiving money illegally from the complainant. Acceptance of the amount also stands well proved by the evidence of the complainant, corroborated by the evidence regarding recovery given by PW1 and PW4. All the witnesses are consistent regarding the pre-trap and post- trap procedures and also the recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused. I find nothing to disbelieve the evidence given by the complainant, the trap witness and the detecting officer. The essentials stand well proved by the evidence of the complainant, supported by that of the other witnesses.