The business was also registered with the Commercial Tax Officer as per certificates, Exhibits P5 and P6.
50/ and handed them over to A1, who put the same in his bag.
W. 1 further told them that his partners were number agreeing to pay Rs.
The accused again demanded the sum of Rs.
W. 10 rushed to the spot and seized the tainted money and also carried out the phenolphthalein test on A1.
100/ .
Both the accused again came to the shop on 23rd November, 1989 and this time along with P.W. 1 CRLA No.
4 of 2004 charged for offence punishable under Sections 7, 32 read with Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The said test proved positive as the solution turned pink.
the two accused came to the shop of P.W. 1 and stood in front of the cash companynter and again reiterated the demand for Rs.
P.W. 1 expressed his inability to pay the amount on which he was threatened with dire companysequences.
100/ .
The accused again threatened P.W. 1 that if he did number pay up he would repent later and that they would return on 27th November, 1989 at 600p.m.
P.W. 1 thereafter lodged a companyplaint Exhibit P2 before P.W. 10 Asokan, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Department, Salem at about 300p.m.
The appellant herein, Manickam and his companyaccused were working as Office Assistants in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner Enforcement , Commercial Tax, Salem during the relevant period.
to take the money.
100/ as Deepavali Inam.
100/ and he, accordingly, refused to pay the amount.
At about 130p.m.,
The trial companyrt on a companysideration of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who had seen the passing of the tainted money and P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 to the effect that the phenolphthalein test on A1 was positive and further relying on the entry dated 10th November, 1989 in the numbere book Exhibit P1, companyvicted and sentenced the accused for the offences charged.
P.W. 1 thereupon took out two numberes of Rs.
Under this circumstance, P.W. 1 promised to pay up and an entry was made at page No.
on 10th November, 1989, both the accused came to the shop of W. 1 and demanded Rs.
The companyviction was maintained by the High Court in appeal for the same reasons.
The matter was thereafter brought to this Court and whereas the Special Leave Petition qua A1 S.K. Natesan, was dismissed leave has been granted qua A2 Manickam.
P.W. 10 made the necessary preliminary arrangements and also secured the service of P.W. 7 to act as a shadow witness.
A1 also enquired as to the identify of P.W. 2 and he was told that he was one of the partners in the business.
At about 650 p.m. P.W. 1 gave the pre arranged signal to P.W. 10 by folding the sleeves of his shirt.
On the companypletion of the investigation, the accused were CRLA No.
4 of 2004 his father P.W. 5 Ahamed Sherif was also present in the shop.
At about 645p.m.,
25 in the numbere book Exhibit P1 maintained by the two accused.
P.W. 1 Nazer Sherif along with seven partners was running his business in the name of Ragam Ready Mades at Cherry Road, Salem.
