Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Swamidurai, J.
Balakrishnan - Appellant
versus
State by Special Police Establishment - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 56 of 1988
Decided on 14.9.1992
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. N. Natarajan.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. RajamanickAnr.
IMPORTANT POINT
When the accused himself admits receipt of the amount, presumption u/s. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is attracted and in the absena of any acceptable evidence with regard to payment of bribe satisfactory explanation given by the accused is sufficient is rebut the presumption raised.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 161 Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) - Conviction for the offences under Appeal - Accused admitted receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,000/. from P.W. 2- No evidence of demand of bribe - P.W. 2 himself has admitted that he has borrowed money from the accused and he was making repayment of Rs. 1,000/- Presumption u/s. 4(1) stands rebutted – Finding of conviction not sustainable - Order of acquittal.
Held: P.W. 2 does not support the case of the prosecution and there is no evidence regarding payment of bribe to the accused excepting the unreliable statement of P.W. 3 before P.W. 10 that the accused himself had asked P.W. 2 whether he had brought the bribe amount required by him for renewal of the contract. As already discussed, this part of evidence of P.W. 3 is quite unnatural and improbable and so I am unable to accept his testimony. Therefore, there is no evidence of demand of bribe. In the circumstances, P.W. 2 himself has admitted that he has borrowed money from the accused and that he was making repayment of Rs. 1,000/- and left with a balance of Rs. 500/- to be paid subsequently by doing business. It is sufficient, if the accused gives a satisfactory explanation and in me absence of any acceptable evidence with regard to payment of bribe, it is sufficient if the accused raised preponderance of probability and that it need not be proved to the hilt beyond reasonable doubt. (para 21)
Result: Appeal allowed. Judgment of conviction set aside.
JUDGMENT
Swamidurai, J. - The accused in C.C. No. 11 of 1986 on the file of the learned Special judge (First Additional Sessions Judge), Tiruchirapalli is the appellant. He was charged for offences under Section 161 I.P.C. and under Section 5 (1) (d) punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and he was found guilty, convicted under Section 161 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 5 (1) (d) read with 5. (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three Years and to pay. a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to -undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months: The sentences were however directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses and marked Exs. P.1 to P. 25 and M.Os. 1 to 6. The accused was the Chief Catering Inspector, Southern Railway, Trichy Division at Trichy. The charge against the accused is that on 6.3 .1986 at 9.30 a.m. he had accepted a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - from M. Balraj alias Balu as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for issuing orders for the supply of plantain leaves and thereby committed an offence under Section 161 I.P.C. The second charge is that the accused being a public servant employed as Chief Catering Inspector, Southern Railway, Trichy Division, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as Such public servant obtained for himself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- from the said Balraj and thereby committed an offence under Section 5 (1) (d) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. P.W. 1 B.K. Nairis the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Southern Railway, Madras. He was examined for the purpose of proving the sanction order Ex. P. 1 issued by him for prosecuting the accused. According to him, he is the competent authority to remove the accused from the office. His evidence is that he went through the complaint and other necessary documents, namely, F.I.R. complaint, copies of mahazar, statement of witnesses, search list etc. and he came to the conclusion that there was substantive case made out for prosecuting the accused. It is admitted by him that he was not examined by the investigating officer in the case and that no statement was recorded from him. P.W. 2 Balraj was supplying plantain leaves to the refreshment stalls at Trichy junction. He had employed one Bhaskaran for supp1ying the plantain leaves to the refreshment stalls. He was supplying plantain leaves at the rate of RS. 3.50 per hundred leaves and as the price paid by the railways was very low, he gave an application to the accused for supply of plantain leaves at the rate of Rs. 4/- per hundred leaves and P.W. 2 did not get any reply. Again he gave another requisition on 19.8.1985 through the Store Clerk Suresh. In that letter he has claimed a sum of Rs. 5/- per hundred leaves. That letter is marked as Ex. P. 2. it is the evidence of P.W. 2 that the accused stopped purchasing plantain leaves from P.W. 2 about seven months prior to the occurrence. P.W. 2 again went and represented to the accused to 'renew the supply of plantain leaves from him as before, But the accused seemed to have relied he could renew the apply until he would get consent from the Assistant Commercial Superintendent. P.W. 2 again met the accused and requested him to renew the supply of plantain leaves from him some how or other and at that time, the Catering. Inspector Sattanathan was also present. P.W. 2 met the accused on 5.3.1986 and requested to renew the supply. At that time another Catering Inspector Sunny was also present. At that time, there was some misunderstanding between the accused and P.W. 2, P.W. 2 was then working as a supplier in the Vegetarian stall at Trichy junction. The accused went there and told P.W. 2 that P.W. 2 should pay money and that he should not trouble the accused. P.W. 2 replied to him that
