810 of 1990 whereby the High Court reversed the judgment and companyviction dated 27th November, 1990 made by the VI additional special judge, Madras in calender case No.
21 of 1989 who found the respondent guilty of offences punishable under Section 13 2 read with 13 1 d ii of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year with a fine of Rs.
At that time, by a pre arranged signal, PW17 and others came to the scene and companyducted the phenolphthalein test in the presence of PWs 1 2 which was found to be positive and recovered the money from the respondent, and after further investigation, chargesheeted the respondent, as stated above.
It is stated after explaining the procedure adopted in the phenolphthalein test, PW17 asked PW1 to approach the respondent and make the payment to him and on 19th of September.
The learned sessions judge based on the evidence of the prosecution held the respondent guilty and sentenced him, as stated above.
The defence of the respondent was that he did receive the money as stated by the prosecution but the same was number as a bribe but as a donation for teachers day.
PW1 was number inclined to pay the said sum and having companysidered this demand as abhorrent, he and PW2 approached the vigilance and the anti corruption office on 19th September, 1988.
It is stated that PW1 and PW2 approached the respondent for changing the patta of Chintadripet property purchased by PW1 for which purpose the respondent demanded a sum of Rs.
Based on this companyplaint PW17, the investigating officer laid a trap to which PWs 1, 2, and 3 are witnesses.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the respondent was employed as a special temporary assistant in Mylapore Triplicane taluk office, Madras during the month of September, 1988.
The State of Tamil Nadu is in appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Madras made in criminal appeal No.
300/ which the accused received and put in his pocket.
300/ from PW1, the same was number towards bribe, as stated by PW1, hence, the offence alleged against him was number established.
1988 at about 3.15 p.m., PW1 and PW2 approached the respondent and made the payment of Rs.
500/ in default to suffer RI for a further period of two months.
The demand by respondent in the ordinary companyrse would number have provoked PW1 to treat his demand as abhorrent.
300/ as bribe.
