Rajappan A2 , is the friend of Al.
The fact that he went to the field on 7.7,1991 at about 11.00 A.M. and directed P.W. 2 to companye and meet him in the Police Station in the evening itself would show that the parties were made to think that he had number finished the enquiry.
Accordingly, P.W.2 went to the Police Station at 5.00 P.M. At that time, the Police obtained Muchalika from both the sides stating that they would settle the matter by approaching the Civil Court.
Then PW2 informed this to PW21.
The appellant faced trial for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with 12, 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short the Act .
The High Court upheld the acquittal so far as the companyaccused is companycerned, but set aside the judgment of acquittal and directed companyviction for the appellant for charged offences.
Instead of lodging a companyplaint before Erode Vigilance Office which has got jurisdiction over the area, P.W. 2 had chosen to lodge a companyplaint before Coimbatore Vigilance.
P.12 and P13, the Trip Sheets of the Taxi companytained the signature of P. W. 27 Vigilance Inspector and as such they are fabricated documents.
Out of total amount of Rs.500/ , according to the prosecution, Rs.
The accused persons supported the judgment of the trial companyrt.
1991 Since Al was number available, they went to his house which is situated in the police quarters.
At that time, A1 was having M 0.1 series currency numberes in his left hand.
A2 stated that a false case was foisted against both Al and A2 at the instance of one Lawrence under whom PW 2 was working.
Natarajan P.W.22 , son of P. W.21 told that he was having only Rs.100/ .
400/ , he would initiate action against P.W. 21 on the companyplaint given by P.W. 5.
The accused stated that with oblique purpose he was trapped.
The money was kept in the pocket of the accused.
The Constables took the injured and others to the Police Station.
The evidence of P.W. 12, P.W. 13, P.W. 15 and P.W. 16 the Constables attached to Sathiyamangalam Police Station, over the enquiry in regard to the companyplaint by both parties in the Police Station, cannot be believed, since there is numberentry in the General Diary, The evidence of P.W. 14, another Constable also has to be disbelieved, since the Muchalika obtained from both parties was number produced.
Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 2 and Ws.
If really, the occurrence had taken place on 6.7.1991 and 7.7.1991 in which P.W. 2 met Al and A2 on both these occasions, there was numbernecessity for Al to put that question.
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows Subbusingh Al , the appellant was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Sathiyamangalam Police Station.
Nagarajan P.W.5 , relative of P.W.4 came to the Sathiyamangalam Police Station and companyplained to Al Sub Inspector of Police orally against P.W.21.
P.W.22 told A2 that Rs.100/ was required to buy medicine.
When P.Ws.
P.W. 21 alone is the aggrieved person, as the amount was demanded from him only for the purpose of number putting up a case against him.
The trial companyrt after companysidering the evidence on record acquitted both the accused in respect of the above charges.
The further investigation was taken up by, Vivekanandan P.W.27 , another Inspector of Police.
During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.
So, P. W.2 need number have agreed to pay the bribe amount to Al and he need number lodge a companyplaint before the Vigilance without the knowledge of W. 21.
After taking injection from the hospital, PW 21 and others came back to Police Station.
Under these circumstances, there is numberreason to reject the evidence of W.2, P.W.13 to P.W.16 and P.W.21 to P.W.23.
Thereafter, P.W.26 and his men entered into the house.
Though Al was requested by P.W.21 to send him to the Government Hospital, Al did number choose to send him to the Government Hospital on the other hand, he was beaten by Al himself for having requested to send him to the Government Hospital.
The case of prosecution with reference to the enquiry over the incident on 6.7.1991 is clearly spoken to by P.W. 2, P.W. 21, P.W. 22, son of PW 21 and P.W. 23 another relative.
Then, they were allowed to go.
P. W.2 was asked to companye back in the evening.
P.W. 2 must have been instigated by some unknown person.
P1 to P.21 and marked M.Os.
As a matter of fact, Arumugham PW 25 , the Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam under whom A1 Sub Inspector of Police was working specifically stated that the companyplaints of PW 4 and PW 21 were number registered in the Police Station.
Next day morning, the pre trap mahazar was prepared by observing required formalities.
No companyplaint was produced before the trial companyrt to show that W. 4 to P.W.6 on the one side and P.W. 21 and P.W. 23 on the other side lodged companyplaint against each other.
Both Ws.2 and 3 came out and gave a signal.
W.2 was asked to companye to the Vigilance Office next day.
The minimum sentence of six months and fine with default stipulation for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and one years rigorous imprisonment with fine with default stipulation for the offence under Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the Act were awarded.
2 3 alone were asked to go inside.
l to 27, filed Exs.
A2 directed him to bring Rs.100/ and another Rs.400/ being the balance to be paid to Al.
In the meantime, P.W.26 requested the assistance from Manokaran P.W.3 and one Jagadeesan, working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity hoard.
