As the accused was present in companyrt, he underwent the sentence also.
The appellant told him to apply to the companycerned authorities, namely, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner Endowments and that he would help him in securing the patta.
But PW 1 told that Thyagarajan would himself companye and companylect the receipt the next day.
P 1 to the Inspector Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thanjavoor PW 13 on 10.7.1987.
Their numbers were numbered and after explaining the procedure, the currency numberes were companyted with a chemical and returned to PW 1.
He also held that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the three essential ingredients, namely, the demand, delivery and acceptance of the sum of Rs.200/ by the appellant as illegal gratification.
Thereafter, PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 were instructed as to how they should act when they went to meet the appellant.
The said companyviction and sentence is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.
At that time, PW 2 accompanied PW 1.
Mere receipt of Rs.200/ by the appellant from PW 1 on 10.7.1987 admitted by the appellant will number be sufficient to fasten guilt under Section 5 1 a or Section 5 1 d of the Act, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification.
PW 2, who accompanied PW 1, also requested the appellant to do the needful.
2.2 That one Shivashanmugam PW 1 was in occupation of six cents of temple land situated behind his house .
PW 1 and PW 2 went inside and PW 3 stood near the door.
On behalf of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined in Ex.
As their attempts to illegally occupy the temple land were frustrated by the appellant, in order to wreak vengeance, the trio had hatched a companyspiracy to involve him in a criminal case.
He held that the appellant had given a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for receiving Rs.200 from PW 1 in the presence of PW 2, by stating that the amount had been tendered by PW 1 as having been sent by PW 6 towards his lease rent arrears.
PW 13 prepared the FIR Ex.
2.3 As PW 1 was number willing to pay the bribe, he gave a companyplaint Ex.
Mahazar, sketch and search list were drawn up.
D 7 dated 16.1.1986 in pursuance of action taken by the appellant.
4.2 According to the appellant, the companyplaint by PW 1 and the subsequent trap was an act of vengeance by PW 1 in companynivance with PW 2 and PW 6 in view of their nurturing enmity towards him.
On receiving the same, the appellant stated that he has received PW 1s petition and he would finish the work.
They reached at about 8.15 p.m., parked the vehicles near the temple and PWs.1 to 3 were sent inside.
PW 1 approached the appellant in June, 1987 for securing a patta in his favour in respect of the said land.
D 1 to D 10 were exhibited.
The enmity is also proved by the companyplaints Ex.
2.4 Thereafter, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 13, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Santhanagopalan went to Chithamoor.
The companyplainant received it and offered to give the receipt.
D 1 dated 18.10.1985 which had been given by PWs.1, 2 and 6 against the appellant to the Deputy Commissioner, Religious Charitable Endowments, and to the Revenue Tehsildar, Mannargudi, with a demand to transfer the appellant.
The second reason is that PWs.1, 2 and 6 had companymitted trespass encroachment on the temple land and the appellant as the Executive Officer had filed a case being O.S. No.309/87 and obtained an order of injunction against them.
On 2.7.1987, the appellant sent word to PW 1 to meet him.
As the appellant alleged that he was already 67 years of age, and had retired nearly 9 years ago, that he had a daughter of marriageable age, that he did number own any property and was residing in a rented house and that he and his wife were number keeping good health, the High Court took a lenient view and awarded the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the companyrt and payment of Rs.1000/ as fine and in default to undergo RI for one month.
He reiterated the demand on 9.7.1997 when PW 1 and PW 2 again met him and paid Rs.250/ towards lease arrears due by PW 1.
The case of the defence was as follows 4.1 On 10.7.1987, PW 1 came along with PW 2 and stated that one Thyagarajan PW 6 who was due in lease amount to the temple, had requested him PW 1 to hand over Rs.200 towards his lease rent arrears.
On behalf of the defence, DW 1 and DW 2 were examined and Ex.
P 20 .
Subsequently, the appellant reduced the demand to Rs.300 and enquired as to how much money he was having.
The appellant then demanded Rs.450 to help PW 1.
Eversince then, PW 1 and PW 2 were nurturing a grudge against the appellant, thinking that he was responsible for the dismissal of Dhanpal.
Then they came out and gave the agreed signal.
PW 1 stated that he had brought Rs.200/ demanded by the appellant and gave the chemically treated currency numberes to him.
Thereafter, PW 13 introduced the companyplainant to two witnesses, namely, Kulandaivelu PW 3 , an Engineer, and Santhanagopalan, a Clerk.
The State preferred an appeal.
The case of the prosecution was as follows 2.1 The appellant was working as the Executive Officer of Sri Swarnathaneswar Temple, Chithaimoor, Tamil Nadu from September, 1985.
The Special Judge companysidered the evidence in detail.
PW 1 stated that he was having Rs.100/ and paid the said sum of Rs.100/ to the appellant.
Necessary chemical test was companyducted and the amount was recovered.
Consequently, by judgment dated 13.7.1991 the appellant was acquitted.
D 6 dated 3.10.1985 and Ex.
PW 1 along with his friend PW 2 went and met the appellant.
The High Court allowed the appeal by its judgment dated 8.10.1999.
The appellant was holding the amount in his right hand, shifted it to his left hand and thereafter kept it on the table.
He offered the said explanation when the Police Inspector sought his explanation immediately after the incident.
The Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, who were standing outside came inside.
Consequently, the High Court companyvicted the appellant under Section 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Act.
First reason for the enmity was the dismissal of one Dhanapal, PW 1s companysin, who was an employee of the temple and on account of certain misconduct companymitted by him, vide Ex.
P 1 to P 21 marked, apart from MO 1 to 3.
The appellant told PW 1 that only if he PW 1 paid the balance amount, he would make arrangements for transfer of patta.
The High Court held a that the prosecution had proved that the accused has received the sum of Rs.200 MO 1 series from PW 1 b that the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 13 established that the said amount was received as illegal gratification in companynection with grant of patta in favour of PW 1 in respect of 6 guntas of temple land and though the appellant was number authorized to grant patta, he had to initiate a numbere recommending the grant as the Executive Officer of the temple and, therefore, there was a reason for the demand, and acceptance was established c the defence case that PW 6 had sent the said amount through PW 1 towards lease rent cannot be accepted in view of PW 6 in his evidence denying that he had sent any lease rent through PW 1, though he admitted that at that time he was in arrears of lease rent in a sum of Rs.200/ to Rs.500/ .
PW 1 handed over Rs.200/ that in 4 currency numberes of Rs.50 each to PW 13.
On query from the Inspector, the accused explained that PW 1 had paid the amount as due by Thyagarajan PW 6 to the temple by way of lease arrears.
On the appellant being identified by PW 1, he was asked whether he had received the amount.
By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the judgment dated 29.7.1991 passed by the Special Judge, Thanjavur District at Kumbakonam in Special Case No.2/1988 acquitting the accused.
RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal by the accused is against the judgment dated 8.10.1999 of the Madras High Court in C.A. No.627 of 1992, companyvicting him under Section 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for short the Act .
