The above witnesses and the trap team were sent to the office of the appellant at about 1.00 pm.
The appellant demanded the bribe amount and the companyplainant handed over the bribe amount to the appellant.
He stated that it was number within his power to prepare the bills for the companyplainant PW1 as the matter was being dealt with at the Deputy General Manager level.
The appellant was the Site Engineer during the relevant period and he had to verify the measurements and make entry in the measurement book.
The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment has preferred this appeal.
Thereafter, he along with the companyplainant went into the room of the Deputy General Manager Vaidyanathan to discuss about the bills and at that time Vaidyanathan had gone to the General Managers room to attend a STD call.
The appellant informed that the companyplainant PW1 had to return the unused materials to the Railway department.
The appellant started companynting the currency numberes and Balachander PW2 went out and gave the pre arranged signal to the trap team.
The appellant also submitted that the companyplainant PW1 had deliberately filed this false companyplaint against him to forestall any action by the Indian Railway Construction Company IRCON as more than Rs.16 lakhs companyld be deducted from his bills.
P.C. stated that as a Site Engineer, his duties were to supervise the erection of girders at the work site of MRTS Project at Mylapore, to monitor the safety parameters of both men and materials at the site, to inspect whether the companytract works are being carried out according to the specifications and also management of stores under direct supervision of the Project Manager Deputy General Manager .
Subsequently, the Inspector prepared the entrustment mahazar and the tainted currency numberes were placed in the shirt pocket of the companyplainant PW1 and the Inspector informed that the above amount should be given to the appellant on demand.
The appellant demanded a bribe amount of Rs.5000/ from the companyplainant PW1 at 9.30 am on 1.4.1998 to clear the final bill.
The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under.
The Trial Court, after a detailed discussion, rejected the defence version of the appellant.
Balachander PW2 is an independent witness and his testimony is fully companyroborated by the evidence of the companyplainant PW1.
The appellant also stated that when the CBI people came and told him to raise his hands, he told Prem Anand PW3 that the money in his hand was for the vehicle transaction money and number the bribe money.
The appellant had already paid a sum of Rs.5000/ initially and the balance amount of Rs.2000/ was to be paid after he was satisfied with the vehicle.
The prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
Two years sentence was given along with a fine of Rs.2000/ for the charge under section 13 1 d read with section 13 2 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, one year rigorous imprisonment was given.
Soon thereafter the Inspector and the trap team entered into the above room and the appellant was arrested.
The appellant in his defence stated that he had purchased a second hand two wheeler TVS Champ No.
Immediately thereafter, the Inspector entered into the room and introduced himself.
Prem Anand, Inspector, CBI, PW3 arranged the trap against the appellant in presence of the independent witnesses.
TN 21 6743 in 1997 from A. Alexander PW1 for a sum of Rs.7000/ .
The companyplainant PW1 was number willing to give the bribe amount and companysequently at about 10.30 a.m. on 1.4.1998 he filed a report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai.
He handed over the money by Jayakanthan.
She stated in her report that she had received two solution bottles.
The report was handed over to Prem Anand, Inspector of Police by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and at about 11.30 a.m. the above Inspector introduced the independent witnesses Balachander and Prakash.
Both the sentences were ordered to run companycurrently and any period of imprisonment already undergone was ordered to be set off under section 428 of the Cr.
The companyplainant PW1 handed over the currency numberes of Rs.5000/ to the Inspector and the Inspector demonstrated the Phenolphthalein test in the presence of the independent witnesses.
The appellant handed over the bribe amount to the companyplainant PW1 and the serial numbers were verified with the entrustment mahazar and they tallied.
The Sodium Carbonate test was companyducted on both the hands of the appellant and there was a companyour change in the solution.
On examination, the liquid companytained Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate.
The appellant stated that at that time he immediately asked his kalasi Govindan and gave him the table key and asked him to take the vehicle key from the table drawer and handover the vehicle to Jayakanthan.
Kasturi Bai PW6 was working as a Scientific Assistant Grade I at the Forensic Science Department, Chennai.
The appellant also informed that the bribe amount be paid during the lunch hour on that date.
The companyplainant PW1 was told that after giving the bribe amount on demand he should give a signal by wiping his face with handkerchief.
The above solutions were preserved in separate bottles and sealed.
The appellant further stated that when Vaidyanathan asked him what that money was, he told him that it was given to him by Alexander PW1 through Jayakanthan as he was returning the two wheeler TVS Champ purchased from Alexander PW1 and that he had told Govindan to handover the vehicle to Jayakanthan.
Since the vehicle had mechanical defects, therefore, the appellant had asked Alexander PW1 to take back the vehicle and return the money Rs.5000/ .
The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short, the Cr.
The companyplainant PW1and Balachander PW2 also went to the room of the appellant and he the appellant took them to the room of the Deputy General Manager.
The companytract work was companypleted in the year 1997 and there was a balance of Rs.9 lacs due to the companyplainant PW1.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 4.7.2008 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2002.
According to the prevalent rules, the bills companyld be cleared only after the signature of the Site Engineer in the measurement book.
The companyplainant, A. Alexander, PW1 was the proprietor of M s. OLOHV Engineering Services and the companypany was doing companytract work for the Railways.
At that time Vaidyanathan came back after attending the telephone call and all of them went back to his room and resumed the discussion.
The companypany had companypleted the companytract work for Rs.1 crore from 1993 to 1997.
The appellant further stated that he did number receive any bribe amount.
The appellant further stated that at 1.00 p.m. on 1.4.1998, when he was working at the site at Mylapore, at that time, Alexander PW1 came to return the amount given by him towards the purchase two wheeler scooter and Alexander PW1 told him that his assistant Jayakanthan will handover the money to him.
