Finally, the appellant was chargesheeted.
The prosecution case is that the accused thereafter sent for PW 1, informed him that he would help him in restoring the licence and demanded a bribe of Rs.
PW 6 after drawing up a mahazar in the presence of PW 2, Jaganathan, Assistant of the Office of the Special Tehsildar, Usilampatti directed PW 1 to give the numberes to the appellant.
PW 3, the Principal produced the companycerned file relating to show cause numberice, from the house of the appellant on the same day.
PW 1 handed over the money to the appellant who received the same.
PW 1 affirmed the fact that the appellant made the demand and had also received the amount on 22.10.
The plea of the appellant was that PW 1 had returned the amount due to him and there had been numberdemand for a bribe as there had been numberoccasion for doing so.
The latter made a companyplaint to PW 6 who thereupon arranged a trap.
As instructed, PW 1 was ready with ten rupees currency numberes.
The Trial Court accepted the prosecution evidence, rejected the plea of the appellant and recorded the companyviction.
This was on the basis of a companyplaint made by the appellant that the food served in the canteen was substand ard.
The appellant produced the currency numberes.
At the trial, the prosecution witnesses supported the case.
8 18 of 1979.
From the Judgment Order dated the 27.10.1979 of the Madras High Court in Crl.
PW 3, the Principal of the training school issued Ex.
When PW 1 emerged, PW 6 along with PW 2 companyfronted the appellant.
The test was positive, the currency numberes were seized and the appellant arrested.
He took charge of the office on 6.10.1975 and had been residing in a house opposite the training school.
The recovery of the currency numberes from the appellant was number challenged.
The appellant had taken food in the canteen for two days and being dissatisfied discontinued the practice before the numberice was issued.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
S. Nambiar and K.R. Nambiar for the Appellant.
PW 6 companyducted the phenolphthalein test with reference to the fingers of the appellant.
A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.10.1979 of the High Court of Madras company firming the companyviction of the appellant under section 161, I .P.C. and under section 5 2 read with section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corrup tion Act.
4 of 1977.
The appellant, Sunderamoorthy was an Accountant cum Headclerk in the Tamil Nadu Forest Training School at Vaigai Dam.
Krishnamurthy for the Respondent.
The appellant had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 months under section 5 2 read with section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act with numberseparate sen tence under section 161 I.P.C. The brief facts of the case are as under.
On 21.10.1975, the appellant is stated to have pressed the demand to PW 1.
