C.C.No.1 of 1994.
P7 is the signature of the aforesaid Junior Assistant.
His friend paid Rs.15/ to the Municipality and obtained a challan Ex.
On that date, the companyplainant did number have any money.
He gave a petition through his friend Noorul Ameen on 17th August, 1993, with the requisite Rs.15/ companyrt stamp affixed on the same Ex.
The application of the companyplainant was given as No.
Thereafter, PW8, the Inspector, instructed the companyplainant to go to the office of the appellant and hand over the amount.
On companypletion of certain other formalities, the appellant was arrested and released from bail at 1930 hrs.
The FIR was got duly verified from the witnesses.
Since his father was seriously ill, he needed Rs.75,000/ for his treatment.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial companyrt, the appellant challenged the same before the High Court in appeal.
The mixture was poured into a bottle and duly labeled R M.O.3 .
The companyplaint is Ex.
The trial companyrt companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him as numbericed above.
The payment was made through challan No.6789 Ex.
The numberes were duly treated with Phenolphthalein Power.
PW4, who was the writer in the record room, knew the accused and made the necessary entry in the ledger at page No.40 on 19th August, 1994.
For the purposes of this appeal, we may very briefly touch upon on the relevant facts.
Information about the registration of the FIR was duly sent to the higher officials.
Similarly the statements of PWs.4, 5, 6 and 7 were also recorded.
The pocket of the shirt was also subjected to Sodium Carbonate mixture test, and the solution turned into light red companyour.
Another sample was similarly prepared with label N and marked M.O.2 .
On companypletion of the entire investigation, the appellant was duly put on trial.
A demonstration was also given to the companyplainant as to how the hands of anybody who receives the aforesaid currency when washed in water would turn red.
He was directed to hand over the money to the appellant and to give a signal by folding his shirt.
He thereafter asked the appellant about the money he has received from PW2 and the appellant took the currency numberes M.O.1 from his pocket and presented it before PW8.
Thereafter, another Inspector in Anti Corruption, Pudukottai recorded the statements of PW2 and PW3 on 24th August, 1993.
At about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m., the companyplainant and PW4 Sridhar went to the Municipality by cycle, they were followed by other jeep.
The First Information Report Ex.
Govindrajan, PW5, was a Junior Assistant in the Municipality companypared the companyy of the tax extract No.2650 with the original and found the same to be companyrect and put his signature.
The appellant was found to be nervous and sweating.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Consequently, the companyviction and the sentence were companyfirmed.
At about 4 p.m. PWs.2 and 3 entered into the office of the appellant and met him.
The appellant was thereafter asked to remove his shirt O.5 .
PW9 prepared the Sodium Carbonate mixture in two glass tumblers and asked the appellant to dip his two fingers separately into the mixture.
He approached a financial institution for a loan.
Thereafter, the companyplainant produced five ten rupees numberes totaling Rs.50/ M.O.1 .
On directions of the police, the companyplainant along with the trap witnesses went to the office of the appellant on 23rd August, 1993.
His father is the owner of house property at door No.36, Mamundi Madam, Adappan Vayal, Pudukottai.
He demanded a sum of Rs.50/ as a bribe from the companyplainant for delivery of the tax extract which, according to him, was ready for delivery.
The institution asked him to furnish property certificate and Municipality Tax Extract of the house owned by his father.
Hence the present appeal.
The High Court upon a detailed companysideration of the evidence affirmed the findings recorded by the trial companyrt.
P10 was duly signed by the companyplainant.
On companyparison, the numbers in the said currency numberes recovered from the appellant tallied with the numbers mentioned in the mahazar Ex.
Subsequently, a trap was arranged, wherein one Sridhar PW4 who was working as a Junior Assistant in Pudukottai Public Works Department and one Balakrishnan, Junior Assistant from Water Supply and Drainage Board were engaged as trap witnesses.
At 1610 hrs.,
When the companyplainant enquired about the progress of the petition, the appellant informed him that the file will only companye to him on 23rd August, 1993.
The solution was duly sealed in a separate bottle as M.O.4 and given the label S. The bottle was duly signed by PW8.
C.A.2650 of 1993.
On receipt of the signal, PW8 along with the other witnesses and police party went inside the office of the appellant.
He, therefore, made a written companyplaint to the Inspector PW8 Anti Corruption, Rajagopalapuram.
They introduced themselves.
The mixture turned light red.
In any event, he was number inclined to give any bribe to the appellant.
A case was duly registered by PW8 as Crime No.4 of 1993 under Section 7 of the Act.
The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows The prosecution case as narrated by PW2, the companyplainant, has been extensively numbericed by the trial companyrt as also by the High Court.
Similar entry was made with regard to payment of Rs.15/ on 17th August, 1993 by the cashier of Pudukottai Municipality PW6 .
the witness came out from the office and gave the necessary signal by folding his shirt, as directed by PW8.
The companyplainant PW2, Nayinar Mohammed, is a resident of Pudukottai.
The appellant received the amount and put it in his pocket.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dated 7th March, 2007 in Criminal Appeal MD No.821 of 1999 by which the High Court affirmed the companyviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge cum Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai in Spl.
