Back
2009(6) Supreme 166
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
V. Kannan — Appellant
versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1590 of 2009.
Decided on : 24-08-2009
Facts of the Case :
Present appeal has been filed against conviction of appellant for demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.5000/ From complainant for clearing his final bill.
Findings of the Court :
Evidence on record showed that appellant had clearly demanded the amount from PW1.As per Deposition of PW2, money was handed over to the appellant in his presence. Immediately after bribe amount was handed over to appellant, he started counting the currency notes.At that time PW2 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. Soon thereafter Inspector and the trap team entered into the above room and the appellant was arrested. The Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and Phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the hands of the appellant separately. There was colour change in the solution and they were preserved in separate bottles.PW2 was an independent witness and he had corroborated the evidence of the complainant PW1. Hence in the facts and circumstances of this case, held difficult to accept the submission of the appellant that there was no demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. Both the Trial Court and the High Court had rejected the defence version of appellant- View taken by courts below held to be correct view. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference was called for. Appeal being devoid of any merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. 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.
3. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under.
4. The complainant, A. Alexander, PW1 was the proprietor of M/s. OLOHV Engineering Services and the company was doing contract work for the Railways. The company had completed the contract work for Rs.1 crore from 1993 to 1997. According to the prevalent rules, the bills could be cleared only after the signature of the ‘Site Engineer’ in the measurement book. The contract work was completed in the year 1997 and there was a balance of Rs.9 lacs due to the complainant PW1.
5. 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 informed that the complainant PW1 had to return the unused materials to the Railway department. The appellant demanded a bribe amount of Rs.5000/- from the complainant PW1 at 9.30 am on 1.4.1998 to clear the final bill. The appellant also informed that the bribe amount be paid during the lunch hour on that date. The complainant PW1 was not willing to give the bribe amount and consequently at about 10.30 a.m. on 1.4.1998 he filed a report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai. 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. The complainant PW1 handed over the currency notes of Rs.5000/- to the Inspector and the Inspector demonstrated the Phenolphthalein test in the presence of the independent witnesses. Subsequently, the Inspector prepared the entrustment mahazar and the tainted currency notes were placed in the shirt pocket of the complainant PW1 and the Inspector informed that the above amount should be given to the appellant on demand. The complainant PW1 was told that after giving the bribe amount on demand he should give a signal by wiping his face with handkerchief.
6. The above witnesses and the trap team were sent to the office of the appellant at about 1.00 pm. The complainant 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 appellant demanded the bribe amount and the complainant handed over the bribe amount to the appellant. The appellant started counting the currency notes and Balachander PW2 went out and gave the pre- arranged signal to the trap team. Immediately thereafter, the Inspector entered into the room and introduced himself.
7. The Sodium Carbonate test was conducted on both the hands of the appellant and there was a colour change in the solution. The above solutions were preserved in separate bottles and sealed. The appellant handed over the bribe amount to the complainant PW1 and the serial numbers were verified with the entrustment mahazar and they tallied.
8. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Balachander PW2 is an independent witness and his testimony is fully corroborated by the evidence of the complainant PW1. Prem Anand, Inspector, CBI, PW3 arranged the trap against the appellant in presence of the independent witnesses. Smt. Kasturi Bai PW6 was working as a Scientific Assistant Grade-I at the Forensic Science Department, Chennai. She stated in her report that she had received two solution bottles. On examination, the liquid contained Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate.
9. The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Cr.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 contract works are being car
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