There is numberexplanation for this.
Then, A2 told them that he would give Rs.100/ from his pocket and handed over the same on behalf of P.W.21 at nearby bangle shop where P.W.8 was doing business.
Since the Muchalika was entered both parties in the police Station and the same was signed by them on 6.7.1991, there was numbernecessity for the first accused to ask the bribe amount through the second accused.
In the meantime, Selvan P.W.2 , brother in law of P.W.21 followed them to the Police Station.
Then, he promised that he would take care of the case against P. W.21.
The trial companyrt directed acquittal of both the accused persons.
There was a land dispute between Renga Naicker P. W.4 and Thippa Naicker P.W.21 .
Then all of them went to the Police Station in the early morning of 12.7.
P.W.2 gave the balance amount of Rs.400/ to Al, who in turn received it by his left hand.
P.7 The Credit Account Book, there is numbermention that the second accused had been given the amount of Rs.100/ and that the said amount had been given to the first accused.
Since the injured P.W.21 was number taken to the hospital, P.W.2 requested A1 to send him to hospital.
The reasonings for the acquittal were as follows PWs.
As, permitted by Al, the injured was taken in an Auto to a private hospital run by Dr. Thangavel W. 10 .
5 and 6.
Al told him that already the amount of Rs.100/ was received through shop owner and balance amount of Rs.400/ should be paid, or otherwise he would put up a case against P.W.21 on the companyplaint of PW5 PW 2 told him that he would bring on 12.7.1991.
Since PW2 did number want to give bribe he gave a companyplaint Ex.
On 7.7 1991 Al visited the land and gave the message that both PWs.
In Ex.
Instead of taking action against the persons companycerned, who attacked P.W. 21, Al detained P.W. 21 from the morning till evening.
Only thereafter P.W, 2 undertook to pay that amount on Friday at the police station This is a case where P.W. 21 was attacked by P.Ws.
Al received the money by his left hand.
When P.W. 2 entered into the house of Al, he questioned him, Who are you?
During the questioning under Section 313 Cr.
P.C., Al stated that he was innocent and the currency numberes were planted under his chair without his knowledge.
2 4 should meet him in the evening.
After examining the witnesses and obtaining sanction, he filed a charge sheet against both the accused 1 and 2.
Therefore, the occurrence took place on 6.7.1991 and 7.7.1991 as spoken to by P.W. 2 and P. W. 21 to P. W. 23 cannot be true.
P2 to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance PW26 on 11.7.1991 at about 4.30 PM.
In that companytext, Al demanded money from P.W. 2 and threatened that if he failed to bring the balance amount, namely Rs.
Only on the said direction, P.W. 2 went and met A1 in the Police Station on 7.7.1991 evening.
This shows that Al did number allow P.W. 2 and P.W. 21 to get the medical records regarding the injuries sustained by P. W. 21.
In the appeal before the High Court the stand of the State was that the trial companyrt acquitted the accused overlooking the material evidence without appreciation of evidence on record in the proper perspective and the finding recorded are totally perverse and against the material and evidence.
The phenolphthalein test on both the hands was companyducted which proved positive.
Both of them quarreled with each other on 6.7.1991.
At that time, Al asked him whether he had brought the amount and PW2 told him that the money was number ready.
Moreover, Exs.
PW2 met Al at about 5.00 P.M. in the Police Station.
2 and 3 entered into the house, Al kept the money in his left hand only, but the test companyducted on both the right and left hands proved positive.
7 8 the shop owners had turned hostile.
Accordingly, they went to the scene of occurrence and found that W.21 was lying down with injuries.
Then, PWs.
Appellant faced trial alongwith one Rajappan.
It is to be numbered that the appellant was alone in his room for sometime holding the currency numberes before PW 26 and other officer entered into the house.The test was demonstrated by applying phenolphthalein powder on the currency numberes of Rs.400/ handed over by PW.2.
Within a few minutes, A2 came and informed P.W.2 that Al had asked him to get Rs.500/ from them.
It needs to be pointed out that the recovery was number disputed.
4 and 5, as a result of which P.W. 21 sustained injuries and fell down on the field and became unconscious.
1 to 6.
Al directed the Police companystables P.W.11 and P.W.12 to go the spot to bring W.21.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Erode, Tamil Nadu.
2 and 3.
Though the other party namely Ws.
Then, Al directed W.21 and others to wait outside the Police Station and act as per the instructions of one A2 who is the friend of A 1.
When these acceptable materials are available through these witnesses, their deposition cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the companyplaints given by P. W. 4 and P. W. 21 were number marked and Muchalika obtained from both parties were number produced.
A2 after getting instruction from Al asked them to give Rs.100/ .
After the trap, the signature of the first accused had number been obtained on the bottles M.Os.
There is numberexplanation as to how the test on right hand proved positive.
21 to 23 cannot be believed.
