Back
1992 Supreme(Mad) 459
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SWAMIDURAI
Balakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
The State By Special Police Establishment Madras Branch - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 1988
Decided On : 14 September 1992
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CORRUPTION - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 5(1)(D) - CHARGE OF ACCEPTING BRIBE - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - ABUSE OF POSITION AS PUBLIC SERVANT - BURDEN OF PROOF - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 4(1) - REBUTTAL BY ACCUSED - DEGREE AND CHARACTER OF PROOF - EVIDENCE OF HOSTILE WITNESS - RELIABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Chief Catering Inspector, was convicted under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from a plantain leaf supplier to renew the supply contract. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the supplier (PW 2), who turned hostile, and two C.B.I. officials (PW 3 and PW 4) who witnessed the alleged bribe payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the evidence of PW 2 was unreliable as he had denied giving the report alleging the bribe demand and had stated that the report contained some other materials inserted by PW 10 of his own accord. The court also found that the evidence of PW 3 regarding the accused asking PW 2 whether he had brought the bribe amount was unnatural and improbable. The court further held that the accused had given a satisfactory explanation for receiving the money, stating that it was a repayment of a loan he had given to PW 2.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved that the accused had accepted a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from PW 2 to renew the supply contract? 2. Whether the accused had abused his position as a public servant by accepting the bribe? 3. Whether the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was attracted in this case? 4. Whether the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had accepted a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from PW 2 to renew the supply contract. The court relied on the unreliable evidence of PW 2 and the unnatural and improbable evidence of PW 3 regarding the accused asking PW 2 whether he had brought the bribe amount. 2. The court held that the accused had not abused his position as a public servant by accepting the bribe. The court noted that the accused had no authority to renew the supply contract and that he had given a satisfactory explanation for receiving the money, stating that it was a repayment of a loan he had given to PW 2. 3. The court held that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not attracted in this case as the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had accepted a bribe. 4. The court held that the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by giving a satisfactory explanation for receiving the money, stating that it was a repayment of a loan he had given to PW 2.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence against the accused, and directed that the fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the accused.
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 IPC 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 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under section 5(1)(d) read with S. 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. Nair is 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 though 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 supplying 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 seem to have replied that he could not renew the supply 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 the 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 he would return the s
